The Senate Armed Services Committee gave near-unanimous approval Wednesday to Donald Trump’s choice to head the Pentagon, voting by 26-1 to approve retired Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis as the next secretary of defense. The nomination now goes to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, expected this week, as soon as Trump is inaugurated and submits the nomination officially.

Every Republican followed the lead of committee Chairman John McCain in voting for Trump’s Pentagon nominee. Among the Democrats voting for Mattis were Tim Kaine, the Democratic candidate for vice president in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, touted as a leader of the party’s liberal wing.

Even the lone Democratic dissenter, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, said she viewed Mattis favorably, but voted no because his selection violates a longstanding legislative prohibition on naming a recently retired military officer to the top civilian job at the Pentagon. Earlier this week, Congress approved a one-time waiver of the requirement that seven years must have elapsed between the officer’s retirement and his appointment. Mattis retired in 2013.

Mattis, a career Marine commander, headed the US Central Command and clashed with the Obama White House over its Iran policy. He favored a more confrontational line, particularly in day-to-day military operations in the Persian Gulf. He was effusively praised by Democrats at his confirmation hearing, particularly because he espoused a hard line against Russia in seeming contrast to the conciliatory posture adopted by Trump throughout the election campaign and during the transition period.

At the confirmation hearing, Mattis advocated a role for the US military in virtually every part of the world, declaring, “America has global responsibilities, and it is not to our advantage to leave any of those areas to the world absent from our efforts.” He told the committee that world order was “under the biggest attacks since World War II,” adding that the attacks were coming from “Russia, from terrorist groups, and with what China is doing in the South China Sea.”

Asked to list “threats” to the US, Mattis began with Russia. He continued, “[A]nd then it would certainly include any nations that are looking to intimidate nations around the periphery or nations nearby them whether it is with weapons of mass destruction or—I would call it unusual, unorthodox means of intimidating them.” In other words, any country in the world can become the target of the Pentagon.

At a press briefing Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (Democrat from New York) indicated that Trump’s nominees to the three top national security posts—secretary of defense, secretary of homeland security and CIA director—could be confirmed as early as Friday, the day that Trump takes the oath of office as the 45th US president

Schumer said he was discussing with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican from Kentucky) the logistics of scheduling confirmation votes Friday for Mattis, for retired General John F. Kelly to head the Department of Homeland Security, and for Representative Mike Pompeo to head the CIA. “Those three nominees were not on the list of the nine that we had the most trouble with and wanted the most extensive hearings,” he told reporters.

Trump’s national security nominations were endorsed as well by another prominent Democrat, former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was interviewed in Houston after he addressed an oil industry conference and praised Trump’s selection of Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

“If President Trump is willing to listen to people like Rex Tillerson and to James Mattis, the new secretary of defense, as well as Mike Pompeo and others, I feel much more confident that he will make the right decisions,” Panetta said.

The unanimity of Democratic support for Trump’s national security nominees demonstrates the real nature of the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. Whatever their political differences, the Democrats and Republicans are united in their allegiance to the military-intelligence apparatus of US imperialism.

Schumer made a vigorous display of opposition and outrage at his press briefing, complaining that the Republican majority was seeking to ram through nominees without allowing sufficient time for questioning, and in many cases before the nominees had even completed the necessary paperwork to allow potential conflicts of interest to be vetted.

The Democratic leader declared, “This is a swamp cabinet full of bankers and billionaires,” significantly remaining silent on the other primary component of the Trump cabinet, former military officers, including, in addition to Mattis and Kelly, retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and retired Gen. Keith Kellogg as chief of staff of the National Security Council.

Schumer also suggested that Representative Mick Mulvaney might withdraw as the nominee for budget director because of his failure to pay more than $15,000 in payroll taxes for a nanny. Similar tax delinquencies sank the nomination of former Senator Thomas Daschle to be Obama’s secretary of health and human services, but failed to stop the confirmation of Timothy Geithner as Obama’s first treasury secretary.

Democratic senators made loud noises at several confirmation hearings, particularly those for Representative Tom Price, named to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and Scott Pruitt, nominated as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. But their criticism was perfunctory, however loud, given that a unanimous Republican majority on each committee will move the nominations to the floor of the Senate and the 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate will confirm the nominees.

Even Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Education, billionaire heiress and charter school advocate Betsy DeVos, appears likely to sail through, although her confirmation hearing exposed her complete ignorance on basic education policy issues.

Only Rex Tillerson for secretary of state is in jeopardy, and then only because a single Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Marco Rubio of Florida, has criticized him sharply while claiming to be undecided. Rubio’s opposition, like that of McCain and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is from the right, echoing Democratic Party criticism of Trump’s foreign policy as too soft on Russia.

The main conflict raging behind the scenes, although ventilated in the public charges of “Russian hacking,” is whether the main focus of American military-diplomatic aggression should be directed first against Russia or China. This dispute not only pits the Democrats and a section of congressional Republicans against Trump, but appears to run as a fault line through the Trump cabinet-in-formation as well.

Trump’s nominee for UN ambassador, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, denounced Russia at her confirmation hearing Wednesday, declaring, “I don’t think we should trust them,” and calling for the retention of sanctions imposed after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

The most significant criticism of the incoming Trump administration took the form of press reports of disarray in the process of staffing the lower levels of the national security bureaucracy, particularly in the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council. Foreign Policy magazine flayed the Trump transition team because it “has not yet named senior deputies for the State or Homeland Security Departments.” The magazine continued: “Meanwhile, dozens of important posts at the Defense Department remain vacant” because of a dispute between Mattis and Trump aides over who gets to make the selection.

CNN reported that at least six senior officials in the Pentagon would stay on for the first weeks of the Trump administration, as well as several top aides in the State Department. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has been asked to stay on as well, reportedly because an official at her level is required to approve wiretapping and other surveillance requests that come in daily from the spy agencies.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Senate Panel Rubber Stamps “Mad Dog” Mattis for Pentagon Chief

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Smog Perfume”, How China Resolve’s its Pollution Crisis

Clashes continued in the city of Deir Ezzor where government forces were repelling ISIS attacks on the Deir Ezzor Airport and nearby areas. Cemetry, Al Fourat University, Al-Maqabis Production and Jiraiya were the main areas of the confrontation. ISIS also attempted to capture the al-Assad Hospital but failed to do this.

Pro-ISIS sources report that over 50 government troops were killed and about 10 units of military equipment destroyed on January 16 and January 17. Pro-government outlets claim that about 70 ISIS members have been killed since January 16.

Over 100 Syrian soldiers trained by Russian military advisors near Damascus were deployed in the Tyas Airbase in the province of Homs, according to pro-government sources. The deployment of fresh troops was aimed to improve the Syrian army’s combat capabilities and to contribute to offensive efforts in the area.

 

Two Syrian generals – Rafat Ibrahim Nasif and Bilal Bilal – and at least six troops were killed in a militant bombing attack in the town of Harasta near Damascus on January 18, according to the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. A number of government fighters were also reported to be in a critical condition.

Following previous gains in the Wadi Barada area northwest of Damascus, the Syrian army and its allies entered the militant-held town of Ayn al-Fijah and seized over a half of it. Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham and other militant groups operating in Ayn al-Fijah, Dayr Miqrin and Kafr Az Zayt are in a very bad military situation because government forces control strategic heights north of these villages. Experts believe that soon Ayn al-Fijah and nearby areas will fall into the hands of the Syrian army.

Iraqi security forces (ISF) have cleared from ISIS militants the Mosul Park and the areas of Al-Muhandisin, Nurqal, Taqafah and the Ancient Nineveh, de-facto setting up control over the whole eastern part of Mosul. ISF units have also gained control over 5 Mosul bridges from the eastern side of the city.

As soon as eastern Mosul is secure, ISF will start preparation to retake the rest of the city. Iraqi forces will need to reach Mosul from the southern and western directions before launching this advance.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “The ISIS R Us”: The War Against America’s ISIS Proxy Force in Syria

Yesterday, one of the largest U.S. newspapers, The Washington Post, published an article on a possible humanitarian crisis in Damascus. The article’s authors accuse the Syrian government and Damascus city administration of inaction and deliberately impeding the repair of water pumping stations that supply most of the city’s fresh water. They also accuse the government of “crushing the opposition”.

This article is another example of how The Washington Post uses popular propaganda means for criticizing the Syrian government: use of anonymous sources said to ‘fear for their safety’;[R1]  omitting facts, and listing unfounded accusations to create a required image. Inside Syria Media Center decided to study the article and check the facts it contains.

It is obvious from the article that the authors want to blame the government for all the problems Damascus residents have to face, but in doing so, they often ignore simple logic. For instance, a paragraph at the beginning of the article contains two contradicting sentences.

“Officials said over the weekend that repairs have begun on the facility,” the authors write. Indeed, on January 13, the city administration reported this. The next sentence, however, reads that the Syrian Army shelled the same area. According to the Post, the government seems to have sent in its own specialists and then proceeded to shell them!

Then, the journalists cite a phone call with a woman who is afraid of ‘government repercussions’ and therefore asks not to use her family name. She mentions the problems the residents experience with water and electricity. But why would the woman be afraid of ‘repercussions’? All she said to the journalists is that it’s difficult or impossible to provide uninterrupted operation of water and electrical infrastructures in a situation of military combat. What could be so dangerous about such an assertion? The article authors seem not to have pondered such questions in their zeal to present Bashar al-Assad ‘a bloody dictator’.

Meanwhile, the authors quote a Damascus resident Ammar Ismaiel who states that “there is indignation against the state because they’re delaying a military solution” to the jihadist forces making life hell for the Syrian people. Here we have an opposite narrative to the one supposing that the Syrian people oppose their elected president, but the Post does appear to see the contradiction nor does it explore it further.

The Post article writes several paragraphs about how the Syrian Army is conducting an offensive on the Wadi Barada valley just west of Damascus. The area is controlled by anti-government militants and the Barada River and its tributaries are the source of some 70 per cent of the fresh water supply of Damascus. On January 14, Al-Masdar News reported that Syrian troops had captured Baseimah town and are advancing towards Ain al-Fija where the damaged water pumping stations are located.

The Post journalists entirely omit a key part of the story of Syria today, which is the extensive efforts by the Syrian government to solve the crisis in the country via dialogue. A great many local ceasefire and reconciliation agreements have been reached, including the very learge ceasefire agreement in Aleppo. Conferences in Kazakhstan later this month and in Geneva next month will seek to broaden such agreements to the entire country.

In Wadi Barada itself, a preliminary agreement on ceasefire had been reached with the militants last week, but  according to Syria’s Minister for National Reconciliation Ali Haidar, the failed to abide by it.

Further compromising the situation there, a retired brigadier general, Ahmad al-Ghadban ,was shot dead by a sniper on January 14. He was serving as one of the main mediators between the government and the armed groups in Wadi Barada.

As a result[R2]  of militant’s actions, another truce agreement has been disrupted and clashes continue. According to Umar al-Shami, one of the political leaders of the Ahrar al-Sham opposition group, the assassination could have been set up by the Jebhat Fateh al-Sham group that is against the ceasefire and has evacuated to Idlib. But the Washington Post simply ignored that whole story.

Blaming the Syrian government, the authors provided no objective proof. Mostly, their arguments are based on anonymous sources who they allegedly contacted via telephone or WhatsApp. The journalists accuse President Bashar al-Assad of inaction or of seeking personal enrichment and conducting inhumane treatment of the Syrian people. But they never mention the militants’ crimes and the fact that they have used water as a weapon against Damascus and its residents. Unfortunately, most media which promote the U.S. and its allies’ point of view use the same pattern.

Notes

[R1]Don’t know what you mean by “spilling”.

[R2]As a result of what? Of the killing of Ahmad al-Ghadban?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Media Propaganda Regarding Supply of Water and “Damascus’ Humanitarian Crisis”

“After the referendum, which showed the consent of the people to join Russia, I will also recognize Crimea as part of Russia,” stated Le Pen, noting that Crimea was only considered to be a part of Ukraine due to a Soviet administrative issue, but in reality the peninsula “was never Ukrainian,” she concluded in an interview with Russia’s Izvestia.

According to Le Pen, the fact that the will of the Crimean people has not yet been recognized by the wider international community and the UN is a “cause for regret.”

Le Pen also spoke out against the anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the EU and vowed to fight for their lifting.

Crimea seceded from Ukraine and became a part of the Russian Federation on the basis of a referendum held there shortly after the violent and Western-backed 2014 coup in Kiev. Unwilling to live under an illegitimate and openly anti-Russian regime, over 95% of the nearly 2.5 million Crimean inhabitants voted in favor of secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia.

Crimea was first acquired by the Russian Empire under the rule of Catherine the Great in 1783. Following the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became an autonomous republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR. In 1954, Crimean was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as a gesture of goodwill by Nikita Khrushchev.

After the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Crimea became an autonomous republic within the newly independent Ukraine. Then came the events of 2014.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France’s Marine Le Pen to recognize Crimea as Russia if Elected President

This year’s Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Rally & March was organized under the demands for “Jobs, Peace and Justice” commemorating the 50th anniversary of the intersection between the Civil Rights, Black Power and Antiwar Movements in the United States.

Dr. King during the early months of 1967 rapidly developed his theoretical views in opposition to the U.S. imperialist war against the people of Vietnam and Southeast Asia and its interconnectedness to the unfulfilled quest for full equality and economic justice.

The event was held again at the Central United Methodist Church (CUMC) on Woodward Avenue and East Adams downtown where Dr. King delivered several sermons during the Lent season from the 1950s right through 1968. The leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) spoke at Central on March 14 just three weeks prior to his assassination in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968.

Contributions from Broad Array of Activist Leaders

A host of speakers representing the foremost struggles involving water services, housing rights, election integrity, youth organizing, indigenous solidarity surrounding the Standing Rock resistance, educational democracy, among other issues spoke during the rally held in the sanctuary of CUMC. Music was provided by the Deep River Choir directed by Bobbi Thompson.

These speakers included: Sylvia Morgan and Malcolm Jones, participants in the 2016 Freedom Tour sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights (MCHR), where students are taken on a journey through the southern U.S. to study the historical legacy of the Civil Rights Movement; Jennine Spencer of the Charlevoix Village Association discussed the campaign to end property tax foreclosures in Detroit and Wayne County where every year tens of thousands face eviction from their homes; the question of the integrity of electoral politics was examined by Anita Belle who is the President of the Reparations Labor Union and a Green Party organizer; Cynthia Thornton, Chief Steward for UAW Local 6000 representing state employees and Pride at Work as well, talked about the need for a united movement against discrimination on the job; speaking for Water You Fighting For, Melissa Mays of Flint, emphasized that the water crisis in the city is by no means resolved; and Joan and Joe Jacobs of the American Indian Movement (AIM) stressed the importance of the resistance at Standing Rock where the campaigns for water rights among the Indigenous people along with Detroit and Flint merge.

Other speakers addressing the rally were Rev. Sandra Simmons of Hush House whose topic was “Building Community in the Age of Trumpism.” Simmons described the ascendancy of President-elect Donald Trump as a “coup.” She called for people fighting in the movements in Detroit to unify through their community efforts.

Elena Herrada of the Detroit Board of Education in-exile continued to illustrate the apartheid conditions under which students are subjected to in the city. The Detroit public school system has been restructured once again by the state government which has controlled the district for most of the last eighteen years to its detriment. Hundreds of schools have been closed and thousands of educational employees laid-off by the emergency managers and their functionaries working on behalf of successive administrations.

The question of war in the Middle East was taken up by Workers World Party youth organizer Joe Mshahwar of Detroit who expressed solidarity with the people of Syria. He noted that the people in the U.S. should not be manipulated into a war with Russia or China over imperialist ambitions emanating from Washington and Wall Street.

Evoking Dr. King’s Antiwar Legacy and the Lessons of the Detroit Rebellion

In 2004, the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) founded the Annual MLK March in Detroit. This decision occurred less than a year after the Pentagon-led bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq. The principal slogan of the event was “Money for Our Cities, Not for War.” Since 2004, the event has been expanded to encompass other organizations and coalitions under the banner of the Detroit MLK Committee.

Corporate media narratives surrounding the legacy of Dr. King often deliberately disregard his intervention into the antiwar movement which coincided with the escalating militancy among the African American people. In 1967, rebellions erupted across the U.S. in over 160 cities. James Forman, the-then International Affairs Director for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) described the period in an essay as the “High Tide of Black Resistance.”

The city of Detroit experienced the largest of these rebellions which had been assessed at the time as the most widespread civil disorder in the history of the U.S. Battles raged in the streets for five days leaving 43 dead, hundreds injured and 7,200 arrested. Property damage estimates ranged into the hundreds of millions of dollars. President Lyndon Johnson, who was bogued down in the Vietnam War deployed thousands of federal troops into Detroit after Governor George Romney requested assistance saying the situation was beyond the capacity of the local police and National Guard to contain.

On July 25, 1967 at the height of the Detroit Rebellion, three African American youth, Aubrey Pollard (19), Carl Cooper (17) and Fred Temple (19), were executed by police officers in the annex to the Algiers Motel which was located on Woodward Avenue and Virginia Park. The massacre prompted outrage throughout the African American community. Three white police officers indicted in the case were all acquitted of their crimes in several legal proceedings that were held both inside and outside the city of Detroit.

One month after the massacre of the youth, leading activists organized a People’s Tribunal to investigate the massacre and level charges against the police involved. Thousands attended the Tribunal held at Central United Church of Christ (later renamed The Shrine of the Black Madonna and the Pan-African Orthodox Christian Church) on Linwood and Hogarth on the west side, several blocks away from where the Rebellion erupted.

Rev. Dan Aldridge was a key convener of the People’s Tribunal. He wrote an insertion for the Detroit MLK program brochure explaining the significance of the event held on August 30, 1967.

Aldridge said that: “Among the twelve members of the jury were national icon Rosa Parks, novelist John O. Killens, book store proprietor Ed Vaugh, Michigan State Senator Jackie Vaughn, and two members of People Against Racism (PAR) Frank Joyce and Valerie Shook. Following standard legal procedure, the judge of the People’s Tribunal was Justin Ravitz and prosecuting and defense attorney roles were performed by attorneys Milton Henry, Kenneth V. Cockerel, Sr., Andrew Perdue, and Sol Plofkin. The stenographer was later Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick.”

A leading activist in the city at the time, Aldridge continued by noting: “While total access to the People’s Tribunal was given to the Detroit Free Press, The Detroit News, and The Michigan Chronicle, only the Chronicle’s Aretha Watkins covered the story in full. The Detroit News did not report the event and Detroit Free Press reporter, and later Editor William Serrin, told the organizing committee that editors directed him to publish no photographs and only a very small story without interviews. The three officers were convicted by the People’s Tribunal for murder.”

A Coalition Effort

This event is a broad coalition effort. Over forty organizations and individuals sponsored and endorsed the 14th Annual MLK Day Rally and March for 2017.

These groups included in part: Moratorium NOW! Coalition, MECAWI, People’s Water Board, Linda Szysko, UAW Local 140 Civil and Human Rights Committee, UAW Local 160, We the People of Detroit, the League of Revolutionaries for a New America, Detroit People’s Platform, Avalon Bakery, ACLU of Michigan, St. John’s Episcopal Church, Detroit Coalition Against Tar Sands, IWW Detroit GMB, Pan-African News Wire, Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, Veterans for Peace Chapter 74, Workers World Party, Pride at Work Michigan, Retirees for Single Payer Health Care, Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self-Development, Pointes for Peace, among many others.

Note: The author of this report Abayomi Azikiwe chaired the rally held at CUMC.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Rally in Detroit: The Struggle to Defeat Racism, War and Poverty

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he has no grounds to attack or protect US President-elect Donald Trump, since he does not know him personally. He added though that those behind the recent allegations against Trump have “no moral scruples.”

“I don’t know Mr. Trump personally, I have never met him and don’t know what he will do on the international arena. So I have no grounds to attack him or criticize him for anything, or protect him or whatever,” Putin said.

Despite the fact that elections in the US are over and ended with a “solid win” for the Republican candidate, an intense political struggle continues in the US, the Russian president observed, adding that there are certain forces that aim “to undermine the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

“I have an impression they practiced in Kiev and are ready to organize a Maidan in Washington, just to not let Trump take office,” Putin said, apparently referring to anti-government protests in the Ukrainian capital in 2014, which resulted in the leadership being ousted.

Those anti-Trump forces in the US also want to “bind hand and foot” the newly-elected leader, Putin added. He said that in this way, they aim to interfere with the domestic and international policies outlined in Trump’s presidential campaign.

By doing so, these forces “severely harm US interests,” Putin said.

The campaign to discredit the president-elect shows that certain “political elites in the West, including in the US,” have “significantly” worsened, according to the Russian president.

“Prostitution is an ugly social phenomenon,” he told reporters, adding that people who stand behind “fabrications” being used against Trump “are worse than prostitutes.”

“They have no moral scruples,” he said.

The Russian leader also called the allegations that Moscow might have blackmail material on the US president-elect “evidently fake.”

 

“When Trump visited Moscow several years ago, he wasn’t a political figure. We didn’t even know about his political ambitions, he was just a businessman, one of America’s richest people. So does someone think that our intelligence services go after each American billionaire? Of course not, it’s complete rubbish,” Putin said.

Commenting on reports spread in the Western media accusing Trump of frolicking with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel, the Russian president said he doubted that a man who had been organizing beauty pageants for years and had met “some of the most beautiful women of the world” would hire call girls in the Russian capital.

Last week, a report on what was claimed to be a secret dossier, reportedly compiled by former UK intelligence officer Christopher Steele, was published by CNN and BuzzFeed. It alleged that Trump was groomed and supported by Russian intelligence and that the Kremlin was in possession of compromising material on the president-elect.

The dossier reportedly contained a bizarre story of Trump allegedly hiring prostitutes to “perform a ‘golden showers’ show in front of him” on a hotel bed in the Ritz Carlton presidential suite in the Russian capital, where Barack Obama and his wife had previously stayed.

The US president-elect, who will be inaugurated on January 20, has branded the dossier a “complete fraud,” saying that intelligence insiders have confirmed to him that the allegations were fake.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Those Behind “Fabrications” against Trump “Are Worse than Prostitutes”: Putin Slams Those Behind Trump ‘Leak’

The leader of the U.K.’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, called for a “de-escalation” of tensions between NATO and Russia, adding in a BBC interview on Thursday: “I want to see a de-militarization of the border between them.” Along with the U.S., the U.K. has been rapidly building up its military presence in the Baltic region, including in states that border Russia, and is now about to send another 800 troops to Estonia, 500 of which will be permanently based.

In response, Russia has moved its own troops within its country near those borders, causing serious military tensions to rise among multiple nuclear-armed powers. Throughout 2016, the Russian and U.S. militaries have engaged in increasingly provocative and aggressive maneuvers against one another.

This week, the U.S. began deploying 4,000 troops to Poland, “the biggest deployment of U.S. troops in Europe since the end of the Cold War.”

It was in this context that Corbyn said it is “unfortunate that troops have gone up to the border on both sides,” adding that “he wanted to see better relations between Russia, NATO and the EU.” The Labour leader explained that while Russia has engaged in serious human rights abuses both domestically and in Syria, there must be “better relationships between both sides … there cannot be a return to a Cold War mentality.”

The response to Corbyn’s call for better relations and de-escalation of tensions with Moscow was swift and predictable. The armed forces minister for Britain’s right-wing government, Mike Penning, accused Corbyn of being a collaborator with the Kremlin:

These comments suggest that the Labour leader would rather collaborate with Russian aggression than mutually support Britain’s NATO allies. As with Trident, everything Labour says and does shows that they cannot be trusted with Britain’s national security.

This is the same propagandistic formulation that has been used for decades in the West to equate opposition to militarism with some form of disloyalty or treason: If you oppose military confrontation with a foreign adversary or advocate better relations with it, then you are accused of harboring secret sympathy and even support for those foreign leaders, and are often suspected of being an active “collaborator” with (or “stooge” for) them.

This lowly smear tactic was, of course, deployed over and over during the Cold War with regard to those who argued for improved relations or a reduction of conflict with Moscow, but it has been repeatedly used since then as well every time it comes time to confront a new Foreign Villain (those opposed to the invasion of Iraq were pro-Saddam, those who opposed intervention in Libya were Gaddafi apologists, those who objected to war on terror programs are terrorist sympathizers, etc. etc.).

But this template has recently become super-charged, more widely invoked than ever, as a result of the starring role Russia now plays in U.S. domestic politics, where many Democrats blame Russia for Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Putin now occupies the role of Prime Villain in Western discourse, and this Cold War rhetorical template — anyone opposing confrontation is a Kremlin operative or stooge — has thus been resurrected with extraordinary speed and ease.

The compelling justifications for Corbyn’s concerns about NATO/Russia tensions are self-evident. The U.S. and Russia have massive arsenals of nuclear weapons. As Lawrence Krauss detailed in the New Yorker in October, the two countries have come horrendously close to full-on, earth-destroying nuclear war on several occasions in the past, and the systems they still maintain are conducive to apocalyptic error through miscommunication and misperception, let alone direct military confrontation. As Krauss noted:

In general, during the Obama presidency, we have only deepened our dangerous embrace of nuclear weapons. At the moment, around a thousand nuclear weapons are still on a hair-trigger alert; as they were during the Cold War, they are ready to be launched in minutes in response to a warning of imminent attack.

It is not hyperbole to say that perhaps nothing is more reckless, more dangerous, than ratcheting up tensions between these two countries. That’s what makes it so repellent and toxic to demonize those such as Corbyn as “collaborators” or traitors merely because they oppose this escalation and belligerence. But this is the script that — once again — is quickly becoming mainstream orthodoxy in both Washington and London.

Let us, for a moment, imagine if this framework were applied consistently rather than manipulatively. Democrats have been alarmed — rightfully so — by the preliminary belligerence of Trump and his top aides toward nuclear-armed China: accepting a call from Taiwan’s president, openly questioningthe decades-old “One China” policy, suggesting the U.S. would militarily intervene to prevent Chinese control over nearby uninhabited islands (the latter was also suggested by the current head of the U.S. Pacific fleet).

But applying the prevailing Russia logic to these concerns, should one not accuse these Democrats objecting to confrontation with China of being “collaborators” with and apologists for the dictatorial regime in Beijing, which imprisons dissidents and tortures ethnic and religious minorities? Should we publicly ponder whether the liberal writers demanding that Trump cease his aggressive posture are being clandestinely paid by the Chinese Politburo or merely acting as “useful idiots” for it? Should those objecting to Trump’s belligerent policies be accused of siding with a dictatorial regime over their own president and country?

Of course none of those things should happen, because it is not only rational but morally compulsory to be deeply wary of those who seek to escalate tensions between countries with large nuclear arsenals. At the very least, one should be free to debate these policies without being smeared as a traitor. That applies to China, and it applies to Russia. And those who voice such concerns should not, as Corbyn just was, have their loyalties and integrity be impugned by our new Cold Warriors.

* * * * *

For the crucial context on NATO/Russia tension that is very rarely heard in the Western press, I highly recommend these two items:

(1) This Foreign Affairs article by University of Chicago political scientist John J. Mearsheimer on the West’s relentless, aggressive march eastward up to Russian borders and its consequences.

(2) The passage of this interview with Noam Chomsky by German journalist Tilo Jung — beginning at 40:30 — that explains the crucial historical context of NATO’s march eastward toward Russia, how that is perceived in Moscow, and, most important of all, why the dangers this behavior creates are incomparable:

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Jeremy Corbyn Accused of Being Russian “Collaborator” for Questioning US-NATO Troop Build-Up on Border

In an interview conducted Friday for NBC’s Sunday morning program “Meet the Press,” Democratic Representative John Lewis announced that he would boycott the inauguration of President Donald Trump because, “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.”

There are many reasons to reject and oppose the presidency of Donald Trump: he personifies the financial oligarchy that now dominates the US political system and seeks to subordinate all public policy to its mad drive to amass ever-greater wealth; he has filled his cabinet and White House staff with ultra-right ideologues, fellow billionaires and ex-generals; his government is committed to a program of drastic cuts in spending for education, health care and other public services, combined with a massive military buildup.

Lewis, however, mentioned none of these things. He based his rejection of Trump on the report by US intelligence agencies about Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election campaign. “I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton,” he said. “That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process.”

No evidence has been presented proving that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. The hue and cry over Russian hacking has two purposes: to conceal the actual content of the leaked emails, which showed the right-wing and antidemocratic character of the Clinton campaign, and to whip up public opinion in the United States in favor of political, economic, diplomatic and ultimately military “retaliation” against Russia.

There is not the slightest genuine democratic content to Lewis’s critique of Trump. He did not cite Trump’s loss of the popular vote by nearly three million votes, or the impact of voter ID laws enacted by many Republican-controlled state governments to suppress minority voting. His attack on Trump consisted solely of embracing the CIA-led anti-Russian campaign in language reminiscent of the 1950s redbaiter Joseph McCarthy.

There is a grim historical irony here. During the years of the most intense struggles for civil rights in the South, in the 1950s and 1960s, the FBI, the police in cities like Birmingham, Alabama, and the southern Democratic politicians all claimed that protests against segregation were the work of “outside agitators,” communists sent in to do the bidding of the Soviet Union. But John Lewis, who played a significant role as a student leader during those years and led the march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, has remembered only one thing: denouncing your opponents as tools of Russia is a proven propaganda tactic.

A congressman from Atlanta for the past 30 years, Lewis personifies the recruitment and corruption of a section of middle-class African-Americans to reinforce the domination of capitalist politics. Civil rights leaders like Lewis were co-opted as part of a conscious strategy of the US ruling elite to refurbish the Democratic Party and the state machinery as a whole.

Dozens of major cities were turned over to African-American mayors, some of them veterans of the civil rights struggles, others merely cashing in on it. The Congressional Black Caucus expanded its number from a handful to more than thirty. With the assistance of programs like affirmative action, slots were created for black academics, government officials, military officers, corporate executives and ultimately CEOs.

These positions were not very numerous, but they were well paid, politically symbolic and gave a cover of “diversity” for the depredations of American big business and the crimes of the Pentagon. US imperialism incinerated tens of thousands of defenseless Iraqi conscripts while General Colin Powell, the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed the press on the progress of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In similar fashion, Powell, as the first black secretary of state, and Condoleezza Rice, the first black female national security adviser, were at George W. Bush’s side when he launched the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

This process culminated in the election of Barack Obama, the first African-American president—also the first president to assert the right to assassinate American citizens, using drone-fired missiles, anywhere in the world. Obama, a creature of the military-intelligence apparatus, expanded the war in Afghanistan, launched a new war in Libya and engaged the US military once again in war in Iraq and Syria. He continued and strengthened the police state operations of the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency.

It is noteworthy—and characteristic of this corrupt layer of African-American Democratic politicians—that John Lewis has never opposed the military-intelligence operations of the Obama administration. On the contrary, Lewis received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Obama in 2011, the same year Obama authorized the drone-missile assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen.

Some 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. made a critical step forward when he sought to combine the struggle for democratic rights at home with opposition to imperialist war abroad, courageously coming out against the war in Vietnam. There is not a shred of such principle among those who today seek to wrap themselves in King’s mantle in order to cover their own right-wing politics.

After Dr. King’s assassination in April 1968—an event that was undoubtedly linked to his turn against the Vietnam War—his acolytes made their peace with the establishment. Some of them, like Andrew Young, who had always stood on the right wing in King’s councils, became open apologists for US imperialism, with Young serving as US ambassador to the United Nations in the Carter administration.

Others, like Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and John Lewis, became political hacks for the Democratic Party, giving this party of big business a “progressive” cover as it moved further and further to the right. Lewis also served in the Carter administration, running several antipoverty programs, before winning a congressional seat in 1986. In recent years, he has cashed in quite literally on his role in the 1960s, with his Faith and Politics Institute selling seats to lobbyists for $25,000 apiece to his annual visit to Selma to reenact the 1965 march.

The enlistment of Lewis in the warmongering anti-Russian campaign only underscores the political challenge facing the American working class. No section of the Democratic Party will conduct a genuine or principled struggle against the monstrous right-wing program of the Trump administration and the Republican Congress. The Democratic Party, like the Republicans, defends the profits and wealth of the financial aristocracy and the global interests of American imperialism.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on From Selma to the CIA. Rep. John Lewis Will Boycott Inauguration of Donald Trump

How The U.S. Enabled ISIS To Take Deir Ezzor

January 19th, 2017 by Moon of Alabama

The city of Deir Ezzor (Deir ez-Zur) in east-Syria is on the verge of falling into the hands of the Takfiris of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). More than 100,000 civilian inhabitants of Deir Ezzor and thousands of soldiers defending them are in immediate danger of being murdered by the savage ISIS forces. The current situation is a direct consequence of U.S. military action against the SAA and non-action against ISIS.

Deir Ezzor is besieged by ISIS since September 2015. But the city was well defended by its garrison of Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and all further attacks by ISIS were repelled. Supply to the city was hauled in by air through the Deir Ezzor airport and through air drops by the Syrian and Russian airforces. Relief by ground forces and ground supplies are not possible as Deir Ezzor is more than 100 km away from the nearest SAA positions west of Palmyra and as the desert in between is under the control of ISIS.

Google map – bigger

Four days ago a new attack by ISIS on Deir Ezzor was launched and has since continued. ISIS reinforcements and resupplies had come over months despite air interdiction from the Russian and Syrian airforces. Yesterday ISIS managed to cut off the airport, where the local SAA command and its main supplies are hosted, from the city proper. It is now attacking in full force from all sides. Bad weather makes air support from the outside sporadic and difficult. Unless some unforeseen happens it is only a question of time until the airport and the city fall to ISIS.

Map by Peto Lucem – bigger

The U.S. has condoned and/or even actively supported the imminent ISIS taking of Deir Ezzor by (at least) three measures:

  • a massive U.S. air attack on SAA forces in September 2016 enabled ISIS to take a controlling position and to cut off SAA resupplies
  • a U.S. attack against a power station in January disabled the last electricity supplies to the city
  • U.S. non-intervention enabled ISIS reinforcements from Mosul and west Iraq to Deir Ezzor in east-Syria

On September 16 2016 an hour long U.S. led air attack on SAA positions on the Tharda hills to the south of the airport killed over 100 SAA soldiers, destroyed a big SAA supply dump and several SAA tanks and artillery pieces. Immediately after the U.S. attack ISIS took the hills and has since held them. The positions allow for fire control over the airport of Deir Ezzor.

The U.S. military claimed that the attack was a mistake but a thorough reading of the investigation report of that “mistake” shows that the U.S. military attack was intentionally targeting the SAA to make a political point against an announced U.S.-Russian cooperation agreement to fight ISIS. (Danish airforce F-16 planes and drones under U.S. command had taken part in the attack. After the report was published, the Danish government pulled all air elements from its participation in the U.S. coalition against ISIS.)

Since the U.S. attack in September no significant air supplies have reached Deir Ezzor. Even helicopter landing at the airport is only possible at night and by taking very high risks. The city inhabitants and their defenders are completely cut off.

Early January U.S. airforce attacks destroyed the electricity plant at the Omar oilfield near Deir Ezzor. The plant was the last one to supply the city of Deir Ezzor. Since then only a few military generators and dwindling fuel supplies are left for medical and communication equipment.

When the Iraqi Army plans for retaking the ISIS held city of Mosul were developed and commenced in October the U.S. insisted on leaving a western corridor open for ISIS forces inclined to flee from Mosul into the direction of Deir Ezzor. Hundreds if not thousands of ISIS fighters used the corridor. The U.S. controlled Kurdish forces in north Iraq let ISIS pass from Iraq to Syria. Fearing (correctly) that an ISIS move out of Mosul towards Deir Ezzor would mean the fall of Deir Ezzor Russia and Iran intervened with the Iraqi government. Despite U.S. wishes the Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi ordered his Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU) to cut off the western exit:

Iran was not the only country pressing for the escape to be closed west of Mosul. Russia, another powerful Assad ally, also wanted to block any possible movement of militants into Syria, said Hashemi. The Russian defence ministry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.One of Assad’s biggest enemies, France, was also concerned that hundreds of fighters linked to attacks in Paris and Brussels might escape. The French have contributed ground and air support to the Mosul campaign.

Still, the battle plan did not foresee closing the road to the west of Mosul until Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi agreed in late October to despatch the Popular Mobilisation militias.

Despite a fast advance by the PMU from the south against Tal Afar to cut off the escape road many ISIS fighters in west Iraq were able to flee across the border and towards Deir Ezzor with their equipment in tact. They reinforced the ISIS troops now attacking Deir Ezzor. The U.S. has uncontested air superiority over west Iraq and east Syria but did not once intervene against the large scale move.

If ISIS takes Deir Ezzor it will likely kill (as it did on other occasions) all captured SAA troops and anyone it believes to have cooperated with them. The soldiers know this. They will fight down to the last bullet. But without any reinforcements and resupplies their chances are slim.

When the Syrian government besieged al-Qaeda forces in east-Aleppo the “western” media and the various “Syrian opposition” propaganda outlets were running an all out campaign in support of the besieged Takfiris. There is no such campaign in support of the civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor. In their few reports about the imminent fall of Deir Ezzor “western” publications even resort to outright lying. Thus claims the Daily Telegraph:

The US-led coalition, as well as the Russians, have been bombing the jihadists in Deir Ezzor for the last 18 months but have been unable to dislodge them.

No significant U.S. air attacks have been flown against ISIS forces around Deir Ezzor at all. All attacks flown by the U.S. in the area have been against Syrian government troops or their supporting infrastructure.

The U.S. official rhetoric about fighting ISIS is not supported by observable facts on the battle field. One can only conclude that the U.S. military does not only condone but supports ISIS in gaining control over Deir Ezzor despite the extreme high risk for anyone left in the city.

This likely to further the larger long term plan of installing a “Salafist principality” in western Iraq and eastern Syria that creates a justification for the U.S. military to stay in the area to “fight ISIS” and which can be activated against the Syrian and Iraqi government whenever convenient. U.S. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have both admitted that they earlier allowed ISIS to gro

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How The U.S. Enabled ISIS To Take Deir Ezzor

The important city of Deir ez-Zor in Syria is surrounded now by U.S.-backed ISIS jihadists who are on the verge of retaking that city from government forces, after the U.S. had paved the way, on 16 September 2016, for this conquest, by bombing Syria’s troops and weapons-compounds in Deir ez-Zor. Those government forces were protecting the residents there from ISIS mercenaries and weaponry, that are financed by Saudi Arabia, and armed by the U.S. and other members of the Saudi-led alliance.

As the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which at the time was under the leadership of Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn (who will be incoming U.S. President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor), had warned the rest of the Obama Administration in a cable on 12 August 2012,

“THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST [fundamentalist Sunni] PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS [U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey] TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE [pro-Russian and pro-Iranian] SYRIAN REGIME.”

The American journalist Seymour Hersh reported, on 1 January 2016 in the London Review of Books (after the New Yorker and other U.S. print newsmedia had refused to publish his article),

“Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership [Obama] about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the [U.S.-backed] opposition [Obama’s ‘moderate Syrian rebels’].”

Obama then fired Flynn, for opposing U.S. participation in the Saudi alliance to overthrow the secular and Russian-allied government of Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad. After the election of Donald Trump (who hired Flynn back as his National Security Advisor), the U.S. Democratic Party and some influential Republicans have been accusing Mr. Trump of being, essentially, a Russian agent and a grave threat to U.S. national security — much like, in the 1950s, the far-right John Birch Society and U.S. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy had accused U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower of being ‘soft on communism’ if not outright pro-Soviet and a traitor in the White House.

The anonymous blogger who goes by the name of “Moon of Alabama” or “bernhard,” has been issuing most of the important news-reports about the Syrian war, especially concerning these developing events in Deir ez-Zor.

On 11 December 2016, I headlined “Obama & Erdogan Move ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad”, and reported, based upon earlier reports from “bernhard”, and from Turkey’s government, and other sources, that the U.S.-coalition (the Saudi-led) plan for ousting ISIS from Mosul in Iraq had been to force the ISIS jihadists in Mosul Iraq to choose between either being killed there, or else continuing their jihad by relocating themselves westward to Der Zor in Syria, and retaking for ISIS that city, by conquering the Syrian government’s forces there. (One of those sources, which was cited by “bernhard,” had tweeted on 12 October 2016: “Breaking news: Sources in #London say: ‘#US& #Saudi_Arabia concluded an agreement to let #ISIS leave #Mosul secretly& safely to #Syria’!” And that’s exactly what then happened.

Note that, according to this tweet, it was the Sauds, not Obama’s regime, who made the deal. If the Sauds were acting on behalf of Obama, the U.S. aristocracy were in the driver’s seat, but that would have been highly unlikely, especially because Obama has routinely been doing the Sauds’ bidding. Included in that have been his efforts to block prosecution of the Sauds for having financed 9/11.)

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.”

Also, Hillary Clinton said in her private communications:

“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 ISIL [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Saudi Arabia is owned by the Saud family (the Thani family own Qatar); 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.

Bernhard’s January 17th report banners “How The U.S. Enabled ISIS To Take Deir Ezzor” (“Deir Ezzor” is a different Anglicization of “Der Zor”) and he simply assumes there that Syria and Russia will be defeated at Deir ez-Zor, and that the Saudi-led alliance, (commonly called “The West,” though since 2001 it’s led by the Sunni-fundamentalist Saud family who financed the 9/11 attacks and who financed Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups), will win. That victory would mean exterminating all people there who oppose ISIS. If this plan succeeds, then the only way that Syria would be able to retake Der Zor will be to reduce the entire city to rubble, which would provide a field-day for anti-Russian propagandists, including Western ‘humanitarian’ agencies (such as “The White Helmets”).

Another well-informed blogger on the Syrian war is Ziad Fadel, at his “Syrian Perspectives”, and he headlined in his usual colorful style on January 14th, “Turk Cannibals Rob Cannibals of Their Body Parts; Stunning Defeat for ISIS at Dayr El-Zor in SAA [Syrian government] Counterattack”, and he described how three anti-ISIS jihadists had been injured by Syria’s army and sent to Turkish doctors who, apparently, removed valuable organs for sale to rich patients, before killing the injured anti-ISIS jihadists.

Ziad’s son Leith Fadel, who runs the excellent “Al Masdar News” site, headlined on January 17th, “Syrian Army attempts to lift the siege on Deir Ezzor Airport” and reported that the battle for Der Zor is by no means yet decided, though the ISIS side does currently have the upper hand.

Whether the assumption by “bernhard,” of ISIS victory at Der Zor, becomes true or not, the U.S.-Saudi alliance will immediately be testing the new American President, Trump, by forcing him to confront either the Saud family (the biggest foreign purchaser of U.S. weapons), or else the Russian government, and to choose, quickly, whether to continue Obama’s U.S. support for the Saud family, against Russia, and against Russia’s allies, especially against Iran and Syria (which almost all of the U.S. Congress want him to do).

The reason that there is no ‘peace dividend’ from the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union and end of its Warsaw Pact military alliance and end of their communism (especially after 2001), is that America’s “military-industrial complex” (as Dwight Eisenhower called it in 1961) has taken over the U.S. government, and they are refusing to let go of it. America’s aristocracy (and the foreign billionaires who also control America’s ‘defense’ firms) are too heavily invested in it, to allow the government to be freed from its grip. Instead, they are determinedly and increasingly now building and buying deep undergroundluxury bomb-shelters for themselves and for their core people, and continuing to pay Senators and Congressmen whatever they need in order to defeat any potential political contenders who refuse to cooperate. They mean business. Some people call this new America, “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” It is America’s trickle-down version of a ‘welfare state’. But what could trickle down at the end of it might be nuclear bombs, which wouldn’t be welfare for anybody, except possibly, the owners of that “military-industrial complex,” if they’d actually be enjoying high ‘welfare’, deep underground.

The 9/11 victims were merely baits for this operation. But for the Saud family — who are too wealthy for Forbes even to list them — the objective is instead world conquest, for their Sunni-fundamentalist sharia-law system.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S.-ISIS Alliance on Verge of Conquering Major Syrian City

The United States is increasing airdrops of weapons, ammunition and other equipment to foreign-backed militant forces in the northeastern Syrian city of Raqqah, according to a report.

“Our expanded precision airdrop capability is helping ground forces take the offensive to (Daesh) and efforts to retake Raqqah,” Gen. Carlton Everhart, commander of the US Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, was quoted by USA Today as saying.

The Air Force carried out a total of 16 airdrop missions in Syria last year; six of those were in December alone, the report said.

Officials say the airdrops are meant to boost the capabilities of militants who do not have extensive ground supply lines in a hostile environment. Raqqah is Daesh’s self-proclaimed “capital.” The terrorist group took over the city in March 2013.

“In those instances airdrops are absolutely essential,” said Air Force Col. John Dorrian, a military spokesman in Baghdad.

The US–led coalition is backing a proxy force of about 45,000 militants, allegedly battling Daesh terrorists in Syria, with airstrikes and dozens of US Special Operations troops.

The militants have also been fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the US has repeatedly said must step down.

The US Air Force uses GPS technology and steerable parachutes to guide bundles of supplies, ranging from small arms ammunition to vehicles, onto landing zones.

The Daesh terrorist group has released several videos in the past bragging about capturing weapons and other supplies airdropped by the US military.

The State Department said last month that the US could not guarantee that the weapons it sends to militants in Syria would not end up in the hands of Daesh terrorists.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon have also been providing the militants with military training.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Increasing Airdrops of Arms Supplies to ISIS-Daesh Terrorists in Syria: Report
Russia says it’s ready to supply Lithuania with bricks after Vilnius announced the construction of a fence on its Russian border. Lithuanian officials say the barrier will protect the Baltic nation and the EU from the ‘Russian threat’.

News about the proposed fence on the border with Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave located between Poland and Lithuania, emerged in Lithuanian media on Saturday.

“The fence is like a sign that [Lithuania] views the neighboring country as a potential aggressor,” Interior Minister Eimutis Misiunas said, as cited by Lietuvos zinios newspaper.

According to the minister, the fence will cost some €3.6 million and will be equipped with “a surveillance system.”

It won’t be a ‘Chinese Wall’, but only a fence which will protect Lithuania from illegal smugglers, Misiunas said. The barrier will be some 135km from Vistytis neighborhoods, on the intersection of three countries – Poland, Lithuania and Russia – to the Nemunas River.

“Lithuania needs to strengthen border security, since it is an EU state. Lithuanian state border security is important not only for our country, but for the whole of the EU,” National Security and Defense Committee (NSGK) member Arvydas Anusauskas said.

Another NSGK member, Rasa Juknevičienė, said the fence is designed to counter the Russian “threat.”

“This fence will not stop tanks or other military equipment, but it will show that we are hoping for better relations with Russia, a realistic assessment of the situation. We do our best to reduce a potential threat posed by Russia,” she said.

Russian officials, however, have quite an ironic attitude to the wall project. The interim Governor of Kaliningrad Region, Anton Alikhanov, told Rossiya 24 TV channel that Kaliningrad is ready to buy all necessary construction materials for the fence.

He reminded that Russia has a “wonderful plant” for production of bricks on the border with Lithuania.

“If our Lithuanian colleagues want to erect a fence to stop illegal smugglers, then we are ready to provide them with construction material,” he said.

At present the Russia-Lithuania border is only marked with special signs and a 13-meter-long warning line. Lithuania has a 100-meter-long fence on the 600-meter border with Belarus.

The news about the fence on the border with Russia comes amid the arrival of US tanks and military equipment in Eastern Europe for NATO military drills dubbed Operation Atlantic Resolve. NATO says the buildup along Russia’s borders is a defensive measure due to Moscow’s alleged involvement in the Ukrainian crisis.

Russia has repeatedly called the bloc’s moves aggressive, while stressing that they are undermining security in Europe. In response, Moscow has been conducting large-scale military drills on its home soil and stationed its most modern weaponry and armaments on its western borders, including the exclave region of Kaliningrad, which lies between Poland and Lithuania.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Building An “Anti-Aggressor Fence” on Russia’s Border

The Political Uses of Russophobia

January 19th, 2017 by J. Hawk

One of the features of the escalating global confrontation was the increase in Russophobia, in the form of accusations leveled at Russia that it’s invading Ukraine, shooting down airliners, committing atrocities in Syria, hacking US elections, sponsoring alt-Right and Euroskeptic movements, and weaponizing giant squid.

No conspiracy theory involving Russia seems too outlandish to be rejected by the so-called “respectable” mainstream media. This is true across a broad swath of countries, starting with Ukraine and the Baltics, ending with the United States, with the non-Western world looking at this performance in amazement. What are the origins of this campaign, and what is it hoped to accomplish?

The answer depends on the country in question, because while this campaign may appear to be a manifestation of Western unity, in actuality it reveals deep divisions within the Atlanticist alliance as the motives for Russophobic propaganda vary.

Let’s start with the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Here the motive is prosaic economic self-interest. US and Canada are major hydrocarbon producers whose “liberal” Obama and Trudeau governments have been seeking to isolate Russia in order to eliminate the competition from Russian hydrocarbon exports. US oil and gas companies would furthermore benefit from the construction of pipelines linking Saudi Arabia and Qatar with Europe, but that project first requires the destruction of Syria which Russia successfully opposes.

Finally, the Obama Administration has been pursuing regime change in Russia itself in order to make that country “available” to US financial and energy interests. The fever pitch that the anti-Russian propaganda campaign reached in recent weeks is a reflection of Russia’s success at deflecting these threats. However, the US foreign policy would change dramatically in case of revaluation of threats from China, non-government actors like ISIS and a possible global economic crisis that will force reformatting of the global economic system.

France has also embraced Russophobia as official state policy largely because it is seeking to reclaim its own empire in North Africa and the Middle East. Just as Nicholas Sarkozy was a key driver of the overthrow of Libya’s government alongside Hillary Clinton, so does Francois Hollande want to do the same in Syria. The recent dimming of the Eiffel Tower lights, ostensibly a sign of sympathy with the people of Aleppo, is as much a reflection of France’s rapacity toward Syria as it is of its powerlessness to do anything positive to influence the events there.  To the extent that, again, Russia is key in thwarting French imperial ambitions, France has found common cause with other countries which embraced Russophobia at the official level even though its interests don’t really overlap with them.

Germany’s Russophobia, which now includes allegations that Russia may hack German elections and even that Syria and Russia could promote migrant sex crimes in Germany in order to engineer Angela Merkel’s elections defeat, is an ideology in the service of German mercantilism. EU’s crisis and austerity policies force German business to find new markets to replace the depressed markets of Southern Europe, and EU’s eastern flank represents practically the only available outlet for economic expansion.  In order to realize the dream of NEO-Lebensraum reinvented as Eastern Partnership, Germany must find a way to neutralize Russian influence in, and economic ties with, countries like Ukraine and the Baltics, to ensure that German influence fills that void. The idea of regime change in Moscow, which was to be the next domino to fall after the Maidan coup in Kiev, enjoys quiet support among Germany’s current leadership for the same economic reasons.

This expansion is all the more urgent due to the economic collapse of Greece, Italy, and Spain, whose debt spiral has been the engine of Germany’s economic growth over the last decade. While Merkel’s support for the Maidan has been interpreted by many as a sign of her subjugation by Washington, in actuality Berlin has been Washington’s “fellow traveller” pursuing its own set of interests.

Poland’s interest in promoting Russophobia is similar to Germany’s in that its leaders, too, wish to reclaim territories lost after the 17th Century, or at the very least establish Poland’s dominion over the Baltics, Ukraine, and Belarus.  In addition, since ensuring financial injections from the West continue has become the dominant theme in these countries’ politics, the effort to provoke a conflict between Russia and the West represents a clever though likely doomed strategy to force Western powers to continue subsidizing their newly found allies indefinitely. While in the West the “Russian threat” card is played to delegitimize political opposition and to promote neo-imperial expansion, in Central Europe it has the added purpose of persuading the West to commit financial resources. Ukraine’s Maidan, with its anti-Russian rhetoric and policies represents arguably the most desperate such effort. Poland’s, Romania’s, Latvia’s, Estonia’s efforts may be more subtle but their aim is the same.

Even from this brief survey it is obvious that the various Western factions are at odds with one another, and that the only thing that united them was the perception of Russia’s vulnerability. For not only are the various members of the Western alliance pulling in very different directions, their interests are to a large extent incompatible. The destruction of Syria would naturally lead to a US-French conflict. Ukraine’s integration with the EU would lead to a clash of Polish and German interests. The escalation of West-Russia confrontation would benefit some but hurt others.  Naturally, there are strong factions lobbying for continued confrontation with Russia on the European continent outside of Central Europe, mainly within the United Kingdom and Germany. In the case of the UK, the calculation is a relatively simple one.

UK still is a major contributor to the EU budget, it does not benefit from Central Europe’s economic development except of at least partly qualified newcomers, however, it wants the EU to continue its confrontation with Russia because it would weaken or at least distract both of them, while remaining isolated from the negative consequences due to its island location and the historical position. Germany’s current government also supports the confrontation and the implied financial commitment to Central Europe because Germany benefits from these subsidies which are often spent on German products and services. It is also no accident that Germany was so adamantly opposed to Brexit–Great Britain is one of the main donors into the EU’s budget, and its withdrawal would shift the burden of financing Central Europe on to Berlin. It is countries like France and Italy which are most opposed to the continuation of the sanctions war with Russia because their leaders would prefer to focus on tackling internal problems, and their distance from Central Europe means they do not benefit from subsidizing the region as much as Germany does.

But in the end it was Russia’s political unity, economic resilience, and military prowess that led to these fissures in the West’s earlier unity appear and forced a painful re-examination of reality upon these countries elites. Typically, the British were the first to betray their allies, and the Brexit demonstrated the UK would rather reap the benefits of Russophobic policies than to pay the costs. The election of Donald Trump and the evident change of the US foreign policy vector is also the reflection of the unwillingness to subsidize German, Polish, Ukrainian, and even French ambitions. France is practically guaranteed to change course after the next elections, which means Angela Merkel, assuming she survives her next election, will be able to stem the political tide. The two big losers appear to be Poland and Ukraine whose political elites would risk civil war–even in Poland–if they attempted to restore good relations with Russia. For that reason, we can expect rogue US intelligence community elements collude with Poland and Ukraine in order to make the improvement of relations with Russia more difficult politically.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Political Uses of Russophobia

Barack Obama’s last day of pillaging the earth is on January 20th, 2017. The Obama administration’s era of “hope and change” has come to a close. The last 8 years with Obama has led to more wars of aggression that has caused countless deaths and destruction of numerous sovereign nations. Obama will be gone into the pages of history as warmongering Commander-in Chief just like his predecessor before him, George W. Bush.

Obama kept his promises to his corporate masters not to the people who had high hopes for change in domestic and foreign policies. Obama will be remembered as the president who authorized the destruction of Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, the Ukraine and Honduras (Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was removed from power with help from his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton).

Obama’s drone strikes in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen has caused the deaths of innocent men, women and children because of the “War on Terror.” A report based on secret military documents obtained by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept called ‘The Assassination Complex’ published in late 2015 confirmed the toll on innocent civilians:

The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble”

Obama’s “hope and change” was “smoke and mirrors” as the world became worst under an administration that created more wars and in the process created useful terrorists to overthrow governments including Syria. On September 20th, 2016, Obama’s last speech at the United Nations where he described where the world stood on the global economy, terrorism, censorship and war:

We see it in the headlines every day. Around the world, refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict. Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities. Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has broken down. We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information. Terrorist networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent immigrants and Muslims. Powerful nations contest the constraints placed on them by international law.

This is the paradox that defines our world today. A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife. Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface

From “financial disruptions” to the ongoing wars in the Middle East, Obama claims that the world is now “less violent and more prosperous than ever before.” What planet is President Obama living on? It was the Obama administration that has elevated the war in Syria by supporting the “moderate rebels” comprised of terrorists from Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State and others that have committed numerous atrocities. Obama also mentioned that “many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information” as he himself called for the prosecutions of Chelsea Manning (although he just pardoned Manning), Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers who exposed corruption is just pure hypocrisy. However, President Obama presided over the destruction of Libya caused by America’s first African-American president whose father was originally from Kenya.

Libya, a Once Stable and Prosperous Nation Destroyed by the Obama Administration

Libya was once a stable nation under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The Obama administration ordered the removal of Gaddafi with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was ecstatic when she heard that Gaddafi was overthrown and then killed by the opposition, she said “We came, we saw, he died” with laughter. That was the mindset of Washington under the Democratic Party that managed to destroy one of the wealthiest nations in Northern Africa under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”.

Libya had the highest GDP per capita and reduced the number of people living below the poverty line and had the highest life expectancy in all of Africa. Obama destroyed that. In 2011, the Obama administration with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton ordered the US-NATO coalition to bomb Libya that resulted in more than 30,000 deaths with over 50,000 injured during the civil war that lasted several months. The “humanitarian intervention” (is what the Obama regime proudly called it) has destroyed what Gaddafi had built under his government. Under Gaddafi (although through dictatorial power) having your own home was a natural right. A university education whether at home or abroad was paid for by the government and everyone in Libya had access to universal healthcare. If a Libyan wanted a farm, they were given a farmhouse with land plus live stock and seeds free of charge.

Libya’s own state bank provided loans at 0% interest by law, so whatever you borrowed, you had no worries about repaying the bank with high interest rates as you would normally do in the West. Even electricity was free for the Libyans. However, a civil war began between the Gaddafi government and the anti-Gaddafi opposition forces with links to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It was another case where Washington provided support to terrorists to remove Gaddafi from power by any means. In a 2014 article by The Daily Mail ‘Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report’ based on an independent report by The Citizens Commission on Benghazi from former members of think tanks, the military and the CIA stated the following:

‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’

‘Some look at it as treasonous moves,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research. ‘And our men and women had to follow what many purport as, qualify as treasonous moves’

Washington was complicit in removing Gaddafi from power but also allowed for the weapons in Benghazi to find its way into the hands of the “moderate rebels” in Syria in an attempt to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power. “Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, one of the commission’s sources, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria” according to The Daily Mail report. Hillary Clinton spoke about the civil war in Libya in Paris, France on March 19, 2011. Clinton said the following:

Colonel Qadhafi’s campaign of violence against his own people must stop. The strong votes in the United Nations Security Council underscored this unity. And now the Qadhafi forces face unambiguous terms: a ceasefire must be implemented immediately – that means all attacks against civilians must stop; troops must stop advancing on Benghazi and pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; water, electricity, and gas supplies must be turned on to all areas; humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Yesterday, President Obama said very clearly that if Qadhafi failed to comply with these terms, there would be consequences

And consequences there were. The war on Libya was about its natural resources that includes oil, gas, water (Libya has one of the largest water irrigation systems in the world) gold and silver holdings. Gaddafi’s dream was to free the entire continent of Africa from Western financial dominance by issuing the ‘Gold Dinar’, a gold-backed African currency threatening U.S. dollar hegemony and the Western central banking system. For Washington and their European partners, Gaddafi had to be stopped. The plan to remove Gaddafi was set years before the civil war erupted. Wesley Clark, the retired general and the supreme military commander of NATO admitted in 2007 that a “high ranking” pentagon official told him that Washington planned to “take out seven countries in five years” with Libya on that list.

Obama, the first African-American President of the United States was the man to stop Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Obama’s legacy in Africa will be remembered as one that has destroyed one of the last remaining prosperous and wealthiest nations in Africa. The fact is that there was nothing humanitarian about Obama’s “humanitarian intervention” in Libya and that is something history will teach future generations to come.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama’s Legacy in Africa: How Libya, a Prosperous Nation in Africa was Destroyed by America’s First African-American President

Scoundrels of Patriotism: The Freeing of Chelsea Manning

January 19th, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

‘Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.’ Samuel Johnson, Apr 7, 1775 in Boswell’s Life of Johnson.

He might have had a sharp attack of conscience, but President Barack Obama decided, in the flickering days of his administration, to do good by Chelsea Manning, forever linked to WikiLeaks and the disclosure of US military war logs and 250,000 state cables to the organisation.

On May 17, Manning, labouring under a brutally hefty sentence of 35 years for disclosing classified information, will be released.  Obama’s decision overruled the disapproving Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Much of this was a question of patriotism, that ever confused, and confusing word that remains painfully elusive.

The question of patriotism tends to be one left begging rather than one answered. Everyone has a version of it.  Where the light of patriotism merges with the falling nightfall of treachery, the question becomes even more complex.  A traitor is often a patriot turned inside out; a patriot is often a cretin following regulations.

The Republican response to Manning’s commutation predictably endorsed one element, crude and simple. There was little need to examine motive, intent, or even philosophy behind the actions.  There was even less need to examine the effect of Manning’s disclosures – the national interest remains a fabled construction, impossible to measure or identify.

‘This is outrageous,’ clamoured the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). ‘Chelsea Manning’s treachery put American lives at risk and exposed some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets.’

Statutes and legislation had been breached. A patriot, by definition, is obsequious; a patriot, through action, follows unreflectively, immune to the dangers of wobbly contrariness.  ‘President Obama,’ Ryan went on somewhat nonsensically, ‘now leaves in place a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes.’[1]

The converse is true.  The Obama administration has been the exemplar of prosecuting fervour against whistleblowers.  Under this president’s stewardship, nine cases have made their way through the system, easily doubling the number of all previous presidents combined.  That, Ryan ignores, is the dangerous precedent the Obama administration set, flying very much in the face of his own electoral promises to embrace transparency.

There was also another much neglected fact. Manning was a patriot, almost adolescently so.  He was one of the better scoundrels, if we are mindful about Samuel Johnson’s meditations on the subject.

‘When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of love for my country and a sense of duty to others.’ (Samuel Johnson’s own suggestion of what a patriot is considers one ‘whose ruling passion is the love of his country’.)  Principles, ideas, all dangerous things in the business of reflecting upon the needs of the patria.

Another concept is also salient here: the concept of the bumbling, foolish patriot, addled by sexual consideration, the need for publicity, or a mix of the two. Such a patriot, provided he is in a suitably high position, will be treated with a mix of pity and regret.  In few cases will actual prosecution take place.  Sentences will often be mild.

Obama gave an excellent example of this with his treatment of General James E. Cartwright, former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Cartwright was rather loose with journalists in disclosing details of a top-secret cyber attack operation on Iran’s nuclear program.  He subsequently lied to FBI investigators that he had done so.  Obama’s pardon effectively exempted the general from any prison time or the need for community service.  ‘The President’s decision,’ claimed Cartwright’s lawyer, Gregory Craig, ‘is wise and just and achieves the right result.’[2]

The once feted General David Petraeus, who subsequently migrated to the position of CIA chief, let sex muddle his approach to classified data.  His eager biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell, secured notebooks packed with ‘the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes, and deliberate discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings and… the President.’[3]

When FBI investigators in October 2012 decided to interview the careless general, they faced a denial that the exchange had ever taken place.  But Petraeus was set, not for the stockade or a lengthy period of incarceration: he had been a fool for his country, rather than an ill-intentioned traitor.  As a patriotic scoundrel of a lowly calibre, with book-heavy credentials, many in Congress thought he deserved better.

In the scheme of things, it is probably best to stay faithful to friends and fashioned principles than brutally abstract states, with policies written in water in the name of the national interest.  To interpret, in other words, that national interest, is to give form to a shape shifting aberration. How best to be a scoundrel in patriotism remains a near impossible question to answer. Manning, at least, came closer to a better response than most.

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

Note

 [1] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/paul-ryan-manning-commutation-outrageous/article/2612117

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-pardons-james-cartwright-general-who-lied-to-fbi-in-leak-case.html?_r=0

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Scoundrels of Patriotism: The Freeing of Chelsea Manning

Here is another image (copyright: Keren Manor) that conveys the situation of Palestinians – these ones Palestinian citizens of Israel – more completely than any words.

The man on the ground is Ayman Odeh, a member of the Israeli parliament, the head of the Joint List, the third largest party in the parliament, and the highest-ranking Palestinian politician in Israel.

Israeli police have just shot him with rubber-tipped bullets, not once but twice – including to the face.

 

Odeh is one of the least confrontational politicians among Israel’s large Palestinian minority, a fifth of the population. His message is consistently one of peace and amity between all Israeli citizens, whether Jews or Palestinians. That does not seem to have protected him from the shoot-first, ask-questions-later approach of Israel’s security forces towards Palestinians.

This image should be as shocking as seeing a bloodied Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn crawling in the dirt, watched impassively by US or UK police.

Context is important too. Odeh had joined the 1,000 inhabitants of Umm al-Hiran – all Palestinian citizens of Israel – early this morning in a demonstration to stop demolition crews destroying the 150 homes of their village in the Negev. Israel allowed these families to move to the area of Umm al-Hiran in the 1950s after it had driven them from their original, and much more substantial, lands during the Nakba. The pretext then for expelling them was that Israel needed their ancestral lands for an exclusively Jewish kibbutz.

That all occurred during a military government that ruled over Israel’s Palestinians for nearly two decades. More than 60 years later, exactly the same thing is happening again, but this time in front of the cameras. Umm al-Hiran is being destroyed so that an exclusively Jewish community, with the same name of Hiran, can be built over these families’ homes. Israel never issued Umm al-Hiran with a master plan, so now it can be declared illegal and its inhabitants called “squatters” and “trespassers”. The families are being ethnically cleansed a second time – not during hostilities or in a time of war, but by their own state in a time of peace.

They are far from alone. Thousands of other families, and their villages, face the same fate.

The truth is nothing has changed from the 1950s. Israel still behaves as if it is ruling militarily over its Palestinian citizens. It is still a Jewish state, one that privileges the rights of Jewish citizens over Palestinian “citizens”. It still treats all non-Jews as a threat, as an enemy.

Israel is not a normal kind of state. It is an ethnocracy, and one driven by an ideological variation of the ethnic nationalisms that tore apart Europe a century ago.

Odeh is a leader who campaigns for peace and equality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens. Today, he got his answer. His place is bruised, bloodied and bowed, crawling through the dirt.  This is the language of a Jewish state.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Violence: The Language of a Jewish State. Palestinian Citizens of Israel

The West’s criminal siege of Deir Ezzor, Syria is a microcosm of the West’s on-going criminal regime-change/dirty war against Syria.

All of the ingredients of international criminality are in plain view in Deir Ezzor, and a result of pre-planned deliberations:

  • A 2012 Defence Intelligence Agency document stated clearly that, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME …
  • NATO and its terrorists destroyed bridges and electrical  infrastructure serving the area, as a form of “destabilization.”
  • On September 17, 2016, Coalition forces murdered over one hundred Syrian Arab Army soldiers in Thardah Mountain, Deir Ezzor in an operation that allowed ISIS to capture the strategic position.
  • NATO coalition forces willfully enabled the passage of ISIS terrorists from Mosul, Iraq to Deir Ezzor , Syria

In an earlier article, I noted that,

The Geneva Convention is absolutely clear. In a 1979 protocol relating to the ‘protection of victims of international armed conflicts,’ Article 54, it states: ‘It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.’

The West has used all of these “destabilization” tactics against the sovereign, non-belligerent, democratic, country of Syria – in support of its terrorist proxies — as standard, war criminal policy. In Canada Supports War Crimes: Endorses Terrorism and Destabilization in Syria,” I noted that,for years now, the West and its allies have been criminally attacking bridgesschoolshospitalsthermal plantsfactorieswater plantspublic utilities, civilians, and soldiers.”

Please embed Eva Bartlett video here:

So, there are close similarities between what is currently happening at Deir Ezzor, and what has been happening in Syria for almost six years now:

  • Just as Deir Ezzor is surrounded and besieged by ISIS proxy terrorists, so too is Syria besieged by terrorist- supporting countries, including Canada, that are imposing illegal sanctions on the country and its people.
  • Just as the ISIS proxy terrorists are directly targeting civilians in Deir Ezzor, so too have Coalition countries have been targeting civilians since the beginning.
  • Just as the ISIS proxy terrorists seek to impose their Wahhabi ideology and their barbarism on Deir Ezzor, so too have the coalition and their terrorist proxies been seeking – and too often achieving — the same results throughout Syria since the war began.
  • Just as the West is directly supporting its ISIS terror proxies that are currently besieging Deir Ezzor, so too have they been directly supporting all of the terrorists infesting Syria — for almost six years now.

Expanded even further, the NATO terror tactics currently assaulting Syria and Syrians were also employed against Libya, which is now a failed state, and are still being used against Iraq.

The well-documented imperial patterns are there for the world to see.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Criminal Regime Change / Dirty War On Syria, The Siege of Deir Ezzor by ISIS Proxy Terrorists

La integración latinoamericana en la encrucijada global

January 19th, 2017 by Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

Las iniciativas de integración regional, esas que fueron impulsadas en su momento por José Martí y, más recientemente, por el fallecido comandante Hugo Chávez, esas orientadas a satisfacer las necesidades de los pueblos, se encuentran hoy en un serio predicamento. Las grietas de la integración regional se volvieron más evidentes en medio de la agudización de la crisis económica global, más todavía luego de que las tendencias recesivas de la economía mundial profundizaron, desde el año 2011, la caída de los precios de las materias primas (‘commodities’), golpeando sobre todo a los países sudamericanos.

La etapa de auge de los ‘commodities’ alcanzó su límite y no volverá en el corto plazo. Lo mismo sucede con la demanda boyante a la que China nos tenía acostumbrados: el gigante asiático ahora está en camino de transitar hacia un patrón de acumulación sustentado cada vez menos en las inversiones masivas y el comercio exterior, y cada vez más en el mercado interno. Por lo anterior, las iniciativas de integración regional corren el riesgo de colapsar en América Latina, si no surge un plan de reformulación.

Es urgente que los Gobiernos nacionales apuesten de una vez por todas por llevar adelante la integración productiva en nuestra región, hay que construir cadenas de valor horizontales tomando en cuenta la complementariedad económica entre países. A la vez que debemos proteger los logros obtenidos durante la primera década del nuevo milenio, hay que repensar también nuestros vínculos internacionales, en especial con aquellos socios comerciales que registran altas tasas de expansión económica. Enfoquemos nuestras energías en lograr metas de largo aliento, transformadoras, emancipadoras.

Es urgente que los países latinoamericanos diseñen, en bloque, una estrategia de relanzamiento de sus relaciones con la región asiática. Durante su más reciente gira por varios países de América Latina, el presidente de China, Xi Jinping, reiteró su compromiso de apoyar el proceso de industrialización de nuestra región. Justamente por esos días, las autoridades chinas publicaron una segunda versión del Libro Blanco, un documento que actualiza las directrices básicas que, desde la perspectiva del Gobierno chino, van a dar fundamento a las relaciones establecidas con la región latinoamericana a lo largo de los próximos años.

En este nuevo documento Pekín pone de relieve, entre otros elementos, la necesidad de incentivar la diversificación productiva de América Latina a fin de construir una relación estratégica que genere dividendos para ambas partes. En paralelo, el Libro Blanco admite la urgencia de apuntalar el desarrollo de seis sectores clave para la región: energía y recursos naturales, obras de infraestructura, agricultura, manufactura, innovación científica y técnica, y tecnologías de la información.

Frente a ello, los países latinoamericanos requieren tomar la iniciativa cuanto antes, los beneficios no vendrán solamente por obra de la buena voluntad de los chinos. En este sentido, consideramos que es fundamental seguir construyendo nuevos espacios de cooperación con China en el seno de la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC). Según declaraciones del mandatario Xi Jinping en el marco de la Reunión Ministerial del Foro entre China y CELAC, fijó el objetivo que para el final de la próxima década el comercio entre América Latina y China alcanzará los 500,000 millones de dólares; mientras que los flujos de inversión de Pekín hacia nuestra región conseguirán superar los 250,000 millones de dólares. A nuestro entender, debemos insistir en la necesidad de dotar de más recursos el fondo especial creado por China para el apoyo de pequeñas y medianas empresas productivas; de lo contrario, nuestros países seguirán profundizando su carácter dependiente en la economía mundial.

No es menos importante que nuestros países permanezcan muy alertas frente a iniciativas de integración que obedecen más a los dictados de la agenda imperial de Estados Unidos, que a un esfuerzo auténtico por consolidar la unidad de toda América Latina. En medio de un panorama económico caracterizado por recesiones agudas, se responsabiliza a los aparatos burocráticos del estancamiento de los procesos de integración regional tradicionales y, con ello, se busca dar paso a otras iniciativas aparentemente de vanguardia que se sustentan bajo una lógica eminentemente empresarial. Si bien el intento de poner en marcha el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA) consiguió ser derrotado en 2005 en Mar del Plata, Argentina, el Gobierno de Estados Unidos se ha venido abriendo paso desde entonces a través de la firma de tratados de libre comercio bilaterales e impulsando los mega acuerdos.

Bajo esta misma perspectiva, la Alianza del Pacífico, bloque comercial creado en 2011 y conformada por Chile, Colombia, Perú y México, evidencia este nuevo reposicionamiento de Estados Unidos en nuestra región. No es casualidad que todos los países de la Alianza del Pacífico tengan firmados acuerdos de libre comercio con Washington. En realidad, la Alianza no busca profundizar los vínculos entre América Latina y los países del Pacífico, sino servir de ‘caballo de Troya’ de las corporaciones estadounidenses para luego, lanzar un mega acuerdo de libre comercio que incluya a toda América Latina. Una vez alcanzado este objetivo, es previsible que Washington busque pasar de ser un país observador, a convertirse en un miembro pleno de la Alianza.

De allí se desprende la insistencia tanto de Mauricio Macri, presidente de Argentina, como de Michelle Bachelet, presidenta de Chile, de establecer puntos de convergencia entre la Alianza del Pacífico con el Mercado Común del Sur (MERCOSUR, integrado por Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay, Uruguay y Venezuela; Bolivia se encuentra en proceso de adhesión). De ahí también la ofensiva encabezada en buena medida por Michel Temer (actual mandatario de Brasil tras la destitución parlamentaria de la presidenta Dilma Rousseff) en contra de Venezuela para que abandone cuanto antes el MERCOSUR, a la que por desgracia se han sumado también los Gobiernos de Paraguay, de Argentina y de Uruguay. De lo que se trata, al final de cuentas, es de degradar el MERCOSUR de una unión aduanera con perspectiva estratégica, a un simple acuerdo de libre comercio a disposición de los grandes grupos corporativos.

En conclusión, la integración de los países de América Latina atraviesa por un periodo bastante convulso, tanto en términos económicos como políticos. Los pequeños logros alcanzados por los Gobiernos progresistas (creación de la Unión de Naciones Sudamericanos, entre otros) ahora están en la picota. La ofensiva conservadora actualmente en curso en América del Sur y la debacle de la mayoría de las economías latinoamericanas, avivó la rivalidad y el conflicto entre países que promueven proyectos de integración con objetivos diametralmente opuestos. Si los movimientos en resistencia no logran colocar el interés colectivo por encima de la restauración conservadora promovida por el capital trasnacional, la integración de los pueblos latinoamericanos jamás se concretará.

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez: Economista egresado de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), corresponsal del Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización (Global Research) en América Latina. 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La integración latinoamericana en la encrucijada global

No a la guerra, No a la OTAN

January 19th, 2017 by Communiqué of the National Coordination No War, No Nato

El Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización (Global Research) llama la atención de sus lectores con respecto a la siguiente declaración:

La Coordinación Nacional del Comité “No a la Guerra, No a la OTAN” considera que la manifestación a realizarse en Europa el 21 de enero, en contra del recién elegido presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, es equivalente a prestar apoyo al gobierno de Obama, quien ha colocado a Europa en la primera línea de ataque de la OTAN, incluida la cuestión nuclear, en contra de Rusia.

Trump es acusado de usurpar el puesto que había sido destinado originalmente a Hillary Clinton, gracias a una operación presuntamente orquestada por el presidente de Rusia, [Vladímir] Putin. La «evidencia» ha sido proporcionada por la CIA, una organización con bastante experiencia en el campo de la infiltración y los golpes de Estado.

Los estrategas neoconservadores, quienes están detrás de esta campaña, pretenden de este modo evitar un posible giro en las relaciones entre Estados Unidos y Rusia que [dicho sea de paso], la administración Obama ha llevado a un nivel similar al de la Guerra Fría.

La relajación de las tensiones con Rusia es un foco de alarma, tanto para los altos mandos de la OTAN, que han aumentado su importancia a causa de la nueva Guerra Fría, como para los grupos en el poder en los países del Este (en particular, Polonia, Ucrania y los países bálticos) – que están apuntalando la hostilidad cara a cara con Rusia para reforzar el ejército y el apoyo económico que reciben de la OTAN y la Unión Europea.

Esto quedó confirmado por el hecho de que el 12 de enero, en virtud de una decisión tomada por la administración de Obama, una brigada blindada estadounidense llegó a Polonia para fortalecer la alianza de fuerzas alrededor de la OTAN, bajo mando estadounidense. Estas [fuerzas de la OTAN] incluyen tropas de Italia, Europa del Este, llevan a cabo una escalada militar cada vez más peligrosa en contra de Rusia.

En este contexto, las manifestaciones contra Trump [programadas para el] 21 de enero forman parte de una estrategia de tipo militar.

A contrapelo de lo anterior, debemos participar en una movilización enfocada a:

  • Liberar a nuestros países a partir de del sometimiento de Estados Unidos, independientemente de quien sea su presidente;
  • Salir de la OTAN;
  • Eliminar las armas nucleares estadounidenses de nuestros territorios nacionales.
Artículo original en inglés:
usa-nato
No War, No NATO, publicado el 16 de enero de 2017.

Traducido por Ariel Noyola Rodríguez para el Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización (Global Research).

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on No a la guerra, No a la OTAN

Mientras miles de personas en diversas partes del mundo aplauden la próxima excarcelación del luchador independentista puertorriqueño Oscar López Rivera, muchas familias estadounidenses también celebran hoy la conmutación de las penas de cientos de prisioneros.

Los medios de prensa norteamericanos y de otras partes del mundo difundieron ayer la noticia de que el presidente Barack Obama otorgó la conmutación de sentencia al reconocido prisionero boricua, quien permanece encarcelado en territorio estadounidense desde 1981.

Similar clemencia ejecutiva recibió la exanalista de inteligencia Chelsea Manning, apresada en 2010 por filtrar al portal digital WikiLeaks miles de documentos secretos sobre las guerras de Iraq y Afganistán.

Esos nombres, junto a los de otras figuras conocidas por la opinión pública como el del general James Cartwright y el beisbolista Willie McCovey, se incluyen en la lista de mil 385 conmutaciones y 212 indultos concedidos por el presidente saliente durante sus dos mandatos.

Tales cifras, según difundió la Casa Blanca, son las más altas en la historia del país y superan al total de clemencias ejecutivas otorgadas por los 12 jefes de Estado anteriores.

En un comunicado publicado este martes, la Presidencia dio a conocer que solo en esa jornada se beneficiaron con la conmutación 209 prisioneros y otros 64 recibieron perdón por los delitos cometidos.

Diversos medios de prensa señalan que en los dos días restantes antes de que el dignatario deje la Casa Blanca podrían anunciarse nuevas acciones de este tipo.

Pero más allá de mostrarse como cifras récord de la administración Obama, esos datos apuntan a la necesidad expresada por el propio mandatario de reformar el sistema de justicia penal en Estados Unidos.

Números oficiales indican que la nación norteña tiene 2,3 millones de prisioneros, lo cual representa el 25 por ciento de los encarcelados a nivel mundial pese a que el país solo representa el cinco por ciento de la población del planeta.

Del total de reos, el 60 por ciento son latinos o afronorteamericanos, lo que llevó al jefe de Estado a manifestar que el sistema de justicia penal permanece particularmente sesgado por motivos de raza y riqueza, y tiene un impacto adverso en las familias y comunidades.

Muchos de los indultos y conmutaciones otorgados por el mandatario son parte de una iniciativa lanzada en 2014 para liberar a personas que cumplen duras sentencias relacionadas con delitos de drogas no violentos, las cuales fueron impuestas en décadas pasadas.

En la actualidad, la mayoría de la población estadounidense tiene una percepción diferente sobre el tema y estima que el consumo de estupefacientes debe ser abordado como un problema de salud pública más que como una cuestión meramente relacionada con la ley.

De acuerdo con el diario The Washington Post, con el tiempo Obama se convirtió en una voz cada vez más fuerte contra la epidemia de encarcelamiento que afecta desproporcionadamente a las personas de color y la larga historia de injusticia en el sistema penal.

Sin embargo, diversos activistas se han quejado del lento y engorroso proceso de clemencia, al considerar que el mandatario levantó esperanzas en prisioneros que cumplen con los criterios establecidos por el Departamento de Justicia, pero solo una pequeña parte de ellos se ha beneficiado.

A riesgo de sonar ingratos decimos ‘gracias, pero, por favor, dese prisa’, expresó Kevin Ring, vicepresidente de una organización dedicada a combatir las penas excesivas.

De acuerdo con King, hay miles de personas que recibieron sentencias anticuadas y extremas y todas ellas merecen que sus peticiones de conmutación sean consideradas.

Al mismo tiempo, la Casa Blanca reconoció que la clemencia es un recurso extraordinario, concedido solo a los individuos que hayan demostrado estar dispuestos a hacer uso de su segunda oportunidad.

Por ello, la Presidencia considera que únicamente el Congreso puede lograr las reformas amplias necesarias para asegurar a largo plazo que el sistema funcione de manera más justa y efectiva al servicio de la seguridad pública.

Según el Post, mientras el presidente electo, Donald Trump, se prepara para asumir el cargo, los funcionarios de Justicia temen que su administración desmantele la iniciativa de clemencia de Obama, de ahí la cifra de conmutados esta semana.

Otros diarios indican que el multimillonario republicano ha prometido una plataforma dura contra el crimen y es poco probable que continúe las clemencias a partir del viernes próximo, pues se mostró abiertamente crítico con la postura de su predecesor en esa área.

Ello podría empeorar la situación de un sistema de justicia penal que, según la institución no partidista Centro Brennan, tiene tentáculos en casi todos los subgrupos demográficos del país y enormes costos económicos y sociales.

Martha Andrés

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Conmutaciones, indultos y los problemas del sistema penal en EE.UU.

Límites y contradicciones de las propuestas comerciales de Trump

January 19th, 2017 by Consuelo Silva Flores

Introducción

La campaña presidencial de 2016 provocó que Estados Unidos despertara de su mito sobre el libre comercio: éste nunca conduce a un comercio justo y equilibrado, e incluso puede actuar en contra de los trabajadores de su propio país cuando entra en proceso de descomposición. En rigor, en los últimos ocho años, los demócratas abandonaron a los trabajadores (a quienes antes pretendía representar) al ‘realismo’ del libre comercio. Tras el estallido de la crisis global conocieron el desempleo masivo, las labores de servicios inseguros y mal pagados, la pérdida generalizada del poder adquisitivo; sumados a la privatización de los sistemas de jubilación y atención médica. No debe sorprender, entonces, que la clase obrera blanca, sobre todo en la región de los grandes lagos (de Pennsylvania a Wisconsin), abandonara a los demócratas y votara contra el establishment político y Hillary Clinton.

Pero esta campaña presidencial puso también en evidencia que el ‘universalismo’ del libre comercio no era tal. El rápido crecimiento de China como una fuerza importante en la economía global está obligando a reconsiderar si el libre comercio sigue siendo una política que genera prosperidad a los países avanzados. La perspectiva de que China pueda ser una gran potencia económica está alimentando una paranoia generalizada en Estados Unidos. En términos más amplios, el temor es que no sólo estaría en cuestión la supremacía del imperio norteamericano, sino que además algunas naciones en desarrollo lideradas por China, especialmente las asiáticas, terminen por desplazar a las economías avanzadas de su estatus privilegiado.

Es cierto que el presidente electo, Donald Trump, busca la perpetuación del imperio económico y comercial estadounidense, pero lo hace sobre la base de culpar con dureza al comercio en general y a los “desastrosos” acuerdos comerciales en particular, de muchos de los problemas salariales y de empleo de los Estados Unidos. Por ello exige una “nivelación del campo de juego” en el ámbito del comercio global, proponiendo bloquear la firma de la Asociación Transpacífica (TPP), renegociar los acuerdos comerciales existentes, e incluso retirarse de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC).

Por supuesto, el tiempo dirá si tales promesas pasan a ser simplemente retóricas propias de la campaña o se traducirán realmente en cambios de política comercial interna y externa. Este breve trabajo se propone analizar críticamente los alcances y contradicciones de los pilares de estas promesas, que sorprenden por su coherencia.

Los dilemas del TPP después de su rechazo

Donald Trump confirmó el 21 de noviembre pasado que se retiraría de la Asociación Transpacífica (TPP, por su sigla en inglés) el primer día de su administración. La oposición al TPP fue un tema central de su campaña, llamándolo un “desastre” y se comprometió a abolirlo cuando asumiera el cargo. En la práctica, esto significa que no presentará al Congreso la legislación de implementación necesaria para la participación estadounidense en el acuerdo.

El designado secretario de Comercio, Wilbur Ross, cita dos razones específicas por las cuales el TPP es un mal negocio: los funcionarios estadounidenses entregaron demasiadas concesiones y las reglas de origen para automóviles permitirían a China y a empresas de diversos países aprovechar el acceso al mercado estadounidense.

Sorprendentemente, estos planteamientos encuentran respaldo en estudios realizados por el keynesiano Robert E. Scott, citados por el propio Trump: “China tiene un gran superávit comercial con los países del TPP y los términos cruciales del acuerdo (específicamente los débiles requisitos de reglas de origen) proporcionaría una garantía de puerta trasera para China y otros países no – TTP con acceso libre de impuestos a EE.UU. y otros mercados del TPP. Esto sería especialmente importante para automóviles y piezas de automóviles, así como para otros productos clave. Los exportadores del TPP no se apartarán de sus proveedores chinos sólo porque firmaron un acuerdo comercial con Estados Unidos”. (Robert E. Scott, november 7, 2016. Economic Policy Institute)[1].

Como se ve, si bien China no era parte del TPP, su supuesta amenaza velada a través de las “reglas de origen”, lo convierte en el blanco de las críticas de algunos keynesianos y de Trump. El verdadero dato que importa, es considerar que el creciente déficit estadounidense con China entre 2001 y 2013 eliminó o desplazó 3.2 millones de empleos en el país y ha sido uno de los principales contribuyentes a la crisis del empleo industrial en los últimos 15 años. (Kimball y Scott 2014)[2]. Wal-Mart es el mayor minorista del mundo, siendo un conducto clave de las importaciones chinas en el mercado estadounidense[3]. Desde que China ingresó a la OMC en el año 2001, “casi 80% del crecimiento del déficit comercial de EE.UU. en bienes puede atribuirse a la creciente disparidad con China”[4].

Esas visiones desconocen el hecho que el mismo Obama había tomado decisiones contra China que violaban los principios del libre comercio. En su tan citado discurso acerca del TPP, señalaba: “… no podemos permitir que países como China escriban las reglas de la economía global. Debemos escribir nosotros esas reglas”. Con ello, Obama estaba reconociendo que “los Estados Unidos excluyeron deliberadamente a China de las negociaciones, lo que confirma que, como muchos analistas occidentales señalaron, el verdadero objetivo del TPP no era liberalizar el comercio, sino formar un bloque bajo el dominio estadounidense contra China”[5].

De esta manera, “el TPP (y el TTIP) diferían de manera decisiva de los acuerdos comerciales anteriores en el marco del GATT y de la creación de la OMC. Su verdadero contenido era el proteccionismo regionalizado para los Estados Unidos bajo las simples palabras de apoyo al libre comercio”[6]. Las pretensiones de Obama de escribir las reglas de la economía global quedaron truncadas con la elección de Trump.

TPP, siglas del Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica

El escenario global es todavía más complicado para la gran potencia, ya que habría que agregar que China viene estableciendo lazos comerciales y diplomáticos más profundos que los Estados Unidos con casi todos los países asiáticos del acuerdo transpacífico[7]. Estas naciones tienen economías que exhiben las tasas de más rápido crecimiento a nivel global en los últimos ocho años (China, India, Vietnam, ASEAN en su conjunto, etc.), a diferencia de Japón y Estados Unidos.

Por cierto, en el escenario anterior, el TPP fue blanco de otras numerosas críticas aparte de las indicadas por Ross y Scott, como el secretismo de las negociaciones y el lobby de las corporaciones, la acusación de manipulación de divisas y las controvertidas disposiciones de solución de controversias entre inversionistas-Estado, entre otras.

Algunos economistas del Peterson Institute for International Economics, tomando en cuenta que muchos partidarios de los demócratas Hillary Clinton y Bernie Sanders también se opusieron al TPP, buscan ahora apoyo en los líderes republicanos en el Congreso arguyendo que Trump debería renegociar el acuerdo. No obstante, hasta la fecha no hay indicación alguna de que la Administración Trump considere la posibilidad de revisar el tratado. El mismo Ross calificó al TPP como un “tratado estúpido” y en su lugar dice favorecer las negociaciones bilaterales donde los funcionarios estadounidenses puedan obtener más concesiones de los socios comerciales.

Ante la resignación provocada por el eventual retiro del TPP y la imposibilidad de su revisión, la discusión se ha trasladado a analizar la continua reducción del liderazgo de Estados Unidos a nivel global. Marcus Noland (2016) es enfático en aseverar al respecto que “la falta de ratificación del TPP le cedería a China el liderazgo en el establecimiento de normas comerciales en la región crítica de Asia y el Pacífico”[8]. Esto adquiere mayor sentido cuando se hacen explícitos los vínculos comerciales ya señalados de China con los países asiáticos miembros del TPP, sino igualmente al considerar que este país es sobre todo una fuerza importante detrás de un sistema de coproducción (cadenas de valor) más grande de Asia oriental.

En el mismo sentido, el Grupo de Trabajo Republicano sobre Seguridad Nacional de la Cámara de Representantes publicó un informe el 9 de junio en que señalaba: “Al retrasar el desarrollo de acuerdos comerciales fuertes, damos tiempo a nuestros competidores para socavar el sistema mundial de comercio que los Estados Unidos ha trabajado tan duro para construirlo. Países como China y Rusia están creando sus propios sistemas cerrados de comercio”[9].

La ascendencia china en la formulación de políticas comerciales probablemente iría acompañada de una mayor influencia en otras áreas donde se “beneficiaría a costa de Estados Unidos debido a otros componentes no económicos de la plataforma de Trump, como la demonización de los musulmanes y el consiguiente deterioro de las relaciones con los países de mayoría musulmana en Oriente Medio, África y Asia”[10]. Asimismo, China está impulsando iniciativas que van más allá del enfoque de Estados Unidos en el GATT y la OMC, como son el “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) y el “Banco Asiático de Inversión en la Infraestructura” (AIIB) que se proponen sentar las bases para el desarrollo práctico del comercio, en particular mediante la inversión en infraestructura.

En definitiva, China está haciendo un mayor uso de la división/socialización internacional del trabajo que otras grandes economías. El comercio de bienes y servicios de China en 2015 fue del 41,2% del PIB del país, comparado con el 36,8% en Japón y el 28,1% en Estados Unidos. Dado el éxito de su política de “apertura”, corresponde a su interés nacional impulsar las propuestas para un comercio más libre y los TLC con las particularidades chinas.

 Los cuestionamientos al comercio internacional y a los tratados de libre comercio

Los documentos de la campaña de Trump criticaban no sólo la firma del TPP, sino además a los malos tratados comerciales existentes como el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) y el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre Corea y los Estados Unidos (KORUS). Asimismo, amenazó reiteradamente con elevar los aranceles a los productos importados de China y México, y retirarse de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC). Todos ellos habrían contribuido al déficit comercial y a muchos de los problemas salariales y de empleo de los Estados Unidos.

Primeramente, en varias ocasiones -incluyendo en su discurso sobre la política comercial del 28 de junio de 2016- Trump reconoció que su política podría requerir la derogación del TLCAN. A su vez, uno de los asesores de política exterior de Trump, Walid Phares, indicó que si Trump es elegido quisiera “volver a fojas cero” en todos los TLC existentes. México es el segundo mercado más importante de las exportaciones estadounidenses y el tercer socio comercial de Estados Unidos. Esta se considera la relación bilateral colindante más importante a nivel global.

Ante la creciente deslocalización que vive la industria automotriz norteamericana, las firmas con plantas en México buscan mecanismos para producir en otros países ante la mayor integración de las cadenas globales, mientras el “sindicato United Auto Workers ha defendido las posturas de Trump” puesto que señalan que pactos como el TLCAN “han alentado durante décadas la tercerización de la fabricación de miles de partes como volantes, asientos y motores”[11].

También, el mismo Trump ha desacreditado a KORUS (que se convirtió en ley en 2012 después de las negociaciones de los gobiernos de Bush y Obama) como un “acuerdo para matar trabajo” que destruyó 100.000 empleos en Estados Unidos. En caso de revisarse este acuerdo, los aranceles estadounidenses y coreanos retrocederían a niveles previamente negociados bajo las disposiciones de la Nación más Favorecida (NMF) de las respectivas leyes comerciales[12].

Por otra parte, Trump ha reiterado su plan de imponer un arancel del 35 por ciento a México muchas veces, a partir del 16 de junio de 2015, cuando anunció su candidatura. Al mismo tiempo, ha abogado por un arancel del 45 por ciento sobre los bienes chinos, básicamente como una acción compensatoria contra supuestos manejos de su divisa. En su sitio web se compromete a nombrar a China como manipulador de monedas en su primer día de gobierno. Uno de sus asesores, el economista Peter Navarro, describió la cifra del 45 por ciento como “perfectamente calculada”[13].

A lo anterior, Trump ha sumado la posible retirada de Estados Unidos de la OMC si Washington no logra renegociar algunas normas de la OMC, en particular en lo referente a tarifas aduaneras. Es poco probable que esto ocurra, y en caso de suceder, conduciría a la desarticulación de todas las negociaciones arancelarias y a la reversión de las tarifas al nivel NMF de cualquier acuerdo preexistente, posiblemente hasta los índices de Smoot-Hawley vigentes en 1934. A fines de noviembre, el director general de OMC, Roberto Azevedo, pidió no especular sobre tales advertencias, agregando que “no tengo ningún indicio de nadie de que pudiera ser así”.

El comercio internacional -o más precisamente los déficits comerciales- se ha convertido en la principal causa del declive de la manufactura norteamericana, lo que a su vez habría tenido serias consecuencias sobre los salarios y empleo de los trabajadores. Sin embargo, conviene precisar que durante el actual ciclo de recuperación -entre 2010 y el tercer trimestre de 2016- de la economía norteamericana, el déficit comercial de bienes y servicios promedió 3% del Producto Interno Bruto, frente a 5,1% en la expansión de 2002-2007. El déficit sólo de mercancías citado por Trump ha caído de 5,6% del PIB durante la expansión de 2002-2007 a 4,2% en la actual recuperación.

Los pronunciamientos de Trump en la campaña sugieren que la reducción de los déficits comerciales “bilaterales” de Estados Unidos podría ser su principal preocupación. Esto será difícil de lograr dado el principio de “reciprocidad”, es decir, que los nuevos acuerdos comerciales deben aumentar previsiblemente las exportaciones tanto como aumenten las importaciones. Además, el análisis de la mayoría de las corrientes teóricas de la economía sostiene que la reducción de un déficit comercial bilateral no necesariamente se traduce en una reducción del déficit comercial total. Tal vez el déficit comercial global de Estados Unidos no sea el objetivo primordial de Trump, ya que el estímulo fiscal inherente a los recortes de impuestos y al gasto en infraestructura probablemente ampliarán dicho déficit.

En opinión de Robert E. Scott, “la globalización y los acuerdos de comercio e inversión han abierto el comercio con los países que se dedican a la manipulación monetaria y otras prácticas comerciales desleales para hacer que sus bienes sean menos costosos y menoscaben la competitividad de los productos estadounidenses”[14]. El problema central no estaría en el déficit comercial en sí mismo, al que habría que enfrentar con mayores aranceles como cree Trump, sino en la manipulación de la moneda.

En consecuencia, “la causa más importante de los crecientes déficits comerciales de Estados Unidos es la manipulación de la moneda y la desalineación de China y de otros 20 países, principalmente en Asia. Los gobiernos de estos países han comprado billones de dólares de activos extranjeros en los últimos 15 años, lo que ha hecho subir el precio del dólar estadounidense”. Esto, a su vez, “ha aumentado el precio de las exportaciones estadounidenses en todos los países en los que compiten con los manipuladores de divisas, y actúa como un subsidio a todas las exportaciones de nuestros competidores. Los crecientes déficits comerciales de Estados Unidos son responsables en gran medida de la pérdida de 5 millones de empleos manufactureros en los Estados Unidos entre enero de 2000 y diciembre de 2014[15].

Más allá que la manipulación de divisas sea la causa de fondo de los crecientes déficits comerciales de Estados Unidos, cuestión que discutiremos más adelante, importa destacar que la balanza comercial no puede ser la base del análisis del empleo[16].

De comenzarse por las propias relaciones comerciales, habría que decir que “a diferencia de los días en que Smoot-Hawley copatrocinaron la infame Ley de Aranceles de 1930, cuando las importaciones eran principalmente productos finales vendidos a los consumidores, la mitad de las importaciones de EE.UU. son hoy productos intermedios vendidos a las empresas, dice Ikenson. Las importaciones baratas ayudan a que sea rentable para éstas operar y dar trabajo a los estadounidenses”[17].

Frente a las amenazas proteccionistas de Trump, habría una profunda transformación en la economía mundial

Colocar el foco sólo en los flujos comerciales significa soslayar las relaciones sociales como base explicativa de los salarios y del desempleo. Por ejemplo, Lawrence Mishel ofrece algunas muestras: “Trump ha ignorado hasta ahora las muchas otras políticas intencionales que las empresas y el 1 por ciento superior han presionado para suprimir los salarios en las últimas cuatro décadas”. A través de la Reserva Federal se han implementado políticas que eran antagónicas al crecimiento del empleo y de los sueldos, pero favorables al sector financiero y a los tenedores de bonos. “El desempleo excesivo conduce a un menor crecimiento de los salarios, especialmente de los trabajadores con salarios bajos y medios”. Puede agregarse la austeridad gubernamental en los niveles federal y estatal que ha impedido la recuperación y el crecimiento de los sueldos. También hay un retroceso en la negociación colectiva, siendo la razón más importante en la contracción salarial (sobre todo de la de clase media). “Mientras tanto, el salario mínimo está ahora más del 25 por ciento por debajo de su nivel de 1968, a pesar de que la productividad desde entonces se ha más que duplicado”[18].

Por último, cabe señalar que de aplicarse las propuestas proteccionistas de Trump, provocarán represalias por parte de los socios comerciales de Estados Unidos, desencadenando una guerra comercial. Las relaciones comerciales se han visto tensadas, sobre todo entre Estados Unidos y China, por las reiteradas amenazas de Trump de establecer aranceles de hasta 45% a los productos hechos en el gigante asiático, como ya dijimos. Por su parte, el gobierno chino advirtió que si Washington toma alguna medida en su contra, ellos responderán.

En un informe publicado a principios de 2017, Ethan Harris, economista global de Bank of America Merrill Lynch, afirmó que “el mayor riesgo para la economía global este año es una intensificación de las tensiones comerciales entre EE.UU. y China”, agregando que “ambos países son cruciales para las cadenas globales de suministro y los mercados globales, por lo que una gran batalla sería un gran juego de saldo negativo”[19]. En verdad, esta guerra está en marcha, aunque de manera soterrada, con las sanciones antidumping aplicadas por Estados Unidos a 102 productos de China.

En cualquier caso, los efectos no se limitarían sólo a estas dos potencias y en caso de ampliarse el conflicto, pondría a la economía estadounidense en recesión y costaría a millones de estadounidenses sus empleos, según proyecciones hechas por el Peterson Institute for International Economics.

El libre comercio y la actual amenaza china

La propuesta comercial de Donald Trump representa ciertamente una ruptura con el consenso de las clases dominantes posterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Este consenso en torno al libre comercio perduró en los últimos 50 años mientras la economía estadounidense experimentaba un enorme aumento de su producto interno y de la participación del comercio en éste, pero comenzó a resquebrajarse desde la Ronda de Doha de la OMC iniciada en 2001 (negativa a retirar los subsidios a los productores de algodón estadounidenses, entre otros), pasando por la promoción de acuerdos de libre comercio “bilaterales”, hasta el TPP que evidenciaba con claridad sus afanes “proteccionistas” supra regionales que excluían a China.

Más allá de este cinismo proteccionista, todos los presidentes estadounidenses, de Truman a Obama, y el público en general, declararon su apoyo a la doctrina de un comercio más libre. Es este largo compromiso que la campaña de Trump rompió, respaldándola en el hecho que la base manufacturera del país ha sido seriamente erosionada por el comercio global y los acuerdos de libre comercio en las últimas dos décadas, con claros perjuicios para los salarios y empleos de los trabajadores. Así, la política comercial pasó a convertirse -tal vez por primera vez- en una cuestión de primer orden en las elecciones y en la misma política nacional[20].

En última instancia está en cuestión el libre comercio bajo el fundamentalismo del mercado, entendido como un componente clave de la globalización neoliberal del comercio. Una pretensión que aspira a ser universalmente global acorde con una nueva forma de expansión del imperio norteamericano[21]. La propuesta comercial de Trump ha roto con ese universalismo del libre comercio y la propia globalización, para refugiarse en la implementación de políticas “proteccionistas”.

Trump comprendió que el desequilibrio del libre comercio estaba a favor, ya no de Estados Unidos, sino de China y las llamadas “economías emergentes”. Paul Samuelson, economista galardonado con el Premio Nobel, un ardiente partidario del libre comercio, ya en 2004 (artículo en Perspectivas Económicas) sugirió que el creciente poder económico de China pone en duda si el libre comercio convierte en un ganador (winner) a Estados Unidos. El miedo de la superpotencia a la economía china ha transformado a este país de posible socio estratégico en una amenaza actual, que se enfoca principalmente, en palabras de Henry Kissinger, en “el debilitamiento psicológico del adversario”, por lo cual “el imperialismo militar no es el estilo chino”.

Esta es una amenaza que tiene como sustento el espectacular aumento del poder económico de China, que asimismo cuenta con la población más grande del mundo, lo cual tendría un fuerte efecto desestabilizador. Esto ha llevado a que China sea ubicada en el centro de la globalización. A decir del keynesiano Thomas I. Palley, asesor Senior de Política Económica de la AFL-CIO, “la globalización se ha transformado gradualmente en un proyecto de “globalización centrada en China”. Este fenómeno tiene graves consecuencias económicas y geopolíticas para los Estados Unidos”[22].

Por lo demás, China es parte de un inmenso sistema integrado de producción en Asia oriental, teniendo con su población una estrecha afinidad cultural. La “real politik” de la fracción descontenta de las clases dominantes aconseja optar por una política comercial “dirigida” que reclama de sus ex socios la “nivelación del campo de juego” a través de varias medidas proteccionistas, como la manipulación de divisas y la imposición de aranceles, ya analizada.

De forma reiterada, Donald Trump ha amenazado a China con la imposición de aranceles

Con respecto a la manipulación de divisas, Trump se comprometió en su sitio web nombrar a China como manipulador de divisas en su primer día de gobierno y “comenzar un proceso que impone derechos compensatorios apropiados sobre productos chinos artificialmente baratos”, bajo la amenaza de limitar las importaciones unilateralmente si no cooperan. Curiosamente, China no ha manipulado su moneda durante los últimos dos años según C. Fred Bergsten (2016), uno de los primeros en llamar la atención sobre estas prácticas. “Los chinos han intervenido fuertemente en el lado opuesto del mercado: en lugar de comprar dólares para mantener el renminbi débil, han vendido grandes cantidades de dólares para evitar que se deslice más. Su reciente intervención ha promovido la competitividad de los Estados Unidos en lugar de debilitarla”[23].

La gran mayoría de los economistas estadounidenses -neoclásicos y (pos)keynesianos- soslayan el hecho que el libre comercio mundial es llevado a cabo bajo la hegemonía del dólar donde Estados Unidos fabrica dólares de papel y el resto del mundo produce mercancías reales que los dólares de papel pueden comprar[24]. Ahora las economías compiten a través de las exportaciones para capturar los dólares necesarios que permitan servir las deudas externas denominadas en dólares y acumular reservas en dólares con el fin de mantener el valor de cambio de sus monedas locales en los mercados de divisas. Es absurdo esperar que los complejos problemas de la economía estadounidense puedan resolverse por el valor de cambio de una sola moneda extranjera.

Como “nombrar a un país como manipulador no tiene consecuencias operativas significativas”, lo que seguramente pretende Trump es tratar de “negociar con los chinos para reducir su gran superávit comercial”, según el mismo Bergsten. No obstante, como ya observamos, la reducción de un déficit comercial bilateral no necesariamente se traduce en una disminución del déficit comercial total de Estados Unidos.

En resumidas cuentas, estamos presenciando un evento clave en la economía mundial: Estados Unidos tiene su primer presidente proclamando el apoyo al proteccionismo desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial, mientras que China manifiesta su deseo de promover el aumento del comercio mundial y la globalización económica. Las circunstancias actuales analizadas le otorgan a China claras ventajas para desempeñar un papel global aún mayor, particularmente en comparación con el enfoque de Trump en Estados Unidos. De todas maneras, la continuidad de la crisis global, que ha arrastrado al comercio mundial en los dos últimos años, anuncia un escenario de agudización de las contradicciones no fácil de resolver.

Consuelo Silva Flores

Claudio Lara Cortes

Consuelo Silva Flores: Economista, Coordinadora del GT Integración y Unidad Latinoamericana del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). Miembro de la Red de Economía Mundial (REDEM) y del Consejo Directivo de la Sociedad de Economía Política Latinoamericana (SEPLA).

Claudio Lara Cortes: Economista, Director Magister en Economía, ELAP – U. ARCIS. Investigador del GT Integración y Unidad Latinoamericana y del GT de Crisis y Economía Mundial del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). Miembro de la Red de Economía Mundial (REDEM) y del Consejo Directivo de la Sociedad de Economía Política Latinoamericana (SEPLA).

Notas:


[1] Scott sostiene que debe tenerse en cuenta que los otros 11 miembros del TPP distintos a Estados Unidos tuvieron un déficit comercial de 168.400 millones de dólares con China en 2015 y un superávit comercial de casi $ 120.000 millones con los Estados Unidos en el mismo período. En opinión del autor, el déficit comercial de los Estados Unidos con los países del TPP costó 2 millones de empleos en ese país sólo en 2015, con pérdidas de puestos de trabajo en todos los Estados.

[2] Kimball, William, and Scott, Robert E. (2014). China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. Trade Deficit with China Cost 3.2 Million Jobs between 2001 and 2013, with Job Losses in Every State. Briefing Paper #385. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

[3] Las importaciones chinas que ingresaron a través de Wal-Mart en 2013 probablemente totalizaron al menos $ 49.100 millones y el efecto combinado de las importaciones y exportaciones a China a través de Wal-Mart representó probablemente el 15.3 por ciento del crecimiento del déficit total de bienes de Estados Unidos entre 2001 y 2013. El déficit comercial de Wal-Mart con China habría eliminado o desplazado más de 400.000 empleos en el país entre 2001 y 2013.

[4] Epstein, Gene (2016). La peor idea de Donald Trump: poner barreras al comercio internacional. Wall Street Journal, 26 de diciembre de 2016.

[7] Principalmente, China ha propuesto conformar la Asociación Económica Regional Amplia (RCEP), un tratado de libre comercio (TLC) con los diez estados miembros de la Asociación de Naciones del Sudeste Asiático (ASEAN) (Brunei, Myanmar, Camboya, Indonesia, Laos, Malasia, Filipinas, Singapur, Tailandia, Vietnam) y los seis Estados con quien la ASEAN tiene TLC (Australia, China, India, Japón, Corea del Sur y Nueva Zelanda). Las negociaciones del RCEP se lanzaron formalmente en noviembre de 2012 en la Cumbre de la ASEAN en Camboya. China está pidiendo que se concluyan lo antes posible.

[8] Noland, Marcus (2016). A Diminished Leadership Role for the United States. En Marcus Noland (PIIE), Gary Clyde Hufbauer (PIIE), Sherman Robinson (International Food Policy Research Institute), and Tyler Moran (PIIE). Assessing Trade Agendas in the US Presidential Campaign. PIIE Briefing. September.

[9] A Better Way: Our Vision for a Confident America, House Republican Task Force on National Security, June 9, 2016, www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-34cd-d270-ab57-f6cd1a190000

[10] Noland, Marcus (2016). Ibid.

[11] WSJ (2017). Según WardsAuto.com, “las automotrices produjeron 3,4 millones de vehículos en México en 2016 y se prevé un alza de 50% a 5,1 millones para finales de la década. De esta manera, México pasaría de representar 19,4% de los vehículos fabricados en América del Norte en la actualidad a 27,9% en 2020”. 06 de enero.

[12] “Renegociación de KORUS FTA May Dent Alliance: Funcionarios de Seúl”, Yonhap, 16 de mayo de 2016, Disponible en internet en english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2016/05/16/11/0301000000AEN20160516004700320F.html

[13] Ver “Trump’s 45% Tariff on Chinese Goods Is Perfectly Calculated,” Los Angeles Times, July 21, 2016, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-navarro-trump-trade-china-tariffs-20160721-snap-story.html).

[14] Scott, Robert E.(2016). Currency manipulation and manufacturing job loss. Why negotiating “great trade deals” is not the answer. July 21. Economic Policy Institute.

[15] Scott, Robert E. (2016). Currency manipulation and manufacturing job loss. Why negotiating “great trade deals” is not the answer. July 21. Economic Policy Institute.

[16] Refiere al efecto neto de los flujos comerciales sobre el empleo, esto es, que las exportaciones sostienen los trabajos y las importaciones los desplazan.

[17] Epstein, Gene (2016). La peor idea de Donald Trump: poner barreras al comercio internacional. Wall Street Journal, 26 de diciembre.

[18] Mishel, Lawrence (2016). The Trump trade scam. June 29. Economic Policy Institute. Working Economics Blog. http://www.epi.org/blog/

[19] La Tercera, 7 de enero de 2017.

[20] Noland, Marcus; Hufbauer, Gary Clyde (PIIE); Robinson, Sherman (International Food Policy Research Institute) and Moran, Tyler (PIIE) (2016). Assessing Trade Agendas in the US Presidential Campaign. PIIE Briefing. September.

[21] Esta es una forma distinta a la promovida por los británicos, a través de Adam Smith, que también entendían el “libre comercio” como verdad universal, pero limitado a la esfera de influencia política dentro de su propio Imperio.

[22] Palley, Thomas I. (2013). The Perils of China-centric Globalization. En internet disponible en http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/economic_development/china-centric-globalization.pdf

[23] Bergsten, C. Fred (2016). China ya no está manipulando su moneda. Peterson Institute for International Economics-PIIE. 18 de noviembre.

[24] La cuestión del valor de cambio del yuan chino en relación con el dólar de EE.UU. es un problema técnico menor dentro del régimen peculiar de la hegemonía del dólar. No tiene una importancia macroeconómica fundamental.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Límites y contradicciones de las propuestas comerciales de Trump

Discusiones sobre la tragedia siria

January 19th, 2017 by Claudio Katz

El giro de la guerra no atenúa el desastre humanitario. La sublevación democrática inicial fue usurpada por el yihadismo y se transformó en un conflicto entre bandos regresivos. En un escenario de ocaso de la primavera árabe y preeminencia del fundamentalismo despunta la perspectiva progresiva de un estado kurdo.

Las grandes potencias disputan intereses en un conflicto internacionalizado. Más intensa es la batalla por la hegemonía entre cuatro sub-potencias regionales. En la actual combinación de conflictos corresponde priorizar las batallas populares frente a las tensiones geopolíticas.

Es tan equivocado justificar los crímenes del gobierno, como ignorar la confiscación reaccionaria de la revuelta. Los errores provienentes del registro exclusivo de disputas inter-estatales no se superan con neutralismo. Lo ocurrido en Siria es una advertencia para América Latina.

La derrota sufrida por los yihadistas y denominados rebeldes en Alepo anticipa un giro en el desangre de Siria. Si el avance de las tropas del gobierno apoyadas por Rusia e Irán se confirma en las próximas batallas, la contienda podría quedar definida.

Este viraje se juega también en Mosul. La coalición de iraquíes, kurdos, turcos que actúa con apoyo aéreo de Estados Unidos y Francia acorraló a los fundamentalistas en su bastión de Irak.

Estos desenlaces cambiarían el mapa del conflicto pero no la tragedia que padece la región. Es previsible un desplazamiento de los enfrentamientos hacia otras zonas y la sustitución de choques entre militares por escaladas de terror contra la población civil. Las alertas ya se multiplican en todas las ciudades de Medio Oriente y Europa.

En Alepo se consumaron las mismas masacres que pulverizaron a otras ciudades multiétnicas. En el conflicto se computan más de 250.000 muertes y cuatro millones de refugiados. El nivel de barbarie se verifica en el tráfico de órganos humanos que realizan los contrabandistas entre los sobrevivientes (Armanian, 2016e). Los descendentes del despojo padecido por los palestinos vuelven a padecer el mismo destino de sus antecesores (Ramzy, 2015). Junto a la denuncia de esos crímenes resulta indispensable esclarecer lo ocurrido.

REBELIÓN Y USURPACIÓN

Hace seis años comenzó en Siria una sublevación con demandas democráticas semejantes a Egipto y Túnez. Ese levantamiento formó parte de las mismas protestas contra regímenes autocráticos que caracterizó a la primavera árabe. El movimiento se popularizó e incluyó la creación de comités para exigir reformas políticas. Pero la represión oficial superó todo lo conocido y desencadenó una guerra civil.

En su debut la rebelión despertó enormes simpatías, incentivó la deserción de cuadros militares y dio lugar al surgimiento de zonas liberadas. En términos políticos reunió una coalición de hermanos musulmanes, liberales y sectores progresistas. Pero el carácter sangriento de los enfrentamientos precipitó la militarización del campo opositor. Las organizaciones armadas se afianzaron en un escenario de variable empate.

Barack Obama (presidente de Estados Unidos) y Bashar Al-Assad (presidente de Siria)

El primer cambio de la rebelión se consumó con la presencia de los asesores provistos por Estados Unidos. El segundo viraje se concretó con el predominio de milicias yihadistas que no habían participado en la gestación de la sublevación. Como los fundamentalistas islámicos (salafistas) son acérrimos enemigos de los derechos ciudadanos, su dominio de la revuelta sepultó el sentido democratizador del alzamiento,

Los yihadistas se impusieron mediante acciones brutales. Varios grupos contaron con la financiación de Qatar y Arabia Saudita (Jaish al-Islam) y otras fracciones actuaron en forma más autónoma (Jabhat al-Nusra). Turquía aportó logística, circulación en las fronteras y contingentes propios (Ahrar as-Sham). Estas potencias sunitas apostaron a una ocupación extranjera, semejante a la registrada en el Líbano durante los años 80.

Entre los yihadistas se consolidó el protagonismo del grupo EI (Ejército Islámico, ex ISIS), que intentó establecer los cimientos de un Califato en las zonas conquistadas de Siria e Irak.

Al principio Estados Unidos avaló la presencia de estas bandas suponiendo que acelerarían la caída de Assad, sin quitarle el timón de la oposición a los sectores del ELS (Ejército Libre de Siria), manejados por el Pentágono.

Pero los fundamentalistas superaron a los grupos pro-occidentales y se apropiaron de su armamento. Tal como ocurrió con los talibanes y Al Qaeda, Estados Unidos perdió el control del campo que esperaba manejar.

En las zonas bajo su dominio, los salafistas impusieron códigos medievales contra las minorías religiosas. Asesinaron cristianos y kurdos, degradaron a las mujeres y quebraron la convivencia entre pueblos y creencias.

Esa usurpación transformó un conflicto inspirado en anhelos democráticos, en una batalla entre dos bandos igualmente reaccionarios y crecientemente contrapuestos por pertenencias comunitarias. Como acertadamente señaló un analista, esa degeneración enterró la sublevación inicial (Kur, 2016).

El avance militar de los yihadistas quedó detenido el año pasado. El gobierno de Assad reconquistó territorios con el auxilio de los bombardeos rusos y las acciones de las milicias pro-iraníes (Hezbolah). Contó también con el sostén de las comunidades alawitas, chiitas y cristianas aterrorizadas por el salvajismo de los salafistas. Cuando la guerra privó al país de alimentos y medicinas básicas, ambos bandos reclutaron a los desesperados por sobrevivir bajo alguna protección.

Los dos campos cometieron horrendos crímenes documentados por numerosas crónicas periodísticas (Febbro, 2016; R.L, 2016; Al-Haj Saleh, 2016). Esa barbarie compartida confirma la disolución del componente progresivo inicial que tuvo el conflicto.

PRIMAVERA, YIHADISMO Y KURDOS

El curso de la guerra en Siria sintonizó con tres procesos regionales. En primer lugar, la confiscación de la lucha democrática profundizó el retroceso general de la primavera árabe. Ese levantamiento ha quedado socavado por represiones dictatoriales y guerras yihadistas (Cockburn, 2016).

En medio de atentados y atropellos contra los trabajadores, en Túnez gobierna un ex ministro del viejo régimen de Ben Alí. En Egipto los militares restauraron el brutal sistema precedente, desplazando al gobierno electo de los hermanos musulmanes.

Los golpistas emiten condenas a muerte, engrosan las abarrotadas prisiones y torturan a miles de personas. Cuentan, además, con el aval de Estados Unidos y la co mplicidad de Europa. Su conducta confirma el carácter reaccionario de las cúpulas militares enfrentadas con el islamismo.

En Libia se verifica la misma regresión. Gadafi fue tumbado por el operativo que montó la OTAN para dividir al país. Occidente usufructúa de esa partición junto a Qatar y Turquía (que manejan la región de Trípoli) y Arabia Saudita (que se reparte el Torbuk con Egipto). Tal como ocurrió en África durante década anterior, el territorio ha sido reorganizado bajo el control de los señores de la guerra (Zurutuza, 2014).

En Irak continúa la demolición impuesta por un desangre sectario entre sunitas herederos de Sadam y chiitas asociados con Irán. Estados Unidos tolera esa matanza y supervisa la fractura del país, mediante frecuentes cambios de bando.

También los palestinos sufren las consecuencias de este dramático escenario regional. Israel refuerza la expropiación de Cisjordania extendiendo muros, apropiándose del agua y forzando la emigración.

En este desolador contexto zonal se asienta un segundo proceso de gravitación contrarrevolucionaria de los yihadistas. Esos grupos son continuadores del terrorismo talibán, que Estados Unidos fomentó hace varias décadas para expulsar a la Unión Soviética de Afganistán.

Las potencias occidentales han utilizado las milicias salafistas para destruir a los regímenes adversarios. Ese desmoronamiento refuerza la extinción de todos los vestigios de laicismo y modernización cultural.

Los fundamentalistas son una fuerza transfronteriza que se alimenta del odio generado por las agresiones imperialistas. Prometen regenerar la sociedad con estrictas normas de autenticidad religiosa, que incluyen alcanzar el paraíso a través de la inmolación suicida (Hanieh, 2016). La atracción que suscita entre jóvenes desengañados no sólo tiene fundamentos místicos. Expresa también el anhelo milenario de alcanzar la unidad árabe por medio de un Califato, asentado en la unanimidad religiosa (Jahanpou, 2014a).

Los yihadistas encarnan la versión extrema de la vertiente sunita del islamismo, en histórica rivalidad con los chiitas. Por eso trasladaron a Siria la guerra sectaria que desgarró a Irak. Los asesinatos que perpetraron en Túnez ilustran, además, su pretensión de disolver el sindicalismo y erradicar la militancia. Son destructores de la organización popular, exponentes de la barbarie (Achcar, 2015) o representantes de nuevos fascismos con referentes religiosos (Rousset, 2014).

Tal como ocurrió con Bin Laden tienden a desenvolver acciones propias que escapan al control de sus creadores (Petras, 2016). La variante más reciente del yihadismo surgió en las cárceles de Irak entre los oficiales del disuelto ejército de Sadam. Formaron el EI para resistir la expulsión de los sunitas del estado y para rechazar del acuerdo de gobernabilidad concertado por Estados Unidos con Irán (Rodríguez, 2015).

Pero a diferencia de sus precursores de Al Qaeda algunas vertientes han intentado construir un estado. Ocuparon pozos petroleros y se financiaron con la comercialización del crudo. Si ese proyecto territorial fracasa retomarán e l uso generalizado del terror.

Protestas en buena parte del mundo musulmán

En este terrible escenario se incubó un tercer acontecimiento inesperado y positivo: la consolidación de zonas autónomas bajo el control de los kurdos. Este grupo nacional aglutina a la mayor minoría sin estado de todo el planeta. Diseminados en varios países, sus derechos han sido negados por incontables gobiernos.

En su valiente resistencia al yihadismo crearon la posibilidad de un Kurdistán independiente (Feffer, 2015). Si obtienen esa meta conseguirán el objetivo que los palestinos no han logrado alcanzar.

Esa perspectiva abre una luz de esperanza en la tragedia de Medio Oriente. Combatiendo al ISI los kurdos ya construyeron un semiestado dentro de Irak. Han pactado con el gobierno chiita aprovechado el momentáneo aval de Estados Unidos y buscan reconstruir en Irán la efímera república que forjaron en los años 40.

En Siria batallaron durante años por su autonomía, pero en el conflicto actual establecieron un acuerdo con Assad para combatir a los yihadistas. Con un armamento muy limitado han logrado significativas victorias.

En Kobane demostraron la supremacía del heroísmo y la auto-defensa sobre el terror. Sus milicias integradas con mujeres, guiadas por normas de laicismo e impulsadas por proyectos económicos cooperativos son la contracara del oscurantismo yihadista (Kur, 2015).

Las victorias de los kurdos permitirían restaurar la convivencia entre árabes, armenios , turcomanos y asirios. Introducen un contrapeso progresista al ocaso de la primavera y a la reacción salafista.

EPICENTRO DE CONFLICTOS GLOBALES

La guerra actual difiere en el plano geopolítico de lo ocurrido en Libia. Allí prevaleció la unanimidad imperialista, Rusia jugó un papel secundario, Irán no fue determinante y las subpotencias que financiaron a la oposición se repartieron amigablemente el petróleo. Por el contrario en Siria se han concentrado múltiples conflictos internacionales.

Estados Unidos intentó aprovechar la rebelión democrática inicial para deshacerse de Assad. El cuestionado presidente no conserva ningún gramo del viejo antiimperialismo, pero actúa con un imprevisible pragmatismo. Aunque participó en la invasión yanqui a Irak, preserva una autonomía inadmisible para el Departamento de Estado. Por eso Obama intentó tres fracasadas políticas para derrocarlo.

Primero tanteó la instauración de una zona área de exclusión y amenazó con bombardeos directos. Pero no logró la cobertura de las Naciones Unidas, ni el sostén requerido para montar el control internacional de los arsenales químicos.

Posteriormente propició la división del país en cantones, en el escenario de caos que potenciaron los grupos del ELS manejados por la CIA. Como Assad se negó a exilarse y el yihadismo copó el bando rebelde, Washington optó por una negociación con Rusia para neutralizar a los fundamentalistas. Decidió tolerar al régimen, en el marco de las nuevas tratativas para logar el desarme nuclear de Irán (Armanian, 2016c).

Pero estas vacilaciones paralizaron a Obama y empujaron a los republicanos a exigir la continuidad de la campaña militar. Incluso Hilary propuso el endurecimiento y la intervención del Pentágono. La caída de Alepo implicó finalmente una derrota de Estados Unidos, que revierte sus avances en Libia y consolida sus retrocesos en Irak.

Nadie sabe qué hará Trump, pero ya anticipó un mayor apoyo a Israel que conduciría a retomar el hostigamiento de Assad. Avalará en la ONU el colonialismo sionista y amenaza con trasladar la embajada yanqui a Jerusalem. Los tres principales funcionarios militares del nuevo presidente (Flynn, Pompeo y Mattis) son partidarios de romper el acuerdo nuclear con Irán.

Pero reactivar el conflicto con Siria choca con la tregua sugerida a Rusia para confrontar con China. Renovar la presión militar sobre Damasco no es compatible con los acuerdos propuestos a Putin, para compatibilizar los gasoductos proyectados por Rusia (South Stream) y Estados Unidos (Nabucco). Es también difícil priorizar esos convenios hostilizando al mismo tiempo a Irán (Ramonet, 2017).

Hasta ahora Europa ha seguido las políticas más duras que impulsó Estados Unidos en Siria. Especialmente Francia incentivó el derrocamiento de Assad, facilitando la circulación de los yihadistas y la financiación de su armamento. Hollande busca ahora mayor protagonismo en la captura de Mosul.

Esta conducta fue reforzada con la utilización reaccionaria de los atentados padecidos por la población gala. No sólo volvió a imperar un doble rasero, para subrayar que la vida de un francés vale más que su equivalente del Tercer Mundo. La marcha oficial frente a lo ocurrido en Charlie Hebdo fue precedida por la prohibición de manifestaciones palestinas e incluyó la presencia de Netanyahu, como una explícita provocación al mundo árabe.

También los refugiados son manipulados para justificar operaciones bélicas de “protección humanitaria”. Mientras cierra las fronteras y convalida los naufragios en el Mediterráneo, Hollande multiplica el envío de tropas que potencian el éxodo de la población civil (Alba Rico, 2015).

Ese belicismo se explica por los negocios franceses con Arabia Saudita o Qatar y por los intereses coloniales que el yihadismo amenaza en África. Pero un ala del establishment (Fillon) ya propicia replanteos. Francia padece al mismo Frankestein que afecta a Estados Unidos desde el atentado de las Torres Gemelas.

La creciente participación de ciudadanos franceses de origen árabe en el yihadismo agrava el problema. La atracción del fundamentalismo entre los jóvenes desposeídos aumenta con la criminalización de los musulmanes y la expansión del fascismo islamofóbico.

En Siria se dirimen también las tensiones de Occidente con Rusia. En los últimos años la OTAN desplegó misiles en Europa Oriental, creó repúblicas fantasmales (Kosovo), propició incendios fronterizos (Georgia) e indujo golpes de estado entre los aliados estratégicos de su contrincante (Ucrania).

Pero la pasividad de la era Yeltsin quedó atrás y Putin encabeza una reacción defensiva en la esfera geopolítica (recaptura de Crimea) y económica (expropiación del magnate pro-Exxon Jodorkovski). La presencia rusa en Siria apuntala ese contrapeso.

Putin subió la apuesta luego del ataque del ISI a un avión ruso en Sinaí. Está empeñado en prevenir el resurgimiento de las milicias islamistas en su radio de Chechenia. Acordó con Obama el bombardeo a los grupos yihadistas y luego aprovechó el desconcierto de Estados Unidos para socorrer al acosado Assad.

Rusia apuntala en Siria sus propios intereses militares (una base naval y otra aérea) y económicos (gasoductos). Se encuentra en una situación muy distinta a la padecida cuando perdió Afganistán o se desplomó la URSS.

Pero compensar la fragilidad económica interna con expansión militar puede desembocar en el desastre que demolió al imperio zarista. El momento de gloria que vive Putin disimula las limitaciones de su maquinaria bélica y el dudoso sostén interno a operaciones de mayor envergadura (Poch, 2017).

La internacionalización del conflicto sirio condujo incluso a China a atenuar su estrategia general de prescindencia. A diferencia de lo ocurrido en Libia, ahora participa en las negociaciones sobre el futuro del país. Teme la expansión del yihadismo en sus fronteras y necesita asegurar el abastecimiento de petróleo. La estabilidad de Medio Oriente es vital para su proyecto de forjar un gigantesco emprendimiento comercial, emparentado con la vieja ruta de la seda.

DISPUTAS REGIONALES

Los conflictos entre las subpotencias de la región han influido más que las tensiones globales en el desgarro de Siria. Israel interviene en sintonía general con Estados Unidos. Pero hace valer intereses colonialistas que rompen el equilibrio de la primera potencia con sus socios del capitalismo árabe.

Netanyahu aprovechará el ascenso de Trump para intentar la captura completa de Cisjordania liquidando la farsa de los dos estados (Pappé, 2016). Con ese objetivo incentivó la demolición de Siria a través de bombardeos y socorros de la retaguardia yihadista. Esperaba destruir a un adversario que alberga palestinos y oxigena a Irán.

El gobierno israelí no acepta perder el monopolio atómico regional frente a las instalaciones construidas por los Ayatollahs. Despotricó contra el acuerdo nuclear que suscribió Obama y se dispone a dinamitar ese convenio, para revertir el resultado adverso de la guerra en Siria.

Arabia Saudita es un segundo protagonista que encabezó el sostén a los yihadistas para tumbar a Assad. Su régimen criminal-monárquico es la principal referencia de los fundamentalistas. El nuevo rey Salman inauguró por ejemplo su mandato con un récord de 153 ejecutados (Gómez, 2016).

Los sauditas disputan hegemonía con Irán recurriendo a fundamentos del Corán. Retoman la antigua contraposición entre sunitas y chiitas, que se cobró más de un millón de muertos en la guerra entre Irak e Irán (Jahanpour, 2014b).

Los monarcas saudíes no toleran la preeminencia lograda por sus adversarios en el régimen que sucedió a Sadam Hussein. Exigen, además, el sometimiento de todos los pobladores chiitas de la península arábiga, que encabezaron protestas durante la primavera árabe (Luppino, 2016).

En el estratégico enclave de Yemen los jeques comandan una atroz escalada de masacres, que ha creado una tragedia de desabastecimiento de agua y alimentos (Cockburn, 2017). Cuentan con la colaboración aérea de Inglaterra y la complicidad logística de Francia (Mundy, 2015). Mantienen, además, una estrecha asociación de compra de armamento y sostén del dólar con Estados Unidos (Engelhardt, 2016). Pero con el manejo de una colosal renta del crudo han construido un poder propio, que genera múltiples conflictos con Washington.

En los últimos años Estados Unidos incrementó su abastecimiento interno de combustible, redujo la dependencia de sus proveedores y utilizó el petróleo barato como instrumento de presión sobre Rusia e Irán, afectando también a sus socios sauditas.

Probablemente los monarcas avalaron la caída del precio para afectar la rentabilidad de la producción norteamericana (extracción con shale) y recuperar predominio. Pero también priorizaron la convergencia con Estados Unidos para disciplinar a la OPEP y debilitar a Teherán. Con Trump se avecinan nuevos acercamientos (guerra del Yemen) y distanciamientos (más negocios con Europa que con América).

Más conflictivo es el destino futuro de los yihadistas. Al igual que en Pakistán, nunca se sabe cuánto protegen los monarcas sauditas a los grupos terroristas que desestabilizan a Occidente (Petras, 2017).

Por esa razón más de un estratega del Departamento de Estado evalúa la conveniencia de promover una balcanización de Arabia Saudita. Exploran la posibilidad de transformar a ese país en una colección de impotentes mini-estados, semejantes a Qatar o Barheim (Armanian, 2016b).

El tercer actor regional -Irán- disputaba en la época del Sha poder regional con los Sauditas, dentro de un mismo alineamiento pro-norteamericano. Pero desde hace décadas el régimen teocrático choca con Estados Unidos. Apuntala especialmente el régimen de Assad para reforzar su preeminencia en Irak y contrarrestar el acoso saudita en Yemen. Participa en Siria no sólo con armas y asesores, sino con cierto despliegue de fuerzas regulares. Además, recluta chiitas en el mundo árabe con la misma intensidad que sus adversarios sunitas (Behrouz, 2017).

Los Ayatollah le permitieron a Rusia incursionar desde su territorio contra el ISI, pero mantienen abiertas las negociaciones nucleares iniciadas con Obama. Al cabo de varias décadas de aislamiento económico el régimen acepta un desarme parcial, a cambio de inversiones occidentales. Tramita un lugar protagónico en los gasoductos que diseñan las compañías petroleras (Armanian, 2016d) .

Los socios privilegiados del capitalismo iraní se definirán en la intensa batalla interna que libra el ala pro-occidental de Rohani, con la vertiente tradicionalista de Jameini. Todos buscan desactivar un descontento reformista que amenaza la supremacía de los teólogos y militares en el manejo del gobierno.

Finalmente la cuarta potencia regional -Turquía- pertenece a la OTAN y alberga una base militar con ojivas nucleares apuntando a Rusia. Pero los herederos del imperio otomano también operan como una sub-potencia con vuelo propio.

Especialmente el gobierno islámico-sunita conservador de Erdogan intentó un liderazgo de la zona, en estrecha alianza con la hermandad musulmana de Egipto. Pero luego del derrocamiento de ese sector consumó un cambio de frente, buscando primacía en la ofensiva contra Assad. Motorizó la acción de los yihadistas en Siria e incluso derribó un avión ruso para forzar la intervención directa del Pentágono. Con el mismo propósito potenció la crisis de los refugiados en Europa (Armanian, 2015).

Pero el peligro de gestación de un estado kurdo precipitó otro viraje espectacular de Erdogan. Turquía se forjó como país en la negación de los derechos de esa minoría y su gobierno complementa el viejo exclusivismo nacional (una sola lengua, raza e idioma) con el sostén religioso de las mezquitas (Gutiérrez, 2016).

Erdogan se sumó al bloque de rusos e iraníes para bloquear la expansión de los kurdos en sus fronteras. Rompió la tregua con los encarcelados líderes de esa minoría en Turquía y apuesta a negociar con Assad la obstrucción total de los anhelos kurdos (Lorusso, 2015).

El presidente cambió de bando para confrontar internamente con los pacifistas, laicos y progresistas que avalan las demandas (o las negociaciones) con los kurdos. Propicia un giro totalitario que inició desarticulando el improvisado golpe de estado reciente. Quizás montó un auto-golpe para justificar las persecuciones (Cornejo, 2016) o afronta conspiraciones pro-norteamericanas de los descontentos con su aproximación a Rusia (Armanian 2016a).

En cualquier caso, Turquía es un polvorín sacudido por choques en la cúpula militar. Erdogan sostiene a la fracción islamista que promueve un proyecto hegemónico neo-otomano (rabiismo) frente a sectores más atlantistas (kemalismo), en un marco de fracasado ingreso a la Unión Europea (Savran, 2016). En la guerra de Siria se dirime la supremacía de un grupo sobre otro.

CARACTERIZACIONES Y POSICIONAMIENTOS

La complejidad de la guerra en Siria obedece a una intrincada combinación de conflictos. La rebelión popular inicial se entremezcló con las tensiones entre potencias regionales y globales (Cinatti, 2016).

Ese tipo de mixturas en un mismo escenario bélico ha sido frecuente en la historia. La Segunda Guerra Mundial sintetizaba, por ejemplo, choques interimperialistas (Estados Unidos-Japón, Alemania-Inglaterra), con resistencias democráticas al fascismo y defensas de la URSS ante la restauración capitalista. Estos dos últimos componentes determinaron el alineamiento de la izquierda en el campo de los aliados (Mandel, 1991).

Para tomar partido en conflagraciones de este tipo, resulta necesario caracterizar cuál es el campo que contiene demandas legítimas o facilita triunfos populares. Es vital priorizar la lucha por abajo, para distinguir a las fuerzas más progresivas de cada escenario. Los conflictos geopolíticos nunca son indiferentes a la acción popular, pero están subordinados al curso de esas batallas.

Lenin propició esta estrategia socialista que jerarquiza los combates populares y toma en cuenta las tensiones por arriba. Superó el error de considerar tan sólo la confrontación con el enemigo principal o sostener ciegamente cualquier rebelión, omitiendo su función en el escenario global.

En el caso actual de Siria han prevalecido momentos de prioridad de la lucha democrática (levantamiento inicial contra Assad), derrota de los criminales reaccionarios (yihadismo) o sostén de los movimientos más avanzados (kurdos). En todos los casos se han verificado situaciones controvertidas.

En el debut de la primavera árabe las movilizaciones democráticas eran tan válidas en Túnez como en Siria. Pero esta última rebelión perdió legitimidad cuando fue usurpada por el oscurantismo.

En el caso de los kurdos, la enorme progresividad de su lucha no queda anulada por la protección coyuntural que obtienen de Estados Unidos. Por la misma razón persiste la validez de la causa palestina, a pesar de la financiación que brinda Qatar al Hamas e Irán al Hezbolah.

La imperiosa necesidad de frenar la barbarie yihadista condujo también a intensos debates en Mali, frente al arribo de tropas colonialistas francesas (Amin, 2013; Drweski,  Page 2013).

No es sencillo definir en Medio Oriente cómo se apuntala la lucha popular, en medio de las tensiones geopolíticas que inciden en esa batalla. Conceptualizar a los principales protagonistas de esas disputas contribuye a esas definiciones.

Estados Unidos comanda un bloque imperialista que ha destruido al mundo árabe con bombardeos, drones y asesinatos selectivos. Permanece en Afganistán amparando aventureros -que se financian con el cultivo de estupefacientes- y en la descalabrada sociedad iraquí, sostiene a los clanes más corruptos.

Washington redefine actualmente sus estrategias, sin perder el lugar preeminente que ocupa en la reproducción del orden capitalista global. Auto-limita su poder de intervención recurriendo a manejos indirectos (“soft power”) y una gestión imperial colectiva, que en Medio Oriente opera a través de un apéndice directo (Israel).

Vladímir Putin, un actor clave en el conflicto sirio

Las potencias regionales desenvuelven políticas sub-imperiales, guiadas por una cambiante relación de subordinación, autonomía y conflicto con el imperialismo central. Definen todas sus acciones en función de esos objetivos de supremacía zonal. Las variedades tradicionales (Turquía), nuevas (Sauditas) y en recomposición (Irán) de ese perfil se han verificado en la contienda de Siria. La intervención de esos países clarifica el sentido actual del sub-imperialismo, que fue conceptualizado en los años 70 con otros propósitos.

Finalmente el papel de Rusia debe ser evaluado en otro plano. No es un adversario ocasional, sino un rival estratégico de Estados Unidos. El Pentágono confronta desde hace mucho y en forma permanente con ese país.

Rusia no es la URSS. Se ha consolidado como una economía capitalista integrada a la mundialización neoliberal y actúa en Siria en función de los intereses de las clases dominantes y la burocracia del Kremlin.

Es una potencia con tradiciones imperiales que no opera a esa escala, sino en un nivel más precario. Por esa razón se perfila como un imperio en formación, que igualmente afecta la primacía de Occidente en Medio Oriente. Esa intervención puede cambiar la relación internacional de fuerzas, pero no constituye por sí misma una acción progresiva o favorable a los pueblos [1].

GOBIERNO Y OPOSITORES

Los debates sobre Siria oponen en la izquierda a los defensores del gobierno y del bando opositor. La tesis favorable al régimen no ignora su carácter represivo, pero subraya su impronta laica, progresista y multiétnica. Destaca la necesidad de asegurar la integridad territorial de ese estado, frente a la disgregación sufrida por Libia e Irak. También describe cómo las conspiraciones imperiales intentan socavar a un gobierno heredero del proyecto panárabe (Fuser, 2016).

Pero Assad no cometió excesos ocasionales. Encabeza un régimen atroz que reprimió en forma sanguinaria a los manifestantes. Los disparos a mansalva, bombardeos de aldeas y asesinatos de familias continuaron los crímenes de 1982 en la localidad de Homs.

El gobierno actual no guarda ningún parentesco con la constitución inicial de un estado aglutinante de todas las comunidades. Desde hace años aplica ajustes del FMI y apuntala la corrupción de camarillas que se enriquecieron con la gestión neoliberal.

La involución del Baath sirio se asemeja a la trayectoria seguida por Sadam Hussein o Gadafi. Todos debutaron con proyectos reformistas y concluyeron gobernando para clanes mafiosos.

La virulencia represiva de Assad reproduce también lo ocurrido en la década pasada en Argelia, cuando el gobierno desconoció un triunfo electoral islamista, precipitando matanzas de ambos bandos. Con los mismos pretextos de contener al fundamentalismo, el dictador egipcio Sisi descarga una virulenta represión contra la oposición.

Los reclamos democráticos de la población siria siempre tuvieron la misma legitimidad que las exigencias de otros pueblos. Esas demandas han sido enarboladas contra tiranos prohijados o enemistados con Estados Unidos.

Al razonar con criterios puramente geopolíticos desconociendo estos hechos, no sólo se ignoran las aspiraciones populares. Se cierra los ojos ante masacres que ningún progresista puede avalar. Esa actitud condujo durante décadas a dañar la causa del socialismo ignorando los crímenes de Stalin.

La tesis opuesta y favorable a la rebelión se ubicó al principio en la trinchera correcta, pero desconoció la degeneración ulterior de la revuelta. Algunos niegan esa involución afirmando que el levantamiento democrático se profundizó y radicalizó. Reivindican a los rebeldes y objetan la gravitación asignada a la CIA o al yihadismo (García; Dutra, 2016).

Pero los crímenes cometidos en el bando opositor desmienten esa evaluación. No tiene sentido hablar de una “revolución siria” luego de la confiscación perpetrada por lo salafistas. Esa expropiación sepultó el carácter progresista que al principio tuvo el segmento rebelde.

El grueso de los insurgentes no pertenece a genuinos grupos de resistentes obligados a pactar con el diablo. Están muy lejos de los irlandeses del IRA (que aceptaban armas del Kaiser) o de los maquis franceses (que recibían pertrechos de los norteamericanos). Al igual que los kosovares de Europa Oriental, primero quedaron bajo el radar de la OTAN y luego repitieron el devenir reaccionario de los talibanes.

El antecedente libio es muy esclarecedor de los errores cometidos por algunos pensadores de la izquierda, que idealizaron a los rebeldes monitoreados por el Pentágono. No sólo fue desacertado reclamar armas para ese sector, sino también aprobar la “zona aérea de exclusión” que establecieron las potencias occidentales. La caída de Gadafi no fue un “triunfo popular” sino un logro de las fuerzas reaccionarias.

Estas experiencias constituyen una advertencia para la acción actual de los kurdos, que cuenta con el visto bueno de Estados Unidos. Existen cuestionados liderazgos asociados con Israel, en un contexto controvertida evolución de los dirigentes apresados en Turquía (De Jong, 2015). Conviene recordar que la heroica lucha de los kurdos siempre estuvo signada por dramáticas manipulaciones y traiciones (Fisk, 2015).

Pero hasta ahora ninguno de esos peligros anuló la progresividad de la resistencia kurda. Esa lucha se diferencia del trágico curso seguido por la rebelión siria.

Cuando un conflicto se desliza hacia la encerrona que padeció el combate contra Assad, lo más positivo es frenar el desangre. Ese sacrificio destruye la capacidad de acción de los pueblos. Muchos años de confrontación entre bandos regresivos agotó por ejemplo a la población del Líbano y Argelia, que ya no tuvo disposición para participar en la primavera árabe. La actual demolición sectaria de Irak constituye otro desastre del mismo tipo.

Las iniciativas para alcanzar el fin de las hostilidades aportan las mejores propuestas de resolución progresista del conflicto sirio. Muchas personalidades y movimientos han trabajado en esta dirección. Denunciaron la intervención del imperialismo y promovieron negociaciones bajo la égida de las organizaciones populares (Katz, 2013). El mismo planteo exponen en la actualidad distintos pensadores y corrientes políticas (Domènech, 2016).

CAMPISMO Y NEUTRALIDAD

El segundo debate en la izquierda gira en torno a la valoración de los conflictos geopolíticos que condicionan la guerra en Siria. Una tesis destaca que existen dos campos en disputa: el imperialismo occidental liderado por Estados Unidos y el alineamiento de Rusia con Irán y Turquía. Estima que el triunfo de Assad favorece la multipolaridad que encarna esta última alianza (Fuser, 2016). Otros realzan especialmente el rol de Rusia en la gestación de esa alternativa (Zamora, 2016).

Pero esta visión juzga lo ocurrido en Siria en función del tablero mundial, olvidando la rebelión democrática que detonó los conflictos en ese plano. Observa sólo la intervención de las potencias y desconoce la acción popular. Por eso evalúa al gobierno sirio como si fuera un simple peón del ajedrez global. Omite los crímenes de Assad suponiendo que son datos secundarios de una gran partida internacional.

Con la mirada puesta en las tensiones inter-estatales ese abordaje sugiere que la primavera árabe no existió. A lo sumo considera su impacto sobre Egipto o Túnez, sin incluir a Siria en ese proceso. Las revueltas populares son también percibidas como manipulaciones de las embajadas estadounidenses, mediante frecuentes comparaciones con las “revoluciones de terciopelo” de Europa Oriental.

Pero esa analogía sólo registra la afinidad de la clase media liberal árabe con los valores norteamericanos, omitiendo que las protestas no irrumpieron en ningún país emulando a Occidente. Al contrario, estuvieron motivadas por el rechazo a las tiranías serviles de Estados Unidos (Mubarak, Ben Alí). En la mayoría de los casos predominó la misma hostilidad hacia el imperialismo que se observa en América Latina.

Es un gran error suponer que las transformaciones progresistas surgirán de una pulseada global entre potencias. Esos avances sólo pueden gestarse al calor de una acción popular, que debería ser el foco de atención de todos los pensadores de izquierda.

Mirando sólo las tensiones en la cúspide resulta imposible definir cuáles son las fuerzas progresivas en Medio Oriente. Los kurdos, por ejemplo, han sido últimamente protegidos por Estados Unidos y hostilizados (o a lo sumo tolerados) por el bando opuesto que integra Turquía.

Si se prioriza la gravitación del universo geopolítico correspondería denunciar (en lugar de apuntalar) las acciones de esa minoría. Es lo que sugieren algunos “campistas” extremos, en su descripción de los kurdos como agentes del imperialismo (Gartzia, 2016).

El desacierto general de ese enfoque proviene de suponer que el enemigo de mi enemigo se ha convertido en un buen aliado. Olvida que los yihadistas enfrentados con Washington no son mejores que el imperio.

La simplificación en torno a dos campos recrea el viejo modelo de muchos partidos comunistas de posguerra, que evaluaban cualquier acontecimiento en función del choque entre áreas socialistas y capitalistas.

En cualquier caso Rusia ya no es la URSS y carece de sentido justificar al régimen de Assad por el sostén que recibe de Putin. Ese apoyo obedece, además, a cálculos geopolíticos variables. De la misma forma que Siria acompañó a Estados Unidos en la guerra contra Irak, Rusia mantiene acuerdos de cooperación militar con Israel, especialmente en el manejo de los drones.

El viejo ultimátum de “ubicarse en uno de los dos campos” desprestigia a la izquierda. La realpolitik obstruyó en el pasado el proyecto socialista, con avales a la invasión rusa de Checoslovaquia, que impidieron apuntalar la renovación anticapitalista. El neoliberalismo se nutrió de esas frustraciones.

El planteo opuesto al “campismo” realza la existencia de dos bandos geopolíticos igualmente regresivos en el conflicto actual. Remarca que el eje de Siria, Rusia e Irán es tan nefasto como el alineamiento de Estados Unidos, Francia y Arabia Saudita (Alba Rico, 2016). Este enfoque considera que el escenario actual se asemeja a las guerras inter-imperialistas de principio del siglo XX y convoca a desenvolver la oposición a ambos polos.

Esta visión defiende acertadamente el derecho de los pueblos a rebelarse contra los gobiernos represivos. También denuncia el mar de sangre generado por los dos contendientes de Siria y aprueba las iniciativas de paz para contener esa destrucción.

Pero es problemático adoptar estas posiciones con preceptos neutralistas, olvidando la relevancia de las confrontaciones geopolíticas para las batallas populares. El resultado de esos conflictos no es indiferente a los combates antiimperialistas de los movimientos sociales y las naciones oprimidas.

En muchos casos la izquierda debe tomar partido frente a choques militares entre personajes abominables. Numerosos experiencias ilustran ese tipo de obligadas definiciones. No sólo la derrota de Hitler era positiva a manos del Stalin. También Thatcher era el enemigo principal en Malvinas frente a la dictadura de Galtieri y Bush era el adversario vencer ante el tirano Sadam. En situaciones complejas hay que registrar cuáles son los intersticios de intervención para los proyectos populares.

ADVERTENCIAS PARA AMÉRICA LATINA

La sangría de Medio Oriente constituye una gran alerta para otras regiones. Ilustra la devastación que genera la acción imperial y los enfrentamientos entre pueblos.

Afortunadamente América Latina no atravesó esa demolición y mantiene significativas diferencias con el mundo árabe. El cambio de relaciones de fuerzas -que introdujo el denominado ciclo progresista de la última década -impidió a Estados Unidos perpetrar sus tradicionales intervenciones en la región.

La situación de los movimientos populares también difiere sustancialmente de Medio Oriente. El baño de sangre y la desmoralización política -que sucedió a la derrotas de la primavera árabe- dista mucho del resistido y acotado retroceso político, que genera la restauración conservadora en Latinoamérica.

Pero lo sucedido en Irak, Túnez, Egipto, Libia o Siria es una gran advertencia ante la peligrosa presencia estadounidense en Colombia. Ya hay siete bases militares conectadas con la cuarta flota, que operan en estrecha asociación con un ejército de envergadura.

Colombia prepara además un ingreso a la OTAN, que conducirá a envíos de tropas a las zonas en conflicto. Quiénes luego lamentan la incorporación de Latinoamérica al radio de las represalias terroristas, suelen olvidar que el origen de esa desgracia se encuentra en la sumisión al Pentágono.

El sometimiento de Argentina a las aventuras estadounidenses en Medio Oriente condujo a dos graves atentados (AMIA y Embajada). Pero como Macri está embarcado en repetir esa subordinación hay que atenerse a las consecuencias.

Ha reabierto la absurda causa judicial sobre el Memorándum, suscripto por el gobierno anterior con Irán, para hacer buena letra con Trump y Netanyahu. Si esa dupla concreta el endurecimiento con los Ayatolah, tendrá a su disposición un pretexto de agresión fabricado en Argentina.

La alocada idea que el fiscal Nisman fue asesinado por orden de Teherán con la complicidad de Cristina Kirchner ya fue sugerida por cúpula sionista. No es la primera vez que Israel utiliza a la Argentina para sus operaciones contra Irán. Seguramente aprovechará la disposición de Macri a sumarse a cualquier operativo.

El líder del PRO ya abrió los archivos a la CIA, compra armamento a Tel Aviv entrena gendarmes en el estado de Georgia. También su colega brasileño -Temer- busca oxígeno con mayor sometimiento a Estados Unidos

En este marco la derecha venezolana utiliza argumentos de Medio Oriente para conspirar contra Maduro. Afirma que alineó a Venezuela en un “eje del mal” comandado por Rusia e Irán. Con ese disparate motoriza provocaciones golpistas, que incluyen llamados a la intervención extranjera con pretextos de crisis humanitaria.

No sólo pretenden repetir el golpe institucional perpetrado en Honduras, Paraguay o Brasil. Preparan acciones de mayor porte con exigencias de sanciones y aplicación de la Carta Democrática de la OEA. Los aviones espías del Pentágono acompañan la conspiración penetrando el espacio aéreo venezolano.

Frente a este acoso el gobierno bolivariano ha reforzado sus vínculos con el régimen sirio. Esa alianza es comprensible pero no justificable. Los acuerdos militares y las convergencias diplomáticas pueden concretarse, sin emitir opiniones sobre los gobiernos involucrados.

Los movimientos sociales, partidos políticos e intelectuales de izquierda tienen la palabra. Deben comprometerse con la verdad, siguiendo principios de rechazo de la intervención imperialista, oposición a los dictadores y solidaridad con los pueblos sublevados. Estos criterios ofrecen una brújula frente a la tragedia de Siria.

Claudio Katz

Claudio Katz: Economista, investigador del CONICET, profesor de la UBA, miembro del EDI.

Notas:

[1]  En un próximo trabajo expondremos nuestra interpretación del significado teórico de las nociones sub-imperialismo e imperialismo en formación.

REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS:

Achcar, Gilbert (2015), http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=195232

Al-Haj Saleh, Yassin (2016) . http://www.rebelion.org/noticias/2016/12/220316.pdf

 Alba Rico, Santiago (2015).  http://www.contrainfo.com/14713/europa-antes-los-esclavizo-ahora-los-tira-al-mar/

Alba Rico, Santiago (2016) https://www.cuartopoder.es/tribuna/2016/12/21/alepo-ankara-berlin-geopolitica-del-desastre/9436

Amin, Samir (2013) www.m-pep.org

Armanian, Nazanín (2015) http://www.resumenmediooriente.org/2015/10/29/en-la-conjura-anti-siria-israel-apoya-a-al-qaeda/

Armanian Nazanín (2016a) http://blogs.publico.es/puntoyseguido/3465/el-ridiculo-golpe-de-estado-de-turquia-en-17-reflexiones/

Armanian, Nazanín (2016b) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=219964

Armanian, Nazanin (2016c) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=211809

Armanian, Na zanín (2016d) , http://blogs.publico.es/puntoyseguido/3144/la-rivalidad-entre-rusia-e-iran-remodela-el-mercado-del-gas-en-eurasia/

Armanian, Nazanín (2016e). http://blogs.publico.es/puntoyseguido/3362/rinon-higado-y-cornea-gangas-en-el-mercado-sirio-de-organos/

Behrouz, Farahany (2017) http://vientosur.info/spip.php?article12116

Bush, David (2016)http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1349.php

 Cinatti Claudia (2016) http://www.laizquierdadiario.com/El-mapa-de-la-guerra-civil-en-Siria

Cockburn, Patrick (2016) https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-289952-2016-01-10.html

Cockburn, Patrick (2017) http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos/el-sueno-de-dominacion-de-arabia-saudi-hecho-cenizas

Cornejo, José F (2016). http://www.otramirada.pe/turqu%C3%ADa-el-golpe-abortado-y-sus-consecuencias-internacionales

De Jong, Alex (2015) http://www.inprecor.fr/article-inprecor?id=1747

Domènech Antoni; Buster, G; Suárez,Carlos Abel, (2016), http://www.sinpermiso.info/textos/alepo-y-las-izquierdas

Drweski Bruno,  Page, Jean-Pierre (2013), https://legrandsoir.info/mali-gauche-proguerre-et-recolonisation-reponse-a-samir-amin.html

Engelhardt, Tom (2016).http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=217282

Febbro, Eduardo (2016).https://www.pagina12.com.ar/8631-complices-de-la-matanza-de-civiles

Feffer, Johan (2015). http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=201785

Fisk, Robert (2015), http://www.resumenlatinoamericano.org/2015/07/30/conflicto-turco-kurdo-cada-potencia-regional-ha-traicionado-a-los-kurdos/

Fuser, Igor (2016). https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2016/12/23/opiniao-sete-verdades-sobre-o-conflito-na-siria/

Gartzia, Pablo (2016) http://centrodeperiodicos.blogspot.com.ar/2016/08/progresismo-y-kurdistan-kurdos-no.html

García, Sergio; Dutra, Israel (2016) https://www.aporrea.org/internacionales/a239195.html

Gómez, Luz (2016) http://www.eldiario.es/contrapoder/Arabia_Saudi-Naciones_Unidas-pena_de_muerte_6_471112892.html

Gutiérrez D, José Antonio (2016) http://anarkismo.net/article/29526

Hanieh, Adam (2016) http://www.inprecor.fr/article-%C3%A9tat-islamique-en-Irak-et-au-Levant-Une-naissance-sur-les-espoirs-bris%C3%A9s-du-Printemps-arabe?id=1854

Jahanpou, Farhang (2014a) http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2014/09/por-que-y-para-que-combate-el-estado-islamico/

Jahanpour, Farhang (2014b)  http://www.ipsnoticias.net/2014/11/las-raices-profundas-de-la-rivalidad-entre-sunies-y-chiies/

Katz Claudio, (2013) publicaciones.sociales.uba.ar/index.php/cuadernosdemarte/article/viewFile/48/47

Kur, Ale (2015) https://www.mas.org.ar/?p=5923

Kur, Ale (2016)  Siria: http://www.socialismo-o-barbarie.org/?p=8498

Lorusso, Fabrizio (2015), http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=201717

Luppino, Guido (2016) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=207509

Mandel, Ernest (1991). El significado de la segunda guerra mundial, Fontamara, México

Mundy, Martha (2015) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=204484

Ramzy, Baroud (2015). http://www.rebelion.org/mostrar.php?tipo=5&id=Ramzy%20Baroud&inicio=0

R.L. (2016), http://www.resumenlatinoamericano.org/2016/12/25/religiosa-argentina-en-siria-a-rt-esta-muy-lejos-de-ser-una-guerra-civil-seria-una-invasion/

Pappé Ilan (2016) http://www.resumenlatinoamericano.org/2016/08/17/pappe-el-sionismo-fue-construido-mediante-la-expropiacion-de-tierras/

Petras, James (2016), http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=211371

Petras, James (2017) http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2123

Poch, Rafael (2017) http://blogs.lavanguardia.com/paris-poch/2017/01/07/rusia-riesgos-agravios-74312/

Rodríguez, Olga (2015) http://www.eldiario.es/zonacritica/ISIS-financia-hacen-vista-gorda_6_452914729.html

Ramonet, Ignacio (2017) /editorial/?articulo=b013574d-1e69-4a5d-aa02-3c712b0a2e42

 Rousset, Pierre (2014)  http://vientosur.info/spip.php?article9505

Savran, Sungur (2016) http://socialistproject.ca/bullet/1286.php

Zamora, Augusto (2016) http://www.elmundo.es/opinion/2016/12/21/58598120e5fdea530a8b456f.html

 Zurutuza,  Karlos (2014). http://www.resumenlatinoamericano.org/2014/12/29/a-los-libios-les-sobra-el-estado/

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Discusiones sobre la tragedia siria

“Color Revolution” against Donald Trump

January 18th, 2017 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

What will happen on Inauguration Day?

Anti-Trump protest movements are envisaged alongside a campaign to disrupt. 

While there  are “genuine protests” –e.g. those led by the Answer Coalition and Workers World–, the main thrust is coming from an “engineered” campaign supported and financed by the Neocons, which is largely intent upon disrupting the inauguration and destabilizing the Trump presidency.  Several progressive organizations have nonetheless joined the bandwagon of the #Disruptj20 campaign. 


UPDATE

CNN has put together a report entitled Who is Survivor at Inauguration, which presents a Disrupt scenario in which the president elect, the vice president elect and Congressional leaders are killed following a terrorists attack.  

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.

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)

For further details see our report 


The protest movement in fact started on the evening of November 8 prior to the announcement of the election results.  The organizers of this movement are acting on behalf of powerful elite interests. People are misled: the protests are not being led on behalf of the genuine concerns of Americans who oppose Trump’s right wing racist agenda. 

The engineered protest ops are coordinated with a relentless propaganda campaign led by the mainstream media, which includes accusations of high treason and sedition directed against Donald Trump, who is portrayed as an instrument of the Kremlin. 

Even prior to the November 8 elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic,  Trump is a “Modern Manchurian Candidate” serving the interests of the Kremlin.

Vanity Fair November 1 2016

The Atlantic October 8 2016

In the wake of the Grand Electors’ Vote (in favour of Trump) and Obama’s renewed sanctions against Moscow, the accusations of treason directed against Donald Trump have gone into high gear. Unprecedented in US history, a movement to impeach an elected president has been launched prior to his accession to the White House.

The objective of the engineered protests which has the support of US intelligence is to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump presidency.

Is it a conspiracy? The various components of this operation are carefully coordinated.  All the essential features of an American-style “color revolution” with the intent to destabilize an incoming president are there.

Background: What is a Color Revolution?  

Before proceeding further, let us focus on the nature and historical origins of  the “color revolutions” used as a means to triggering “regime change”, which have emerged in a large number of countries in the course of the last decade.

The “color revolution” is a US intelligence operation which consists in covertly supporting as well as infiltrating protest movements with a view to triggering “regime change” under the banner of a pro-democracy template. The objective of a “color revolution” is to manipulate elections, create violence, foment social unrest and use the protest movement to topple an existing government. The ultimate foreign policy goal is to instate a compliant pro-US government (or “puppet regime”).

Engineered protest movements are carefully planned. They are intelligence ops. They use non-governmental organizations to recruit protesters.

History: “The Revolution Business” and “Regime Change” 

In August 1999, the CIA set up a training program for a Serbian NGO entitled OTPOR which subsequently played a key role in the engineered protest movement conducive to the downfall of president Slobodan Milosevic. A few years later, OTPOR established a training and strategizing outfit entitled  The Centre for Applied Non Violent Action and Strategies (CANVAS). CANVAS became a consulting outfit specializing in “Revolution” on contract to the CIA.

CANVAS  was set up by the CIA as “an International network of trainers and consultants” involved in the “Revolution Business”. Funded by Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) as well private corporate foundations. CANVAS constitutes a  consulting outfit, advising and training US sponsored opposition groups in more than 40 countries. In this regard, OTPOR played a key role in fomenting the mass uprisings during the Arab Spring in Egypt in 2011. What appeared to be a spontaneous democratization process was a carefully planned intelligence operation. View video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8  

How does this relate to the coordinated operation to undermine the Trump presidency?

 What is at stake is a “color revolution” Made in America which is marked by fundamental rivalries within the US establishment, namely the clash between competing corporate factions, each of which is intent upon exerting control over the incoming US presidency.

The OTPOR-CANVAS-CIA model is nonetheless relevant. Several foundations involved in funding color revolutions internationally are involved in funding the anti-Trump campaign.

Moreover, while CANVAS’ mandate is to oversee “color revolutions” internationally, it also has links with a number of NGOs currently involved in the anti-Trump campaign including  The Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWS launched by Adbusters was funded via the Tides Foundation which in turn is funded by a number of corporate foundations and charities, including the Ford Foundation, Gates Foundation  and the Open Society Institute. Ford is known to have historical links to US intelligence.

It is worth noting that the raised fist logo first launched by OTPOR in 1999 as a symbol of CIA sponsored color revolutions (including Egypt during the Arab Spring), also constitutes the symbol of several organizations involved in the anti-Trump engineered protest movement.

The Inauguration Disrupt Campaign: Disruptj20

Several hundred thousand Trump supporters will be present in Washington DC on January 20th. D.C.’s Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management estimates that there will be between  800,000 – 900,000 people in DC for the event, including Trump supporter and protesters.

Will there be clashes between both sides?

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.

The same color revolution OTPOR style logo:


 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Color Revolution” against Donald Trump

Outgoing US President Barack Obama renewed a controversial executive order Friday that designates Venezuela as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security.

In one of his last acts as president, Obama stated that he had decided to extend the executive order given that Venezuela’s situation had “not improved” since the decree was first renewed last March.

In particular he cited the Venezuelan government’s alleged “erosion of human rights guarantees, persecution of political opponents, curtailment of press freedoms, use of violence and human rights violations and abuses in response to anti-government protests, and arbitrary arrest and detention of anti-government protestors, as well as the exacerbating presence of significant government corruption,” as the reasons for the renewal.

Initially approved in March 2015, the Executive Order declares a “national emergency” with regards to Venezuela and was accompanied by US sanctions against several Venezuelan officials. The move was immediately met with protest from the Maduro administration in Venezuela and its allies in Latin America, while over a million Venezuelans also signed a public petition calling on Obama to repeal the order.

Although the decree does not technically expire until this coming March, a spokesman for the National Security Council said that Obama had decided to “renew all national emergencies” in order to guarantee “a smooth transition” over to the new administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump next week.

“This will ensure that the new administration will not need to immediately undertake renewals necessary to safeguard our national security as it works to put its national security team in place and secure Senate confirmation of relevant appointees,” said spokesperson Ned Price.

Although the order may be repealed by incoming President-Elect Donald Trump, it is unlikely that the new president will do so. Trump has made several public statements condemning Venezuela’s left-wing government as dictatorial.

Reacting to the news on Friday, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Delcy Rodriguez, said that her government “categorically rejected” the renewal and labelled it a “new aggression by Barack Obama” as well as part of his “legacy of hate and serious violations of international law”.

Other countries affected by the move are Iran, Cuba, Libya, Zimbabwe and Russia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuela, A Threat to US National Security??: Obama Extends Executive Order Targeting Venezuela for Second Time.

Obama’s Bombing Legacy

January 18th, 2017 by Nicolas J. S. Davies

As President Obama leaves office, much of his foreign policy record remains shrouded in the symbolism that has been the hallmark of his presidency. The persistence of Obama’s image as a reluctant war-maker and a Nobel Peace Prize winner has allowed Donald Trump and his cabinet nominees to claim that Obama has underfunded the military and been less than aggressive in his use of U.S. military power.

President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)

Nothing could be further from the truth, and their claims are clearly designed only to justify even more extravagant military spending and more aggressive threats and uses of force than those perpetrated under Mr. Obama’s “disguised, quiet, media-free” war policy.

The reality is that Obama has increased U.S. military spending beyond the post-World War II record set by President George W. Bush. Now that Obama has signed the military budget for FY2017, the final record is that Obama has spent an average of $653.6 billion per year, outstripping Bush by an average of $18.7 billion per year (in 2016 dollars).

In historical terms, after adjusting for inflation, Obama’s military spending has been 56 percent higher than Clinton’s, 16 percent higher than Reagan’s, and 42 percent more than the U.S. Cold War average, when it was justified by a military competition with a real peer competitor in the Soviet Union.  By contrast, Russia now spends one-tenth of what we are pouring into military forces, weapon-building and war.

What all this money has paid for has been the polar opposite of what most of Obama’s supporters thought they were voting for in 2008. Behind the iconic image of a hip, sophisticated celebrity-in-chief with strong roots in modern urban culture, lies a calculated contrast between image and reality that has stretched our country’s neoliberal experiment in “managed democracy” farther than ever before and set us up for the previously unthinkable “post-truth” presidency of Donald Trump.

Obama’s Model

Obama’s doctrine of covert and proxy war was modeled on the Phoenix Program in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s and Ronald Reagan’s proxy wars in Central America in the 1980s. It involved a massive expansion of U.S. special operations forces, now deployed to 138 different countries, compared with only 60 when Obama took office.

Then-Vice President George H.W. Bush with CIA Director William Casey at the White House on Feb. 11, 1981. (Photo credit: Reagan Library)

As senior military officers told the Washington Post in June 2010, the Obama administration allowed, “things that the previous administration did not,” and, “They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly.”

Wherever possible, U.S. forces have recruited and trained proxy forces to do the actual fighting and dying, from the Iraqi government’s Shiite death squads to Al Qaeda splinter groups in Libya and Syria (supporting “regime change” projects in those countries) to mercenaries serving Arab monarchies and seemingly endless cannon fodder for the war in Afghanistan.

Obama’s ten-fold expansion of drone strikes further reduced U.S. casualties relative to numbers of foreigners killed. This fostered an illusion of peace and normality for Americans in the homeland even as the death toll inflicted by America’s post-9/11 wars almost certainly passed the two million mark.

The targets of these covert and proxy wars are not just guerrilla fighters or “terrorists” but also the “infrastructure” or “civilian support mechanism” that supports guerrillas with food and supplies, and the entire shadow government and civil society in areas that resist domination.

As a U.S. officer in Iraq explained to Newsweek in 2005, “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.”

In previous decades, the victims of similar operations in Central America included the grandfather of a young lady I met in Cotzal in Guatemala – he was beheaded by an Army death squad for giving food to the Guerrilla Army of the Poor. The Catholic Church has now named Father Stanley Rother from Oklahoma, who was killed by a Guatemalan Army death squad in Santiago Atitlan in 1981, as a martyr and candidate for sainthood.

Bloody Iraq

In Iraq, the targets of such operations have included hundreds of academics and other professionals and community leaders. Just last week, U.S. air strikes targeted and killed three senior professors and their families in their homes at Mosul University. The victims included Dr. Mohamad Tybee Al-Layla (Ph.D. Texas), the highly respected former Dean of the College of Engineering.

At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.”

In 2004, after the assassination of Dr. Abdul-Latif Ali Al-Mayah in Baghdad, a senior police officer explained who killed him and why to British journalist Stephen Grey: “Dr. Abdul-Latif was becoming more and more popular because he spoke for people on the street here. … You can look no further than the Governing Council. They are politicians that are backed by the Americans and who arrived to Iraq from exile with a list of their enemies. I’ve seen these lists. They are killing people one by one.”

As Obama’s murderous proxy wars in Iraq and Syria have spun further out of control, U.S. special operations forces and U.S.-trained death squads on the ground have increasingly been backed up by U.S. and allied air forces. Four years ago, as Obama was inaugurated for a second term, I wrote that the U.S. and its allies dropped 20,000 bombs and missiles in his first term. In his second term, they have dropped four times that number, bringing the total for Obama’s presidency to over 100,000 bombs and missiles striking seven countries, surpassing the 70,000 unleashed on five countries by George W. Bush.

Obama inherited a massive air campaign already under way in Afghanistan, where the U.S. and its allies dropped over 4,000 bombs and missiles every year for six years between 2007 and 2012. Altogether, U.S.-led air forces have dropped 26,000 bombs and missiles on Afghanistan under Obama, compared with 37,000 under Bush, for a total of 63,000 bomb and missile strikes in 15 years.

But the new U.S.-led bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria since 2014 has been much heavier, with 65,730 bomb and missile strikes in 2 1/2 years. Iraq has now been struck with 74,000 bombs and missiles, even more than Afghanistan: 29,200 in the “Shock & Awe” assault of 2003; 3,900 more before the invasion and during the U.S. occupation; and now another 41,000 in “Shock & Awe II” since 2014, including the current siege and bombardment of Mosul.

Obama’s total of 100,000 air strikes are rounded out by 24,700 bombs and missiles dropped on Syria, 7,700 in NATO and its Arab monarchist allies’ bombing of Libya in 2011, another 496 strikes in Libya in 2016, and at least 547 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Failed Policy

Donald Trump and his choices for secretaries of State and Defense, Rex Tillerson and Jim Mattis, respectively, are right to say that Obama’s war policy has failed. But they are wrong to insist that the answer is to spend even more on weapons and use them even more aggressively.

President Barack Obama at the White House with National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Samantha Power (right), his U.N. ambassador. (Photo credit: Pete Souza)

Obama’s failure was the result of his deference to generals, admirals, the CIA and hawkish advisers like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, and of his blind faith in U.S. military power. But war was never a legitimate or effective response to terrorism.

The misuse of military force has only spread violence and chaos across the Muslim world and spawned an explosive mix of political disintegration, rule by militias and warlords, a dizzying proliferation of armed groups with different interests and loyalties and, ultimately, more blowback for the West.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and other “allies” have been only too eager to exploit and redirect our aggression against their own enemies: Iran; Syria; Libya; and different ethnic groups, minorities and political movements in what was, for centuries, a diverse, tolerant region of the world.

The U.S. has become a blind giant stumbling through a thick forest of shadows and unseen dangers, striking out with its devastating war machine at the instigation of self-serving allies and the same dark forces in its own “intelligence” bureaucracy who have stirred up trouble, staged coups and unleashed war in country after country for seventy years.

The only consistent beneficiary in all this death, destruction and chaos is the “military industrial complex” that President Eisenhower warned us against in his farewell address in 1961.

In 2012, I researched and wrote about how General Dynamics CEO Lester Crown and his Chicago family backed and bankrolled the political career of Barack Obama. As manufacturers of Virginia class submarines, Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt destroyers and littoral combat ships (all programs saved, revived or expanded by Obama) as well as other types of munitions, the Crown family’s patronage of Barack Obama has proven to be a profitable investment, from the violence and chaos in the Muslim world to the New Cold War with Russia to the “pivot” to the South China Sea.

Now Mr. Trump has nominated General Dynamics board member, General James “Mad Dog” Mattis as Secretary of Defense, despite his responsibility for illegal rules of engagement and systematic war crimes in Iraq, an obvious conflict of interest with the millions he has earned at General Dynamics and clear laws that require civilian control of the military.

When will we ever learn to tell the difference between corrupt warmongers like Obama and Mattis and progressive leaders who will let us live in peace with our neighbors around the world, even at the expense of General Dynamics’ profits?

Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.  He also wrote the chapters on “Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama’s Bombing Legacy

Nigeria: El maldito fuego del hambre

January 18th, 2017 by Guadi Calvo

La confusa acción de la aviación nigeriana que el martes 17, atacó el campo de desplazados de Rann en Kala Balge, en el Estado de Borno en el noroeste del país, muy cerca de la frontera con Camerún, matando a más de cien personas, entre desplazados y colaboradores de la Cruz Roja, además de provocar 120 heridos, dejó expuesto con claridad una de las tantas consecuencias “colaterales”, que provoca la guerra contra el fundamentalismo wahabita, que en ese país está representado por el grupo Boko Haram, desde marzo de 2015, incorporado a la estrategia global del Daesh. La Cruz Roja reportó que entre su personal se produjeron exactamente seis muertos y trece heridos.

En el marco de la operación Lafiya Dole, puesta en marcha en mayo de 2016, por el gobierno del presidente Muhammadu Buhari, con la coordinación de la Fuerza Multinacional Conjunta (MJTF) con sede en Yamena (Chad) compuesta por los ejércitos de Níger, Chad y Camerún, ha conseguido dar importantes golpes a la guerrilla del mesiánico Abubakar Shekau, que desde el 2009 provocó más de 25 mil muertes, y 2.5 millones de desplazados. En estos días se acaban de cumplir dos años de la masacre de Baga, una aldea del Estado de Borno, donde en solo tres días Boko Haram asesinó a dos mil de sus habitantes.

Los pobladores del noroeste del país han denunciado que estos tipos de “accidentes”, desde el último año, se producen casi a diario, y han matado a numerosos civiles. Entre las víctimas se cuentan algunas de las 300 alumnas de Chibok, secuestradas por Boko Haram en abril de 2014. El año pasado cuando se logró rescatas a varias de ellas, informaron que un número indeterminado de sus compañeras habían muerto por este tipo de ataques de la Fuerza Aérea Nigeriana.

El general Lucky Irabor, comandante de las operaciones en la región, declaró que había recibió un informe con coordenadas de un encuentro de miembros del grupo wahabita, en cercanías al campo de desplazados: “Yo coordiné y di instrucciones de que el personal aéreo de la operación debía ir y abordar el problema”. Por lo que se cree que los datos podrían haber sido una trampa de los terroristas.

Boko Haram, a pesar de que se encuentra en constante replique desde que las acciones del MJTF se llevan a cabo desde hace marzo de 2015, por lo que han perdido algunos de sus “santuarios” en el estado de Borno a manos de la séptima división del ejército nigeriano en Maiduguri, al mando del general de brigada Victor Ezugwu, como el bosque de Sambisa o el villorrio de Damasak, su virulencia sigue intacta.

El 9 de diciembre último en el mercado de Maiduguri, capital del Estado de Borno, una doble explosión asesinó a 56 personas y provocó docenas de heridos. En ese caso, fueron utilizadas dos niñas que llevaban explosivos, como ya es práctica recurrente habían sido detonadas por control remoto.

La organización fundamentalista viene sufriendo numerosas derrotas, particularmente en los alrededores del Lago Chad, zona fronteriza de los cuatro países miembros fuerza multinacional (Nigeria, Chad, Camerún y Níger). Las operación han logrado eliminar o detener a cientos de miembros de la secta terrorista, al tiempo que se han liberado a más de 3000 personas que el grupo tenía secuestrados, o bien para pedir rescate o incorpóralos a sus milicias.

A pesar que se han detectado algunos resquebrajamientos, y los rumores de la aparición de un nuevo líder Abu Musab al-Barnawi, cuestión posteriormente desmentida por el propio Shekau, el grupo sigue tan vital como para poder mantener entre 3 y 4 mil cautivos.

Además Boko Haram, sigue controlando sus poderosas redes de complicidad con gran parte de la población local, musulmanes sunitas. El grupo cuenta con una organización descentralizada, y la estructura básica todavía no ha sido alcanzada por los que su capacidad logística y operacional sigue activa no solo en el nordeste de Nigeria, sino también en Diffa, Níger y en el norte de Camerún.

El Gobierno nigeriano ha dado por muerto a Abubakar Shekau por lo menos en cuatro oportunidades, la última fue en agosto pasado, lo que dio oportunidad a Shekau, para mostrarse en un video tan radical y exorbitado como siempre, lo que habla de su ánimo de combate.

Los desplazados de siempre

El “incidente” de ayer, que por otra parte no es el primero, solo expone otra de la tremenda realidad no solo del pueblo nigeriano, sino de la totalidad de África: Los desplazados.

En las zonas que controla la organización existen problemas para el abastecimiento de alimentos y medicación del casi millón de personas que viven en aldeas semi-destruidas por los continuos combates, así también como en los 15 campos de refugiados en el Estado de Borno. Allí los pobladores no tienen forma de abastecerse y solo les queda esperar la asistencia de algunas de las onges que operan en el sector, cada vez con más dificultades, por los ataques de uno y otro bando.

El 92% de los 2.5 millones de refugiados, están recluidos en diferentes campamentos de los estados de Borno, Yobe y Adamaw. Naciones Unidas ha informado que un cuarto de millón de niños sufre desnutrición aguda, de los que 50 mil morirán en las próximas semanas y que más de dos millones de personas siguen sin tener acceso a la ayuda internacional.

La capital de Borno, Maiduguri, lugar de nacimiento del fundador de Boko Haram Mohamed Yusuf, muerto en 2009, se ha convertido en un gigantesco campo de refugiados. A medida que fueron llegando a la ciudad desplazados de los campos y aldeas cercanas, han ido ocupado distintos edificios de la universidad, edificios públicos, calles, parques e incluso viviendas privadas. Los barrios que alguna vez parecían florecer, se han llenado de construcciones miserables de cartón y plástico.

En diferentes campos de refugiados se hacinan sin ninguna esperanza miles de personas como el de Banki, una pequeña localidad a 130 kilómetros al sudoeste de Maiduguri, que acoge cerca de 20 mil personas. El campo de Dalori y el de Bama también próximos a la capital estadual, son cerca de 50 mil refugiados en total, viven la crítica situación de la falta de alimento y medicamentos, particularmente los niños. Se ha denuncian que en esos campos mueren de hambre unas diez personas por día.

Unos 10 millones de personas que han quedado varadas en la región del lago Chad, algunos que porque se niegan a dejar sus ancestrales tierras, otros por temor a las acciones de Boko Haram, están sin abastecimiento de ningún tipo, por lo que no será raro que pronto la gran prensa del mundo se espante por el maldito fuego del hambre.

Guadi Calvo

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

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Nigeria: El maldito fuego del hambre

«José Manuel Barroso va a aportar una capacidad de análisis y una experiencia inmensa a Golman Sachs y sobre todo una comprensión profunda de Europa. Estamos impacientes por trabajar con él en el marco de nuestra labor de asesoramiento a nuestros clientes, en un contexto económico y de mercado incierto y delicado». Es en estos términos como se expresaba Michael Sherwood y Richard Gnodde, co-directores generales de Goldman Sachs International, realmente «impacientes» ante la idea de recibir al antiguo presidente de la Comisión Europea como nuevo colega en el seno del famoso banco de inversiones.

Un excelente fichaje para Goldman Sachs

Por medio de un comunicado fechado el 8 de julio 2016[1], el banco implicado en el maquillaje de las cuentas públicas de Grecia que posibilitaron su entrada en la zona euro anunció el reclutamiento de José Manuel Barroso, ex-primer ministro de Portugal de 2002 a 2004 y presidente de la Comisión Europea durante toda una década (del 2004 al 2014).

Así que quien fue más que condescendiente con los grandes bancos privados durante sus dos mandatos a la cabeza de la Comisión Europea e impulsó rescates bancarios de una amplitud hasta ese momento deconocida en Europa, pasa a ocupar las funciones de consejero y presidente no ejecutivo de Goldman Sachs International, rama europea del grupo estadounidense con sede en Londres. Durante su mandato como presidente de la Comisión Europea, Barroso se empleó a fondo en conseguir la impunidad para los grandes bancos, auténticos responsables de la crisis, así como de garantizar su supervivencia, ésto último por medio de inyecciones colosales de dinero público a costa de un endeudamiento y de una política de austeridad brutal para las poblaciones.

Ahora, este mismo Barroso es oficialmente contratado para aconsejar a uno de los bancos más implicados en la crisis de las hipotecas subprime (que desembocó en una de las peores crisis financieras desde la crisis de 1929) durante el proceso de salida del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea en el contexto del Brexit. No importa bajo qué bandera, ya sea como defensor de la UE o secundando la salida de uno de sus miembros, Barroso permanece fiel aliado de la banca.

Vender al sector privado la influencia adquirida en el sector público

Esta nominación ha suscitado una ola de indignación en los medios políticos y en los grandes medios comerciales. Sin embargo este comportamiento Goldman Sachs no tiene nada de excepcional en el microcosmos de los círculos políticos y financieros, el cual se caracteriza por la existencia de «puertas giratorias» entre la esfera pública y la privada. En efecto, el fenómeno que consiste en vender al sector privado la influencia adquirida en el sector público no es algo nuevo y es algo que se demuestra tremendamente beneficioso para las multinacionales. Estas obtienen por esta vía los contactos y las conexiones de los antiguos responsables políticos que sirven para conseguir nuevos contratos o para afinar mejor sus estrategias comerciales. Es el caso de Barroso que ha sido recrutado esencialmente por sus numerosos contactos en las altas esferas.

«En tanto que banco norteamericano que actúa internacionalmente y por lo tanto también en el ámbito europeo, Goldman Sachs tiene una necesidad imperiosa de saber qué se trama en los pasillos de Bruselas», explica Marc Roche, autor y director de un documental sobre Goldman Sachs. Este banco de inversión quiere saber antes que nadie lo que se prepara en términos de reglamentaciones en su ámbito de actividad, así como sobre la tasa de interés y en general sobre todas las decisiones macroeconómicas, puesto que estas decisiones van a influenciar sus actividades crediticias que componen el origen de sus beneficios[2].

En una entrevista al Financial Times que fue comentada por Mediapart, Barroso explica el interés de Goldman Sachs en su persona: «Evidentemente yo conozco bien la UE y conozco el entorno británico. Si mis consejos pueden ser útiles en las circunstancias actuales, estoy dispuesto claro está a colaborar».

Trayectoria controvertida

Se comprende mejor la amplitud de la «colaboración» que puede aportar José Manuel Barroso leyendo su declaración durante el discurso pronunciado en el Instituto Europeo de Florencia el 18 de junio de 2010, cuando afirma: «Lo que ocurre actualmente es una revolución silenciosa, paso a paso, hacia una gobernanza económica más fuerte. Los estados miembros [de la UE] han aceptado, y yo espero que ellos lo hayan comprendido bien, ceder a las instituciones europeas importantes poderes en materia de control y vigilancia»[3].

Repasemos algunos de los momentos cruciales de la controvertida trayectoria de José Manuel Barroso. En marzo de 2003 se alinea del lado norteamericano y británico para desencadenar la guerra de Irak, un fracaso apabullante, y organiza la cumbre de las Azores[4] con sus promotores principales, George W. Bush, Tony Blair y José María Aznar.

Ferviente defensor de los tratados de libre comercio, Barroso ha sido uno de los más vigorosos sostenes del Tratado de Lisboa, que retomó la parte esencial del Tratado Constitucional Europeo (TCE) rechazado en referéndum en el 2005 por cerca del 55% de los franceses[5] y el 62% de los votos holandeses. El Tratado de Lisboa por su parte fue aprobado sin consulta popular, despreciando la opinión de más de 20 millones de franceses y holandeses. Posteriormente y en el mayor de los secretos pone en marcha los tratados de libre comercio, hoy día fuertemente contestados, entre Europa y Canadá (CETA) así como el acuerdo entre Europa y los Estados Unidos (TTIP). Finalmente, como miembro representante de la Troika, Barroso se convertirá en el adalid de las políticas antisociales de austeridad.

Traducción de David Garcia Delgado.

 Jerôme Duval

Jerôme Duval: Miembro del CADTM, Comité para la abolición de las deudas ilegítimas (www.cadtm.org) y de la PACD, la Plataforma de Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda en el Estado español (http://auditoriaciudadana.net/). Es autor junto con Fátima Martín del libro Construcción europea al servicio de los mercados financieros, Icaria editorial 2016 y es también coautor del libro La Deuda o la vida, (Icaria, 2011), libro colectivo coordinado por Damien Millet y Eric Toussaint, que ha recibido el Premio al libro político en la Feria del libro político en Lieja, Bélgica, en 2011..

Notas


[1] Ver la carta de Goldman Sachs aquí y aquí en PDF

[2] Benoît Zagdoun, « Avec Barroso, Goldman Sachs continue à tisser sa toile au cœur du pouvoir ». France Télévisions, 13 de julio 2016.

[3] Citado por Anne Dufresne, « El consenso de Berlín », Le Monde Diplomatique, febrero 2012.

[4] El 16 de marzo de 2003, en el archipiélago de las Azores, el primer ministro portugués Manuel Barroso recibe al primer ministro británico Tony Blair, al presidente de los Estados Unidos George Bush Jr y al primer ministro español José María Aznar para acordar una operación militar conjunta en Irak. Menos de un mes más tarde, el 9 de abril, la coalición bombardea Bagdad.

[5] Ver los resultados del referéndum de 2005

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on De la Troika a Goldman Sachs: las puertas giratorias de Barroso traen cola

Em seu mais recente livro, A Desordem Mundial, o cientista político Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira analisa as consequências para o resto do planeta das intervenções militares e diplomáticas dos Estados Unidos nas últimas décadas.

Do Oriente Médio à África, sem escapar o Leste Europeu, vicejam as “guerras por procuração, o caos, o terror e as catástrofes humanitárias”, fruto da tentativa fracassada de Washington de estabelecer o domínio completo da terra, mar e ar.

Enciclopédico e bem informado, Moniz Bandeira, na entrevista a seguir, parte da tese central da sua obra para cerzir uma intrincada correlação entre os recentes acontecimentos globais: o impeachment de Dilma Rousseff, a crise das esquerdas na América Latina, a tentativa de golpe na Turquia, o crescente enfrentamento entre a Rússia e o Ocidente. “Os EUA”, conclui o acadêmico, “aspiram instituir uma ditadura mundial do capital financeiro.”

CartaCapital: O senhor vê paralelos entre o golpe de 1964 e o movimento para derrubar a presidenta Dilma Rousseff?

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira: Ambos, na sua essência, foram golpes de Estado. A diferença consistiu na forma. Interesses estrangeiros, aliados a poderosos segmentos do empresariado brasileiro, não mais bateram às portas dos quartéis.

A maioria das Forças Armadas aparentemente não mais se dispõe a intervir nas crises políticas, para mudar o regime, salvo se o poder rolar pelas ruas. Não desejam se desgastar, como ocorreu quando rasgaram a Constituição em 1964

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira

Moniz Bandeira, enciclopédico

Por outro lado, os interesses estrangeiros que se aliaram aos setores empresariais do Brasil temeram o fracasso dos experimentos anteriores com os militares (nem sempre nem todos se submeteram aos desígnios antinacionais).

CC: Durante muito tempo, parte da intelectualidade acreditou que o Brasil estava imune a golpes parlamentares-judiciais como aqueles ocorridos em Honduras e Paraguai. O processo do impeachment encontrou, porém, pouquíssima resistência na sociedade e nos poderes constituídos. Por quê?

LAMB: Vários foram os fatores. Dilma Rousseff é uma mulher digna e honesta. Mas, desde que assumiu o governo, cometeu diversos erros, sobretudo de política econômica, e, também, no segundo mandato. O real ficou muito sobrevalorizado em uma conjuntura internacional bastante adversa ao crescimento do País, em razão da queda da cotação das commodities no mercado mundial.

Dilma e Lula
O PT de Lula e Dilma igualou-se aos partidos das classes dirigentes e perdeu autenticidade (Foto a direita : Ricardo Stuckert/Instituto Lula)

Por sua vez, o PT igualou-se aos partidos das classes dirigentes. Imiscuiu-se com o PMDB, uma aliança espúria, e grande parte de seus quadros deixou-se corromper, abandonou os valores que defendia e perdeu a ética e sua autenticidade como partido de esquerda.

As mazelas, ao virem à tona, permitiram à mídia corporativa empreender uma facciosa campanha para destruí-lo e também bloquear o regresso ao governo do ex-presidente Lula, cuja popularidade não se esvaíra. A campanha foi impulsada por interesses estrangeiros contrariados.

A elite financeira internacional e setores do empresariado brasileiro influenciaram, por meio da mídia corporativa, vastas porções das classes médias preconceituosas, que jamais aceitaram um metalúrgico nordestino como presidente da República. Houve uma luta de classes, deflagrada de cima para baixo, pelos endinheirados.

CC: A força-tarefa da Operação Lava Jato nega ter um viés político-ideológico, afirma investigar a corrupção “doa a quem doer” e costuma se comparar à Mãos Limpas italiana. O senhor concorda?

LAMB: Salta aos olhos o fato de o ex-presidente Lula, com a cumplicidade da mídia corporativa, sempre ser tratado nos aspectos legais de modo diverso dos outros citados na tal Operação Lava Jato.

O grampeamento e o vazamento de sua conversa com a então presidenta Dilma Rousseff constituiu grave ilícito penal e nenhuma punição foi dada ao juiz e aos policiais que executaram o monitoramento. Esses e outros feitos da força-tarefa tiveram e têm o propósito de estabelecer a presunção de que Lula é culpado de corrupção. Nenhuma prova consistente foi apresentada.

O que importa, porém, não é a prova, não é a lei, mas a “convicção” do juiz. A Lava Jato configura uma guerra jurídica, assimétrica, mediante o uso ilegítimo da Justiça, a manipulação da lei e de processos judiciais, com fins políticos e militares, uma lawfare, conforme conceito desenvolvido pelo coronel da Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos Charles J. Dunlap Jr., no ensaio Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts, apresentado na Duke Law School em 2001.

Motivos havia para a deflagração de uma lawfare contra o governo do Brasil. Washington jamais admitiu oposição ou discrepância com a sua política internacional. A partir de 2003, sob a Presidência de Lula e, depois, de Dilma Rousseff, o Brasil frustrou a implantação da Alca e compôs o grupo denominado BRICS, que busca romper a hegemonia do dólar.

Ademais, o Brasil comprou aviões da Suécia e não da Boeing, helicópteros da Rússia, tratou de construir o submarino nuclear e outros convencionais com tecnologia da França, continuou a expandir a produção de urânio enriquecido para suas usinas nucleares, não entregou a exploração do petróleo no pré-sal à Chevron e outras corporações dos Estados Unidos, avançou nos mercados da América do Sul e da África.

O juiz Sergio Moro e o procurador-geral, Rodrigo Janot, atacam o Brasil por dentro de suas entranhas ao destruir as grandes empresas nacionais, privadas e públicas, que concorrem no mercado exterior. Causam imensurável dano à economia, maior do que a corrupção que dizem combater.

Empresas de construção e outras da cadeia produtiva estão paralisadas, sem condições de investir, levadas ao limiar da bancarrota e obrigadas a entregar seus ativos a capitais estrangeiros, a custo muito inferior ao que realmente valem. A Operação Lava Jato depreda o Brasil, ao mesmo tempo que agrava a perda de sua credibilidade política, causada pelo golpe contra Dilma Rousseff.

Síria

A Síria é um dos símbolos da guerra por preocupação (Foto: Andrey Stenin/AFP)

CC: O Brasil copia as políticas de austeridade adotadas sem sucesso na Europa. Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário avançam sobre direitos sociais e trabalhistas. Quais as consequências prováveis?

LAMB: As políticas de austeridade tendem, inevitavelmente, a piorar cada vez mais as condições macroeconômicas. Não há perspectiva de crescimento em 2017 e com o Brasil virtualmente estagnado, a afundar-se na recessão, o número de desempregados, que em setembro de 2016 era de, no mínimo, 12 milhões, vai voltar a crescer e baterá novo recorde no próximo ano, segundo a previsão do FMI.

Tais políticas de austeridade também provocarão inevitavelmente o recrudescimento das lutas sociais e da violência urbana, já fora de controle em São Paulo e outras cidades. Os investimentos diretos estrangeiros, decerto, não compensarão a queda dos aportes públicos. Capitais somente afluem para onde podem ter lucro. Com o ajuste fiscal que se pretende realizar, haverá forte redução do consumo e o incremento da pobreza e da miséria.

CC: A direita voltou ao poder na Argentina, no Brasil e no Peru. Na Venezuela, o governo de Maduro está por um fio. Quais fatores explicam essa mudança do pêndulo na América do Sul?

LAMB: O caso da Venezuela não é comparável ao da Argentina ou do Brasil, países que não tentaram estatizar até supermercados e implantar o “socialismo do século XXI”. O ex-presidente Hugo Chávez realizou extraordinárias reformas em benefício das camadas mais pobres e menos favorecidas da população.

Distribuiu fartamente a riqueza, mediante um conjunto dos mais avançados programas sociais. Iludiu-se, porém, com a perspectiva de que o preço do barril de petróleo se mantivesse alto. Nada poupou e esbanjou os dólares em nacionalização desnecessária, empresas que o Estado não tinha condições de administrar, e em atividades internacionais.

A Venezuela careceu de administração e sua economia permaneceu fundamentalmente extrativista, petroleira. Quando o preço do combustível despencou no mercado internacional, o país engolfou-se em profunda crise econômica, social e política.

A oposição conservadora, adensada por interesses alienígenas, robusteceu-se, ganhou as ruas e a maioria do Congresso. O presidente Nicolás Maduro assumiu com o país em crise e não soube gerenciar o Estado. Daí o seu governo estar por um fio.

Turquia

Na Turquia, pesaram as condições internas (Foto: Yagiz Karahan/Reuters/Latinstock)CC: E na Argentina?

LAMB: A situação é outra. O presidente Néstor Kirchner salvou o país da catástrofe social, econômica e política à qual o neoliberalismo o levara em 2001. Retirou a Argentina do fundo do poço e impulsionou o crescimento econômico ao longo da primeira década do século XXI.

Não obstante o período de grande estabilidade e prosperidade do seu governo e o de sua mulher, Cristina Kirchner, as dificuldades com os “fundos abutres” persistiram. A desaceleração do ritmo de crescimento econômico, decorrente da queda do preço das commodities, favoreceu, diante da divisão no peronismo, a vitória do neoliberal Mauricio Macri, no segundo turno, pela estreita margem de 51,34% a 48,66% de Daniel Scioli, apoiado tibiamente por Cristina.

De qualquer modo, há uma ofensiva do capital financeiro internacional para desregulamentar as relações de trabalho, a fim de comprimir os salários e compensar a queda da taxa média de lucros.

CC: Como interpretar a política externa adotada pelo governo Michel Temer? Melhor: há uma política?

LAMB: Temer não tem propriamente uma política externa. Tenta realinhar-se, agradar aos Estados Unidos e ao capital financeiro internacional, mas, como sempre, há continuidade na mudança, tanto assim que compareceu à reunião de cúpula dos BRICS, em Goa, e assinou a declaração conjunta, não obstante parecer visivelmente constrangido. A China é o maior parceiro comercial do Brasil e continua a investir mais e mais bilhões de dólares na sua economia.

CC: Há riscos de o conflito entre a Rússia e o Ocidente evoluir para um confronto armado, uma terceira guerra mundial?

LAMB: Riscos sempre há. A Rússia não parece, contudo, desejar qualquer guerra. Sua política é claramente defensiva, diante do avanço da Otan na direção de suas fronteiras. Daí a reintegração da Crimeia, que até 1954 fazia parte de seu território.

Quanto aos Estados Unidos, o chefe do Estado-Maior Conjunto das Forças Armadas, o general Joseph Francis Dunford Jr., perguntado no Senado sobre a possibilidade de estabelecer uma no-fly-zone na Síria, para defender Alepo, declarou: “Para controlarmos todo o espaço aéreo da Síria significaria entrar em guerra contra a Síria e a Rússia”. Os militares sabem, perfeitamente, que uma guerra contra a Rússia seria um jogo de soma zero. Não haveria vencedor

Vladimir Putin

O russo Putin não parece interessado em um conflito maior (Foto: Jussi Nukari/AFP)

CC: Como o senhor definiria Vladimir Putin?

LAMB: Putin salvou a Rússia do desastre, do colapso, conforme o próprio ex-presidente Mikhail Gorbachev declarou. Com lances precisos no tabuleiro da política internacional, recuperou a Rússia como superpotência mundial. É o maior, o único grande estadista das primeiras décadas do século XXI.

CC: Seu mais recente livro se chama A Desordem Mundial. Essa desordem seria parte da transição para um mundo multipolar ou uma forma de impedi-la?

LAMB: O que se vê no Oriente Médio e na África? O cenário é de guerras por procuração, massacres, terror, caos, catástrofes humanitárias. A União Europeia sofre com uma avalanche de refugiados e migrantes, que não tem muitos meios de assimilar e integrar, em meio a uma severa crise econômica.

Essas são as consequências dos esforços dos Estados Unidos para impor a full-spectrum dominance, o completo controle e domínio da terra, mar, ar e espaço. Os americanos não têm, porém, condições de ser o global cop, o gendarme global. Até 2016, gastaram perto de 4,7 trilhões de dólares nas guerras do Iraque e do Afeganistão.

Não sem razão, o conhecido economista Jeffrey D. Sachs, professor da Columbia University, escreveu que os EUA declinarão, como ocorreu com a União Soviética, nos anos 1970-1980, se não abandonarem a enganosa pretensão de império e continuarem a investir de forma desproporcional no militarismo, nas guerras do Oriente Médio e a convidar a China a uma corrida armamentista.

CC: Como se deu o processo de mutazione dello stato que o senhor descreve no livro? Ele explicaria o fato de os Estados Nacionais terem se endividado para salvar os bancos na crise de 2008 e, posteriormente, serem punidos por esse mesmo sistema financeiro?

LAMB: mutazione dello stato foi determinada nas origens dos Estados Unidos, com a instituição da república presidencialista, acompanhou o processo de acumulação do capital e acentuou-se na fase imperialista, em que o capital financeiro desenvolveu o militarismo para integrar, mediante a política de conquista mundial, as economias mais atrasadas, pré-capitalistas e não capitalistas.

Lá foi onde primeiro surgiram, a partir da crise de 1873, as formas monopolísticas de organização empresarial: trustes, cartéis e sindicatos. E sua história sempre foi de permanente guerra, com breves interregnos, em meio a crises econômicas periódicas, que abrangeram todo o sistema internacional, como a de 2007-2008.

Uma vez que o capitalismo constituiu o único modo de produção que se expandiu, mundialmente, é um todo e não um amálgama de Estados Nacionais. E o que os EUA aspiram é instituir uma ditadura mundial do capital financeiro, dos grandes bancos concentrados em Wall Street.

Erdogan

O turco Erdogan conseguiu apoio popular (Foto: Adem Altan/AFP)CC: A tentativa de golpe na Turquia insere-se nesse cenário de que forma? 

LAMB: A tentativa de golpe decorreu muito mais de contradições domésticas do que de fatores externos. É um país cujo exército tem uma tradição laica e republicana, desde que, com o desmembramento do Império Otomano, após a Primeira Guerra Mundial, o general Mustafa Kemal Atatürk aboliu o sultanato e emancipou a Turquia.

O presidente Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, eleito em 2014, aspira, segundo se supõe, restabelecer o califado, sob sua égide, com o apoio da população islâmica, que migrou para as cidades. A oposição é, porém, muito forte e o governo do presidente Erdogan enfrenta a rebelião curda, comandada pelo PKK. A instabilidade é enorme e insere a Turquia, um pivot country, no cenário da desordem mundial.

CC: O quanto o Brexit, a saída do Reino Unido da Comunidade, e o avanço dos partidos e lideranças de extrema-direita, casos da francesa Marine Le Pen e da alemã Frauke Petry, ameaçam a existência da União Europeia?

LAMB: Não vejo como o Brexit e o avanço de Marine Le Pen e Frauke Petry possam ameaçar a existência da União Europeia, apesar de todos os problemas existentes e decorrentes em larga medida da implantação da moeda única, o euro.

A Grã-Bretanha tem na União Europeia o seu maior mercado. Os vínculos econômicos, comerciais e empresariais entre a França e a Alemanha atualmente são tão estreitos que se confundem. E se assumirem o governo em qualquer dos dois países, Marine Le Pen e Frauke Petry não farão, certamente, tudo que querem e apregoam, mas o que podem.

Carta Capital, 28 de dezembro de 2016

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on No início era os caos: “Os EUA aspiram a uma ditadura mundial do capital financeiro”

La impunidad de la gran delincuencia financiera

January 18th, 2017 by Jérôme Duval

El caso de Panamá, que ha causado gran revuelo, no es ni de lejos la única aberración en materia fiscal.

La incoherencia de las listas de los paraísos fiscales

El caso de Panamá, que ha causado mucho revuelo, no es ni de lejos la única aberración en materia fiscal. ¿Cómo explicar, por ejemplo, que las Bermudas –donde el banco Société Générale tiene una filial que ha obtenido 17 millones de euros de cifra de negocio en 2013 sin ningún asalariado- hayan sido retiradas de la lista francesa de los paraísos fiscales en enero de 2014? ¿Cómo Bélgica ha podido esperar a 2015 para colocar oficialmente el gran ducado de Luxemburgo en la lista belga de los paraísos fiscales? ¿Cómo es posible que ciertos Estados europeos, la Unión Europea (UE), el Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional (GAFI), organismo intergubernamental de lucha contra el blanqueamiento de dinero, la OCDE o el FMI tengan listas de paraísos fiscales distintas?

Esta incoherencia de las falsas soluciones aportadas por actores que supuestamente luchan contra el fraude y la evasión fiscal favorece la impunidad de los grandes delincuentes financieros que disfrutan, por otro lado, de una justicia a medida, tolerante o continuamente esquivada.

La directiva sobre el “secreto comercial” protege a los delincuentes y encarcela a los periodistas

Sólo algunos días antes del proceso contra el filtrador Antoine Deltour, en el origen de las revelaciones del LuxLeaks, y diez días después del principio de las revelaciones de los Papeles de Panamá sobre las sociedades offshore en paraísos fiscales, la directiva europea sobre la protección del “secreto comercial” fue aprobada en el Parlamento Europeo el 14 de abril de 2016.
A pesar de una petición contra esta iniciativa firmada por más de 500.000 personas, una gran mayoría de los eurodiputados aprobaron el texto por 503 votos a favor, 131 en contra y 18 abstenciones de los 652 eurodiputados presentes en el Parlamento ese día.

Del lado francés, tan sólo los diez representantes de Europe Écologie-Los Verdes y del Frente de Izquierda votaron en contra, mientras que el Frente Nacional, el Partido Socialista y la derecha votaron mayoritariamente a favor. De Bélgica, sólo tres eurodiputados votaron contra esta directiva de los 20 que participaron en el voto.

En el conjunto, se observa, una vez más, un gran entendimiento entre las dos grandes familias liberales en el Parlamento Europeo, el Partido Popular Europeo y los socialdemócratas (S&D), que mayoritariamente votaron a favor de esa ley liberticida.

Esta directiva, propuesta en noviembre de 2013 por la Comisión Europea, amenaza “el trabajo de investigación de los periodistas y, por extensión, la información revelada del ciudadano”, protege a las empresas y sus maniobras ilegales prohibiendo la divulgación de sus “secretos económicos” a la opinión pública interesada.

Compromete seriamente el trabajo de los periodistas, filtradores, ONG y otros actores que intentan sacar a la luz informaciones sensibles de utilidad pública. “Esto va a voltear la carga de la prueba hacia los periodistas, que deberán probar que la difusión de la información era legítima”, advierte Véronique Marquet, miembro y abogada del colectivo Informer N’est Pas un Délit (“informar no es un delito”). “Esto (es igual a) preguntarles –continúa- si están dispuestos a asumir el riesgo de ser condenados, lo que constituye una verdadera arma de disuasión a disposición de las empresas”.

Criminalidad financiera y denuncia: dos pesos, dos medidas

Para completar el escándalo, siguiendo la misma lógica, la justicia luxemburguesa acaba de colocar los intereses de las multinacionales por encima del interés general. Mientras que los organizadores de la evasión fiscal gozan de una total impunidad, la sala correccional número 12 del tribunal de distrito de Luxemburgo ha condenado al filtrador francés Antoine Deltour a 12 meses de prisión con suspensión de la pena y 1.500 euros de multa. Raphaël Halet, otro filtrador, ha sido condenado a nueve meses de prisión con suspensión de la pena y mil euros de multa.

Estos dos filtradores, por tanto, permitieron que los ciudadanos europeos descubrieran cómo cientos de empresas multinacionales han podido escapar masivamente a los impuestos, firmando acuerdos secretos con Luxemburgo. Revelaron informaciones cruciales para el interés general y deberían estar protegidos y recompensados en vez de perseguidos y condenados.

Sus condenas recuerdan a los procesos contra uno de los fundadores del movimiento Alternatiba y de Action Non Violente COP21 (ANV-COP 21), Jon Palais. Activista de la asociación Bizi! (“vivir” en vasco), está acusado de “robo en grupo” y será juzgado el 9 de enero de 2017 por haber participado en una requisa ciudadana de sillas en una sucursal del BNP Paribas en París.

El banco francés, que tiene un beneficio neto de 6.700 millones de euros en el año 2015, está muy implantado en los paraísos fiscales y judiciales, con 170 filiales declaradas, de las que buena parte todavía están en activo. Su reciente decisión de cerrar sus sucursales en las islas Caimán británicas es muy insuficiente. Los capitales que se evaden en los paraísos fiscales hacen profunda falta al Estado, que se endeuda para afrontar sus gastos.

Recordemos que en Francia un informe del grupo de trabajo del Colectivo por una Auditoría Ciudadana (CAC) determina que más de la mitad de la deuda pública proviene de regalos fiscales y de tasas de interés excesivas. En su libro Offshore, paradis fiscaux et souveraineté criminelle («Offshore, paraísos fiscales y soberanía criminal»), Alain Deneault nos aclaraba las consecuencias de este fraude: “Defraudar al fisco no se limita a ahorrar gastos, sino que consiste en perjudicar la financiación de las instituciones públicas y, en consecuencia, la noción misma de bien público, para constituir polos de decisión offshore ocultos sobre cuestiones de envergadura histórica”.

Traducción de Gladys Martínez.

Jerôme Duval

Jerôme Duval: Miembro del CADTM, Comité para la abolición de las deudas ilegítimas (www.cadtm.org) y de la PACD, la Plataforma de Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda en el Estado español (http://auditoriaciudadana.net/). Es autor junto con Fátima Martín del libro Construcción europea al servicio de los mercados financieros, Icaria editorial 2016 y es también coautor del libro La Deuda o la vida, (Icaria, 2011), libro colectivo coordinado por Damien Millet y Eric Toussaint, que ha recibido el Premio al libro político en la Feria del libro político en Lieja, Bélgica, en 2011.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La impunidad de la gran delincuencia financiera
american money

Globalization and Social Inequality: Obscene Wealth of Eight Mega-Billionaires

By Stephen Lendman, January 18 2017

The super-wealth of an elite eight equals a staggering $427 billion – as much as humanity’s 3.6 billion poorest, struggling daily to survive, many not making it. Oxfam highlighted unprecedented global inequality, threatening social stability. The chasm between super-rich and desperate poor is obscene.

WikiLeaks

US Army Whistle-blower Manning’s Overdue Freedom Granted Amid Shameless Political Stunt

By Tony Cartalucci, January 18 2017

Headlines are announcing the early release of US Army whistle-blower Private Manning from a jail sentence that began in 2013 and was to last 35 years. Manning is accused of passing US government documents to information clearing house Wikileaks before being arrested and charged for “espionage” in 2010.

Flag_of_NATO.svg

NATO, An Obsolete Cold War Military Construct: Donald Trump and the History of the Atlantic Alliance

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 18 2017

It should be a point of some delicious reflection for peace activists who have fought for decades against the nature of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.  It brought the US deep into West European affairs, turning European states into garrisons.  It involved the stationing of nuclear weapons. It compelled member states to go to war if the security of any one was threatened or breached. Donald Trump, however, has little time for it.

726px_Flag_of_Nepal

Nepalese Women: Symbols of Historical Achievements and Political Leadership

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, January 18 2017

Nepal is perhaps unique in the world of nations today with its three top public offices occupied by women: Bidhya Devi Bhandari is president; Sushila Karki is chief justice; and Onsari Gharti Magar is speaker of Nepal’s parliament.   This record is particularly noteworthy in a fledgling democracy, a new Asian republic that since its founding in 2008, has been by members of Nepal’s communist and Maoist parties.

CIA-trump

By Prof. James Petras, January 18 2017

During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order. We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Globalization and Social Inequality, Manning’s Overdue Freedom, NATO: An Obsolete Cold War Construct

Numerosas personas en el mundo, empezando por millones de cubanos, rindieron tributo a la memoria de Fidel Castro. Pero el fallecimiento del revolucionario también fue la ocasión para sacar otra vez algunos clichés de propaganda anticastrista que uno pensaba que estaban sepultados con la Guerra Fría. Otra vez surgen en los medios de comunicación. Castro condenó a los cubanos a la miseria mientras tenía millones escondidos en una cuenta secreta; Castro hizo de Cuba una cárcel al aire libre; Castro era homófobo… Y, obviamente, el inevitable “Era un dictador”. Sometimos esto a uno de los mejores especialistas de Cuba, Salim Lamrani, para un cuestionario “¿verdadero o falso?”.

Fidel Castro condenó a los cubanos a la miseria

Salim Lamrani: Los indicadores de las instituciones de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cuba desmienten esta afirmación. Uno de los grandes logros de Fidel Castro y de la Revolución es haber creado un sistema de protección social que se considera unánimemente como el ejemplo a seguir para las naciones del Tercer Mundo, universalizando el acceso a la salud, a la educación, a la cultura, a la vivienda, a la seguridad, al deporte y a la recreación.

Algunas cifras ilustran esta realidad. La tasa de alfabetización es de más del 99 % y la UNESCO subraya que los alumnos cubanos tienen los mejores resultados escolares de toda América Latina en todas las asignaturas. Cuba dedica cerca del 14 % de su presupuesto a la educación. Ningún país en el mundo invierte tanto en este sector. A guisa de comparación, Francia dedica alrededor del 7% de su presupuesto a la educación. Desde luego, todas las carreras son universales y gratuitas para todos los cubanos.

En cuanto a la salud, la esperanza de vida es de cerca de 80 años y la tasa de mortalidad infantil es de un 4,6 por mil. Ningún país del continente americano, incluso Canadá y Estados Unidos, tiene una tasa de mortalidad infantil tan baja. Según la UNICEF, Cuba es el único país de América Latina y del Tercer Mundo que ha erradicado la desnutrición infantil. Cuba es el primer país del mundo que ha eliminado la transmisión materno-infantil del virus del sida. Obviamente resulta imposible alcanzar semejantes indicadores sin un acceso a una buena alimentación, a condiciones de vida decentes, un sistema de educación eficiente y atención médica de primera calidad.

Podríamos disertar también sobre la importancia de la cultura en Cuba, que se ilustra mediante numerosas manifestaciones cada año. Podríamos evocar el espacio central que ocupa el deporte que contribuye al bienestar físico y moral de los ciudadanos y que les inculca valores de repartición, de generosidad, de altruismo y de solidaridad, fundamentales para el equilibrio de la sociedad.

Conviene recordar que estos extraordinarios logros, únicos para un país del Tercer Mundo con recursos limitados, se consiguieron en un contexto de hostilidad extrema. Cuba sufre sanciones económicas sumamente severas que afectan a todas las categorías de la sociedad y todos los sectores de la economía. Han costado más de 120.000 millones de dólares a la isla desde hace más de medio siglo.

Fidel Castro tenía una fortuna personal estimada en 900 millones de dólares.

SL: La revista Forbes dio la estimación y confesó haber otorgado de modo arbitrario una parte del PIB cubano a Fidel Castro. Por consiguiente la cifra no es creíble.  Por otra parte todos los observadores y todas las personalidades extranjeras que tuvieron el privilegio de conocer a Fidel Castro expresaron su asombro por las condiciones de vida austeras que se imponía el líder de la Revolución Cubana. Sucede lo mismo para todos los cuadros que tienen un cargo.

 -Fidel Castro hizo de Cuba una prisión al aire libre y no vaciló en masacrar a quienes intentaban huir.

SL: Ninguna organización internacional señaló alguna vez un caso de asesinato político, de ejecución extrajudicial, de desaparición o de tortura en Cuba desde 1959. Ningún periodista fue asesinado en Cuba desde el triunfo de la Revolución. Pocos países en el mundo, incluso los más desarrollados, pueden presentar semejante balance en los últimos sesenta años.

Hay más de cuatro millones de turistas que viajan a Cuba cada año. Si Cuba fuera una prisión al aire libre, donde se reprimiera a la población, se apresurarían a contar esta supuesta realidad a su regreso de la isla y elegirían obviamente otro destino para sus próximas vacaciones. Ahora bien, la inmensa mayoría de los turistas regresan felices de su estancia en Cuba de la cual aprecian la hospitalidad, el calor humano, la fraternidad, la historia, la cultura, la seguridad, la ausencia de miseria (aunque hay pobreza) y no ven la hora de regresar a la isla.

Si Cuba fuera una prisión al aire libre no habría medio millón de cubanoamericanos que visitaran la isla cada año. Conviene recordar que cada año más de mil cubanos que emigraron al exterior deciden regresar definitivamente a su país de origen. Estos hechos son elocuentes.

-Fidel Castro era homófobo.

SL: Este tema ha sido instrumentalizado muchas veces por razones políticas. En los años sesenta los prejuicios y las discriminaciones hacia los homosexuales eran legión en todo el mundo. Ningún país escapó de ello, incluso las democracias occidentales.

Cuando triunfó la Revolución cubana, en 1959, la sociedad cubana era de tradición católica y patriarcal y había, como en todas las naciones que tenían esas características, prejuicios hacia ciertas categorías de la población.

La gran crítica que se emite contra Cuba concierne las Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Producción (UMAP) que duraron unos dos años en los años 1960. Conviene recordar los hechos. En Cuba el servicio militar es una obligación. En los años 1960 las personas que no deseaban hacer el servicio por razones éticas, filosóficas, religiosas o personales, debían hacer un servicio cívico realizando trabajos agrícolas en unidades en el campo. En esas UMAP los homosexuales fueron víctimas de discriminaciones, vejaciones y humillaciones y fueron alojados en viviendas separadas.

Esas violaciones de los derechos humanos llegaron a conocimiento de Vilma Espín, esposa de Raúl Castro, y sobre todo Presidenta-Fundadora de la poderosa Federación de Mujeres Cubanas. Entonces ella informó a Fidel Castro. Éste, que siempre se apoyó en la juventud y los estudiantes, decidió mandar clandestinamente a un grupo de militantes de la Unión de Jóvenes Comunistas en las UMAP para averiguar los hechos. Tras varias semanas de investigación emitieron un informe abrumador que confirmaba los atentados contra los derechos de esas personas y se cerraron las UMAP en 1968, o sea un poco menos de dos años tras su creación. Conviene recordar que el único papel de Fidel Castro en las UMAP fue proceder a su cierre definitivo.

Conviene recordar también que intelectuales como Virgilio Piñera y Lezama Lima fueron marginados y condenados al ostracismo. Cuando se da cierto poder a burócratas marcados por la ignorancia y los prejuicios, este tipo de abuso es lamentablemente inevitable. La homosexualidad se tipificó como delito penal hasta 1979 en Cuba.

¿Cuál es la situación hoy día? Las autoridades han tomado medidas para luchar contra los prejuicios. Así, en 1993, el Estado cubano financió la película Fresa y chocolate, que denuncia las discriminaciones y los prejuicios contra los homosexuales. Desde 1995 los homosexuales participan como grupo en el desfile del 1 de mayo. El Centro Nacional de Educación Sexual, que preside Mariela Castro, realiza un trabajo pedagógico y cultural notable con el apoyo del Estado cubano para luchar contra los prejuicios. El Estado financia íntegramente las operaciones de cambio de sexo. Desde 2007 el Ministerio cubano de Salud Pública financia también un festival de cine gay cada año. Adela Hernández, una persona transgénero nacida bajo el nombre de José Agustín Hernández, fue elegida a la Asamblea Municipal de la ciudad de Caibarién en 2012, lo que ilustra la evolución de las mentalidades en Cuba. Según mi conocimiento no hay un caso similar en Francia o en Estados Unidos. Estos hechos demuestran que la situación de las personas con una orientación sexual diferente en Cuba no corresponde a la imagen mediática vehiculada en las naciones occidentales.

Dicho eso, resulta imprescindible ahora recordar cuál era la situación de los homosexuales en el mundo, incluso en las grandes democracias occidentales. En una palabra, era semejante a la de Cuba en la misma época. Había muchos prejuicios. En Francia, en 1960, el Gobierno del Presidente Charles De Gaulle calificó la homosexualidad de “plaga social” y el Parlamento francés dio al poder ejecutivo el derecho de legislar por decreto para combatir esta “plaga” (Ley n°60-773 del 30 de julio de 1960). Conviene recordar también que después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, los deportados homosexuales no podían pretender ningún reconocimiento de su estatus de víctimas de guerra ni ninguna indemnización. En 1968 Francia adoptó el punto de vista de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y clasificó la homosexualidad como una enfermedad mental. La OMS sólo abrogaría esta clasificación en 1991. Francia consideró la homosexualidad como un delito penal hasta 1981. Hoy día, en Francia, las poblaciones homosexuales todavía son víctimas de algunas discriminaciones. Por ejemplo, no puede donar sangre en las mismas condiciones que las categorías heterosexuales.

En Estados Unidos la homosexualidad se consideraba un trastorno psiquiátrico e incluso se “trataba” mediante la lobotomía hasta 1951. Bajo el macartismo, los homosexuales perdían su empleo y a veces terminaban en la cárcel. En los años 1970, la policía intervenía regularmente en los bares de homosexuales. En marzo de 1970, 167 personas fueron arrestadas en un bar de Greenwich Village, en Nueva York. Hasta 1990, los servicios de inmigración podían negar la entrada a Estados Unidos a los extranjeros homosexuales. En los años 1980, la homosexualidad era un delito penal en la mitad de los 50  Estados de Estados Unidos. Hoy día aún, en el siglo XXI, en Estados Unidos la homosexualidad es un delito penal en 13 Estados sobre 50.

-Fidel Castro era un dictador

SL: Ningún dirigente en el mundo puede quedarse 30 años a la cabeza de un país –pues conviene recordar que Fidel Castro fue presidente de 1976 a 2006– en un contexto de guerra larvada con Estados Unidos sin un apoyo mayoritario del pueblo.

Los diplomáticos estadounidenses que operan en Cuba son muy lúcidos al respecto. En un memorándum de 2009 Jonathan Farrar, entonces Jefe de la Sección de Intereses Norteamericanos en La Habana –no había todavía una embajada en esa época– subrayó que “sería un error subestimar el apoyo del cual dispone el Gobierno particularmente entre las comunidades populares y los estudiantes”.

Todos los observadores serios son unánimes en reconocer que Fidel Castro era amado por los cubanos, aunque, como en toda sociedad, siempre ha habido sectores insatisfechos.

Por otra parte, conviene recordar que Fidel Castro fue elegido cada cinco años desde la adopción de la nueva Constitución en 1976. Antes, bajo la Cuba revolucionaria, hubo otros dos presidentes: Manuel Urrutia de enero a julio de 1959 y Osvaldo Dorticós de julio de 1959 a diciembre de 1976.

Conviene saber que hay elecciones directas en Cuba a nivel municipal, provincial y legislativo. Todas se hacen con escrutinio universal y secreto cada dos años y medio para las elecciones municipales y cada cinco años para las provinciales y las legislativas. El Partido Comunista cubano, que es el único partido político de la isla, no desempeña en absoluto ningún papel electoral. La legislación cubana prohíbe al PCC designar a los candidatos. Son los electores, en sus circunscripciones, quienes designan a los candidatos. Para cada elección, hacen falta al menos dos candidatos y como máximo ocho. Una vez designados los candidatos, su currículum se pone en la plaza pública. Se prohíben las campañas electorales. Conviene recordar también que en Cuba los elegidos pueden ser revocados durante su mandato si lo deciden los electores. Por ejemplo, un diputado electo con un 57 % de los votos podrá ser revocado por los electores si el 57 % + 1 expresa su voluntad en ese sentido.

Para las elecciones presidenciales se trata de un proceso indirecto. Es el Parlamento quien elige entre sus diputados a los miembros del Consejo de Estado y del Consejo de Ministros así como a su Presidente. Así, para llegar a la Presidencia de Cuba, Fidel Castro primero tuvo que ser designado candidato al Parlamento, luego elegido diputado por sufragio universal y secreto y después elegido por el Parlamento como Presidente del Consejo de Estado y del Consejo de Ministros. En Cuba el Presidente es a la vez jefe del Estado y el Jefe del Gobierno.

 Salim Lamrani

Salim Lamrani: Doctor en Estudios Ibéricos y Latinoamericanos de la Universidad Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV. Profesor titular de la Universidad de La Reunión y periodista, especialista de las relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos. Su último libro se titula Cuba, ¡palabra a la defensa!, Hondarribia, Editorial Hiru, 2016.

http://www.tiendaeditorialhiru.com/informe/336-cuba-palabra-a-la-defensa.html

Contacto: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Página Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SalimLamraniOfficiel

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on ¿Verdadero o falso? Salim Lamrani analiza los clichés sobre Fidel Castro

Tanques de asalto en Polonia

January 18th, 2017 by Manlio Dinucci

El 12 de enero de 2017, sólo 2 días después de su discurso de adiós, el presidente [saliente] Barack Obama inició el mayor despliegue de fuerzas terrestres [estadounidenses] en el este de Europa desde el fin de la guerra fría. Proveniente de Alemania, un largo convoy de tanques de asalto y otros vehículos blindados estadounidenses entró en Polonia.

Se trata de la 3ª Brigada Blindada, trasladada a Europa desde Fort Carson, en el Estado de Colorado. Esa fuerza se compone de unos 4 000 militares, 87 tanques, 18 cañones autopropulsados, 144 vehículos de combate Bradley y cientos de Humvees. Todo ese armamento fue trasladado a Polonia por carretera y mediante el uso de 900 vagones ferroviarios.

En la ceremonia de bienvenida, que se desarrolló en la ciudad polaca de Zagan, el embajador de Estados Unidos en Polonia, Paul W. Jones, dijo que «a medida que crece la amenaza, crece el despliegue militar estadounidense en Europa». Lo que el embajador llama «la amenaza» fue descrito por el general Curtis Scaparrotti, jefe del Mando de las tropas estadounidenses en Europa (EuCom) y, simultáneamente, Comandante Supremo de las fuerzas aliadas en Europa (SACEUR):

«Nuestras fuerzas están listas y posicionadas en caso de que sean necesarias para contrarrestar la agresión rusa.»

La 3ª Brigada Blindada estadounidense se mantendrá por 9 meses en una base cercana a Zagan, y será reemplazada por otra unidad proveniente de Estados Unidos.

Siguiendo ese sistema de rotación, habrá permanentemente fuerzas blindadas estadounidenses desplegadas en suelo polaco. Desde allí, sus destacamentos se moverán hacia otros países del este de Europa donde se entrenarán y realizarán ejercicios militares, fundamentalmente en Estonia, Letonia, Lituania, Bulgaria, Rumania y probablemente también en Ucrania. O sea, esas fuerzas estarán desplegadas de forma permanente al borde de Rusia.

Un segundo contingente militar estadounidense se desplegará en abril de este año en el este de Polonia, en el llamado «Suwalki Gap» (“Borde de Suwalki”), una extensa llanura de un centenar de kilómetros de largo que, según anuncia la OTAN, «sería un paso perfecto para los tanques de asalto rusos».

Se desentierra así nuevamente el arsenal propagandístico de Estados Unidos y la OTAN correspondiente a los tiempos de la guerra fría: la historia de los tanques de asalto rusos listos a invadir Europa. Recurriendo al espectro de una inexistente amenaza del este, son los tanques de asalto de Estados Unidos los que desembarcan en Europa.

La 3ª Brigada Blindada se agrega a las fuerzas aéreas y navales ya desplegadas en Europa por Estados Unidos, en el marco de la operación «Atlantic Resolve», para «tranquilizar a los aliados miembros de la OTAN y los asociados ante la agresión rusa». Washington emprendió la operación «Atlantic Resolve» en 2014, después de haber voluntariamente provocado en Kiev el pustch de la plaza Maidan, iniciando así una nueva confrontación con Rusia. Dentro de la administración Obama, Hillary Clinton fue la principal artífice de esa estrategia, tendiente a romper las relaciones económicas y políticas de Rusia con la Unión Europea, no convenientes a los intereses de Estados Unidos.

Polonia desempeña un papel central en la escalada anti-rusa. Por eso recibirá próximamente de Estados Unidos varios misiles de crucero de largo alcance, con capacidades penetrantes para garantizar la destrucción de búnkeres y capaces de llevar también cabezas nucleares. También en Polonia ya está en construcción una instalación terrestre perteneciente al sistema estadounidense AEGIS, instalación similar a la que ya funciona en Deveselu, Rumania. También está dotada del sistema Mk-41 de Lockheed Martin, capaz de lanzar misiles antimisiles, pero que puede igualmente disparar misiles crucero con cabezas nucleares.

En Varsovia y en otras capitales del este de Europa –según escribe el New York Times– existe actualmente «una fuerte preocupación» sobre un posible acuerdo del republicano Trump con Moscú, lo cual «socavaría todo el esfuerzo».

Una pesadilla atormenta a los gobernantes del este de Europa que basan sus fortunas en la hostilidad hacia Rusia: que regresen a casa los tanques de asalto enviados por el demócrata Obama.

Manlio Dinucci

Artículo original en italiano :

Pologne militarisation

Carrarmati Usa schierati in Polonia

Fuente : ilmanifesto.info

Traduzido por Red Voltaire

Manlio Dinucci es Geógrafo y politólogo.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Tanques de asalto en Polonia

‘Guerra ao Terror’, A Maior Mentira da História

January 18th, 2017 by Edu Montesanti

O ano de 1979 marca a política norte-americana no Oriente Médio, região mais rica em petróleo do mundo: em plena Guerra Fria, a Revolução Iraniana derruba do poder o xá Reza Pahlevi, ditador laico pró-Ocidente, substituído pelo aiatolá Khomeini, o qual nacionaliza as ricas reservas petrolíferas do país.

Isso faz com que os Estados Unidos passem a fornecer diversos tipos de armas, entre elas químicas e biológicas (o que se configura grave crime de guerra), ao ditador Saddam Hussein, presidente secular do Iraque (país que possui a segunda maior reserva petrolífera do globo), na guerra contra o Irã (1980-1988) por questões fronteiriças, a qual se tornaria a batalha mais longa e sangrenta pós-II Guerra Mundial. É desta guerra que surge um dos maiores escândalos de corrupção da história dos EUA, envolvendo diretamente o presidente Ronald Reagan e seu vice, George H. W. Bush (pai), conhecido como Irã-Contras.

Ainda em 1979, a União Soviética invade o Afeganistão (região historicamente estratégica à geopolítica global) e, devido à tal invasão segundo a versão oficial, os EUA, com apoio de outros países, armam e ensinam métodos de tortura aos mujahidin (“combatentes” em árabe, também conhecidos como “senhores da guerra”) – grande parte dos que viriam a ser membros do Taliban e criminosos da Aliança do Norte colocados no poder pelos EUA pós-11 de Setembro.

Entre esses homens armados e treinados pela CIA está Osama bin Laden, futuro líder da rede terrorista Al-Qaeda. O fornecimento de armas e treinamento de guerreiros iraquianos e afegãos por parte da CIA, apesar de amplamente registrado através de inúmeras fontes e documentos governamentais, é ignorado pela cadeia mundial de notícias.

Quanto à invasão soviética de 1979 e o apoio norte-americano aos afegãos resistentes, seria provado posteriormente, igualmente através de depoimentos de ex-funcionários da Casa Branca e de documentos oficiais revelados, que a infiltração norte-americana em solo afegão precedeu a invasão soviética através de operações da CIA em estreita ligação com o Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), serviço de Inteligência do vizinho Paquistão, fato tampouco divulgado pela grande mídia internacional.

Revelaria anos mais tarde Zbiegniew Brzezinski, funcionário do Conselho Nacional de Segurança dos EUA de 1977 a 1981, ao diário francês Le Nouvel Observateur, entre diversos relatos de suas conversas diretas com o então presidente de seu país, Jimmy Carter, alertando-o seriamente sobre os perigos da oculta política norte-americana naquela região, que segundo ele serviriam para induzir à invasão soviética e gerar um caos no Afeganistão, tudo isso, de suma importância para a história e mesmo para as relações internacionais hoje, abafado totalmente pela Imprensa mundial:

O envolvimento dos EUA no Afeganistão antecedeu ao da União Soviética, contrariando a versão oficial de que a ajuda da CIA aos mujahidin começou de 1980.

Em 1982, Malalaï Joya, com quatro anos de idade, refugia-se com a família do Afeganistão, nação que vive absoluto caos, ao Irã e depois ao Paquistão, onde passaria toda a sua infância e adolescência. Somam-se mais de 4 milhões de afegãos refugiados aos países vizinhos neste momento quando, em solo paquistanês, Joya fica sabendo das dores de seu povo, especialmente mulheres e meninas, as quais sofreram com a misoginia cruel dos mujahidin em seu país. O Afeganistão vive a pior situação sócio-política de sua história durante a resistência às forças soviéticas.

Com o passar do tempo, enquanto o número de afegãos refugiados aos países vizinhos cresce, em geral em péssimo estado de saúde, Joya decide ensinar meninas e mulheres a ler e escrever – inclusive sua própria mãe. Dentro do Afeganistão, sob apoio dos EUA os mujahidin levam o país a bater recordes mundiais históricos da plantação de ópio, do qual se produz a heroína, convertendo-se no maior produtor e exportador do produto em todo o mundo – o que serve para financiar os mujahidin através do contrabando, sobre o que vale ressaltar que a sociedade norte-americana é a maior consumidora de drogas do mundo.

Enquanto isso, o presidente norte-americano Ronald Reagan, que se veria envolvido no grave escândalo Irã-Contras, elogia publicamente os mujahidin afegãos, comparando-os com os “pais da fundação” dos Estados Unidos “por seu bravo comprometimento com a liberdade”. Em 1985 é criada no Afeganistão a Al-Qaeda por Bin Laden, um grupo pequeno formado por mujahidin, que reivindica a implantação de estados teocráticos no mundo árabe, contra o imperialismo: muito pouco cresceria ao longo de muitos anos.

Quando a União Soviética se retira do país em 1989, através dos Acordos de Genebra, inicia-se violenta guerra civil no Afeganistão. O saldo da Guerra Fria em solo afegão já foi altíssima, deixando duas dezenas de soviéticos mortos, e um milhão de afegãos. Nestes 10 anos, o total de injeção financeira dos EUA em favor dos combatentes afegãos soma 6 bilhões de dólares. Nos anos subsequentes, seguiria multiplicando-se a produção de ópio que serve como outra grande receita à resistência.

Em 1990, Hussein exige do vizinho Kuwait determinadas terras na região dos portos de Bubyian e Uarba, historicamente pertencentes ao Iraque, cuja anexação levaria este país a possuir a maior reserva petrolífera do mundo. A Casa Branca manifesta-se, dizendo que se trata de assunto interno entre os dois países, garantindo diretamente ao ditador iraquiano que não interferirá na questão, cujo encontro possui transcrição publicada.

Porém quando o conflito árabe se inicia, a administração de Bush pai, diretor da CIA nos anos de invasão soviética ao Afeganistão, endurece o discurso contra aquele que, desde o fim da década passada até o presente, recebe apoio direto de Washington: agora, é acusado de terrorista por colocar a humanidade em risco, com as mesmas armas fornecidas pelos EUA. Assim, inicia-se em 1991 a curta e devastadora Guerra do Golfo, que deixa o Iraque arrasado, mas não derruba Hussein (fato “curioso” que obriga os EUA a prolongar sua política “humanitária” no Oriente Médio).

Nos 100 dias de Guerra do Golfo, batizada pela administração de Bush de Operação Tempestade no Deserto, é mobilizado o maior contingente militar pós-II Guerra Mundial, desproporção de forças beligerantes que se configura crime de guerra: foi enviado ao Iraque o maior contingente militar da história mundial. Os EUA prometeram empreender uma “guerra cirúrgica” contra o Iraque: ao final do massacre, o número de civis mortos no Iraque excedeu, em muito, o de militares. Com novas bombas utilizadas pelos EUA, o espetáculo que se torna a cobertura midiática faz com que os ataques se assemelhem mais a um festival pirotécnico no Golfo Pérsico, em tempo real.

Em 30 de janeiro de 1991, observou Gregg Easterbrook, especialista em assuntos externos dos EUA, à revista norte-americana The New Republic:

“Mas a maior falha moral na Guerra do Golfo (…) foi a recusa do Ocidente em admitir, ou pelo menos discutir, não algumas mortes acidentais de civis, mas os 100 mil mortos entre os alvos militares no Iraque. Katherine Boo, do Washington Monthly, notou que ao longo da guerra a mídia norte-americana organizou grandes tabelas de perdas, listando em uma coluna quantos tanques e aviões do Iraque haviam sido abatidos. Mas não houve qualquer menção às mortes do lado iraquiano: era como se o objetivo do “exercício” fosse eliminar montes de máquinas e não seres humanos. As famosas palavras do chefe das Forças Armadas, Colin Powell, sobre o Exército Iraquiano – ‘vamos estilhaçá-lo e depois eliminá-lo’ – claramente eliminaram qualquer consideração sobre a condição humana do inimigo. O Pentágono liberou dúzias de vídeos que mostravam bombas inteligentes atingindo objetos inanimados como bases de mísseis; mas há que se lembrar que até o momento não foi liberado nenhum centímetro de filme mostrando qualquer combate envolvendo seres humanos. Censores militares enlouqueceram quando um comandante deixou alguns repórteres ver um vídeo feito de um helicóptero Apache que atacou um batalhão no Iraque. No tape, adolescentes aterrorizados correm caoticamente por todas as direções, enquanto metralhadoras disparando do helicóptero, que eles não conseguem ver, cortam seus corpos pela metade. O vídeo foi rapidamente tirado de circulação. Quando perguntei a razão disso a um funcionário do Pentágono, ele respondeu: ‘Se permitirmos que as pessoas vejam esse tipo de coisa, nunca haverá outra guerra’“.

No Afeganistão, em 1994 é fundado o Taliban, movimento estudantil composto por fragmentos de mujahidin. Com foco na luta interna, cresce muito rapidamente e dois anos mais tarde, após sangrentas batalhas no país, sufoca a guerra civil assumindo o poder com linha extremamente dura, especialmente contra as mulheres e contra toda e qualquer oposição. Forma Estado teocrático através da aplicação da Sharia, levada às últimas consequências, motivo pelo qual destrói Patrimônios da Humanidade, considerados objetos de idolatria.

Em 1998, com 20 anos de idade, Joya insiste à família para que retornem à terra natal, da qual as forças soviéticas saíram arrasadas há exatos 10 anos: ativista no Paquistão em prol das mulheres, em seu país de origem Joya quer ensinar em escolas clandestinas pois o Taliban, há quatro anos no poder, pratica perseguição sistemática e os piores crimes contra suas compatriotas, ocupando já mais de 90% do território afegão das mãos da Aliança do Norte..

A família de Joya teme seriamente tal trabalho, mas Joya está irredutível, e assume corajosamente, irredutivelmente o desafio na OPAWC (Organização para a Promoção das Habilidades das Mulheres Afegãs, na sigla em inglês). Apenas uma suspeita por parte dos talibans, que conta com espiões por todo o país, valer-lhe-ia, no mínimo, espancamento público, senão mesmo a morte. Assim, Joya e suas alunas vestem uma burca, fingem que carregam um Corão a fim de rezar, e vão estudar. Desde que o Taliban assumiu o poder em 1994, no entanto, a produção de ópio tem diminuído radicalmente, atingindo níveis baixíssimos.

Ainda em 1998, embaixadas dos EUA em países da África são atacadas a bomba, matando mais de 200 pessoas – dentre eles, alguns cidadãos norte-americanos. Osama bin Laden, expulso da Arábia Saudita anos antes por práticas terroristas, é apontado como o mentor dos bombardeios através da Al=Qaeda. Os EUA, sob governo de Bill Clinton, respondem bombardeando campos de treinamento da rede comandada por Bin Laden, além de atacar uma fábrica farmacêutica acusada de armazenar armas químicas

No final de 2000, George W. Bush (filho), ex-governador do Texas, é eleito presidente dos Estados Unidos, com programa de governo já preparado durante a campanha presidencial para a guerra, especialmente no Oriente Médio através do documento batizado de Project for the New American Century (Projeto para um Novo Século Norte-Americano).

Não por coincidência, sua equipe de governo é praticamente a mesma de seu pai, o que implica dizer que os arquitetos da “Guerra ao Terror” seriam os mesmos idealistas da resistência afegã (talibans e senhores da guerra) contra os soviéticos, e da Guerra do Golfo contra o Iraque em 1991. Logo no primeiro ano, Bush, que se tornaria o presidente que mais férias tirou na história dos EUA e em tão pouco tempo (antes de 11 de setembro de 2001), ver-se-ia entremetido em escândalos de corrupção envolvendo suas relações político-comerciais com a empresa Enron, dos próprios Estados Unidos. A mídia local não daria segmento a este sério e comprovado caso.

Há mais de 20 anos Bush mantém, a exemplo de diversos integrantes de sua equipe de governo e seu próprio pai, negócios petrolíferos com a família Bin Laden, herdeira da segunda maior fortuna saudita. Quando governador, Bush e seu vice-presidente Dick Cheney receberam no Texas uma delegação do Taliban, a fim de discutir a passagem de dutos pelo Afeganistão a serem construídos e explorados pela empresa norte-americana Unocal, sem chegar a um acordo. Deste encontro, o empresário Cheney consegue, para sua empresa Hulliburton, contrato para exploração de petróleo em solo afegão, e a BBC de Londres é o único veículo de comunicação em todo o mundo a divulgar tal encontro.

Em dezembro de 2000, a Al-Qaeda promove ataque suicida contra o USS Cole, embarcação norte-americana ancorada no porto do Iêmen. E em maio de 2001, poucas semanas após visita de líder taliban à Casa Branca a fim de melhorar a imagem dos donos do poder afegão perante o Departamento de Defesa dos EUA, a CNN noticia que o governo do país continua financiando os mujahidin: o secretário de Estado de Bush anuncia milionária “ajuda humanitária” ao governo taliban, que há 5 anos aterroriza a sociedade afegã com extremismo religioso. O jornalista Robert Sheer escreve dura matéria sobre o caso no diário Los Angeles Times, mas o caso perde-se no vazio.

Em agosto de 2001, a CIA entrega ao presidente Bush um documento de extrema urgência: Bin Laden Determinado a Atacar dentro dos EUA, é seu título. Bush, de férias em seu rancho no Texas, ignora totalmente o memorando e ofende o funcionário do serviço secreto de seu país, que o entregou a advertência. Esta é a última das advertências da CIA ao presidente Bush durante o primeiro semestre de 2001, alertando-o de ataques terroristas dentro do país.

 

Arquivo da Segurança Nacional dos EUA: Memorando entregue em janeiro de 2001 a Bush por Richard Clarke, funcionário da CIA solicitando medidas de segurança urgentes contra ataques terroristas, ignorado pelo presidente

Mais tarde, seria ainda revelado que funcionários de outras agências de Inteligência do país também haviam entregue sérias revelações de ataques em solo norte-americano, às vésperas do 11 de Setembro, ignorados por completo por Bush, pelo que se demitiram de seus cargos indignados. A esta altura, Bush despenca nos índices de aprovação e, além de crise econômica, há crise política enquanto o presidente se vê isolado inclusive dentro de seu partido, e envolvido em casos de corrupção.

Até setembro de 2001 o governo de Washington mantém estreitos laços com os talibans e com Osama bin Laden, recebendo alguns de seus líderes na Casa Branca para seguir discutindo negócios petrolíferos, pouco divulgados e logo abafados pela mídia internacional. A proposta norte-americana para a passagem de oleodutos através do solo Afeganistão é sempre rechaçada pelo Taliban.

Ainda às vésperas de 11 de setembro, os serviços de inteligência dos EUA alarmam a Casa Branca através de documentos: a administração de Bush deve agir, pois há planos de ataques em solo norte-americano com uso de explosivos. Porém, o presidente Bush, eleito de maneira comprovadamente fraudulenta além de envolvido em escândalos de corrupção com a empresa Enron, ignora e exige, terminantemente, que se esqueça a questão.

Por isso, oficiais da CIA se demitem, indignados afirmando que algo muito sério acometerá o país, matando vidas humanas. Paradoxalmente, seria revelado em outubro deste mesmo ano que Bin Laden, internado em julho no Hospital Americano de Dubai, capital dos Emirados Árabes (cortesia deste país, aliado da Casa Branca, ao saudita de origem iemenita) recebeu mais de uma vez visitas amigáveis de agentes da CIA. Portanto, segundo a versão oficial, os faraônicos ataques de 11 de setembro de 2001 teriam sido comandados por um paciente em Hospital Americano (o líder da Al-Qaeda esteve internado até horas antes de 11 de setembro), onde o suposto mentor dos ataques recebera gentilmente funcionários da Inteligência dos EUA.

11 de setembro de 2001, dia do maior ataque em solo norte-americano de toda a história: logo nos primeiros dias após tais crueldades que chocam o mundo, surgem sérias contradições em relação à versão oficial (além de elas mesmas, em alguns casos, contradizerem-se totalmente), através de testemunhas, especialistas (incluindo professores de universidades norte-americanas e diversos outros cidadãos que estiveram nos locais dos ataques) e radares além de alguns fatos no mínimo muito curiosos. Entre tantos outros:

Justamente neste dia, os Standard Operating Procedures (defesa aérea do país, a mais potente do mundo) estiveram inexplicavelmente suspensos, algo jamais ocorrido na história dos Estados Unidos não podendo, assim, enviar jatos que impedissem os supostos aviões (que por meia hora sobrevoaram os espaço aéreo mais seguros do mundo) de executarem seus ataques (tal omissão nunca seria explicada, nem aparecido o responsável por ela e, ainda mais intrigante, os controladores de voo e funcionários do FBI responsáveis pela questão não apenas não seriam demitidos, como seriam ainda promovidos).

Também seriam logo constatadas graves falhas ao permitir os ataques dos quatro aviões por parte da North American Aerospace Defence (defesa aérea dos EUA), da Federal Aviation Administration (controle de voos) e da National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council (Comando Militar Nacional), com base em gravações de áudio desses próprios serviços do país. Diversos de seus funcionários de alto escalão viriam a ser promovidos profissionalmente após o maior fracasso conjunto da história da segurança norte-americana.

A própria alegação da Casa Branca, através de Dick Cheney de que os caças à jato da Defesa do país não puderam deter os aviões supostamente sequestrados se deveu ao fato de que o presidente Bush, em visita a uma escola infantil no estado da Flórida, precisava dar autorização e, por isso, a comunicação atrasou-se, está em total desacordo com a legislação de segurança nacional e com os registros de diversos fatos, inclusive a hora em que Bush veio a saber dos atentados.

Imagens e testemunhas (civis e bombeiros) nas imediações das Torres Gêmeas no momento das quedas, deixam claro que explosivos foram detonados instantes antes do colapso das Torres Gêmeas do World Trade Center que, contrariando completamente as leis da física, foram abaixo à velocidade de queda livre (algo possível apenas através de implosão manipulada, jamais pelo calor do fogo; físicos, engenheiros, arquitetos e outros profissionais afirmam ainda que o calor do fogo (versão oficial para a queda) e a força do choque dos aviões seriam totalmente insuficientes para que o aço da estrutura dos arranha-céus causassem suas quedas), entre outras conclusões importantes e nada difundidas – em organizações não governamentais, esses contestadores das verões oficiais afirmam que mesmo uma labareda de fogo que cobrisse todas as torres, não poderiam derrubá-las. Logo após as quedas das torres, a prefeitura de Nova Iorque retirara os escombros do complexo do World Trade Center, estrutura mais moderna do mundo, não deixando vestígios que impedem investigações.

O próprio colapso do World Trade Center 7, vizinho às Torres Gêmeas não atingido pelos aviões, esteve envolto em totais contradições segundo especialistas que, baseados em estudos sobre os destroços e da maneira como o edifício ruiu – também na velocidade de queda livre -, afirmam ter-se tratado, indiscutivelmente, de implosão manipulada. Paralelamente, a administração de Bush evita tocar no assunto entre diversas contradições quando questionada.

Foi a primeira vez em toda a história que o calor do fogo derrubou edifícios, o que torna mais contraditória a questão da queda dos edifícios World Trade Center, levando-se em conta que prédios de outras cidades do mundo, com muito menos estrutura que os de Nova Iorque atingidos por graves incêndios, permaneceram intactos.

A manobra que o suposto avião fez para atingir o Pentágono só poderia ter sido feita por um piloto com ampla experiência, não por um amador reprovado várias vezes na escola de pilotagem; o dano no prédio do Pentágono não condiz com o que causa a colisão de um Boeing, versão oficial, contradição que vai de encontro com o que mostram os radares além do quê câmeras de um posto de gasolina, em frente ao edifício da Defesa dos EUA, tido como o local mais seguro do mundo, terem sido misteriosamente retiradas do local.

Logo após os ataques, conforme seria revelado mais adiante Bush freta secretamente um jatos para que a família Bin Laden nos Estados Unidos deixe o país, atitude no mínimo muito estranha enquanto era de se esperar que, diretamente ligada àquele que segundo a Casa Branca é o maior terrorista da história contra a sociedade local tendo tantas vidas cruelmente assassinado, os membros daquela família fossem chamados para depor em busca do paradeiro de seu membro inimigo da nação, Osama bin Laden, conforme qualquer investigação envolvendo qualquer crime, jamais protegidos, e protegidos ocultamente sem o conhecimento dos cidadãos estadunidenses.

Essas e outras questões, incluindo a suposta queda do quarto avião em uma floresta da Pensilvânia, são, desde o início, amplamente investigadas por organizações não governamentais dos Estados Unidos, as quais não recebem o mínimo espaço nos meios de comunicação mesmo chegando a importantes conclusões, que contradizem totalmente as versões oficiais.

Outro ponto fundamental envolvendo os ataques, entre diversos outros que viriam á tona com o passar do tempo através de investigações baseadas em depoimentos, estudos e diversos documentos, seria que tais atentados foram planejados com direto auxílio do ISI, serviço de Inteligência paquistanês, aliado histórico dos Estados Unidos mesmo às vésperas dos ataques que mudaram o curso da história.

Quanto a Bin Laden, acusado de imediato pela Casa Branca como mentor dos ataques, mas nunca formalmente, ele mesmo concederia, nos dias subsequentes, diversas entrevistas a veículos de informação do mundo árabe negando tal autoria, lamentando ainda pelos atentados enquanto vídeos mostrando o líder da Al-Qaeda reivindicando-os são repetidos todos os dias no Ocidente, sob traduções das TVs dos Estados Unidos – contestadas por especialistas em diversos lugares do mundo, inclusive no Brasil.

Já em 11 de setembro de 2001, sem permitir investigação policial nos locais dos ataques, Bush responsabiliza a Al-Qaeda pelos ataques deixando implícita guerra contra o Afeganistão em discurso com forte apelo religioso, evidenciando uma suposta luta do bem contra o mal afirmando ainda que qualquer um no mundo que não estiver ao seu lado, estará contra ele.

Três dias depois Bush, de uma catedral ao lado de um rabino e de um pastor evangélico, profere outro sermão belicista- religioso: está declarada a guerra unilateral contra o terror, que fere todas as leis internacionais. Nesse ínterim, vem à tona que seis dos 19 supostos sequestradores apontados pelo FBI estão vivos, longe dos EUA e Robert Mueller, diretor do FBI, reconhece que a identidade de vários dos sequestradores suicidas está em dúvida, reporta a BBC de Londres.

Cada um dos acusados falsamente pelos ataques protesta, em diferentes países, pela mentira, mas logo o caso é abafado e, nos anos subsequentes, todos os 19 seguiriam compondo a lista oficial dos terroristas suicidas, inclusive nas telas de cinema norte-americanas. Outro fato de fundamental importância na política externa norte-americana daqui em diante, jamais levada em conta pela Casa Branca, é que nenhum dos alegados terroristas é afegão nem iraquiano, mas originária de países aliados aos EUA no Oriente Médio.

Guerras preventivas, ou de agressão ferindo o direito internacional e a Constituição dos próprios Estados Unidos, e contra aqueles que, no passado, o país apoiou como “combatentes da liberdade”, hoje sumariamente apontados como terroristas islamitas: o imperialismo levado às últimas consequências. Por duas vezes após o 11 de Setembro, o Taliban se dispõe abertamente a entregar Bin Laden em troca de que o governo de Washington não invada o Afeganistão, mas George Bush, “o presidente da guerra” como se autodenomina, está irredutível: “Não negociamos com terroristas”. Assim, a guerra do homem de guerra (em nome de Deus) é inevitável.

Em 18 de setembro, exatamente uma semana após os ataques que estão mudando o curso da história e Bush dispara nos índices de aprovação (baseado em muito ufanismo, levando a sociedade local a esquecer que o presidente é incompetente e corrupto), envelopes enviados a dois senadores dos EUA e a diversas redações jornalísticas do país contêm antraz, bactéria letal, matando algumas pessoas e deixando várias feridas. Produzido em laboratório estadunidense, ficaria mais tarde provado que o antraz foi elaborado pelo Instituto de Pesquisas Médicas de Doenças Infecciosas do Exército dos EUA, de Fort Detrick no estado de Maryland, por ocasião da II Guerra Mundial.

As alegações do vice-presidente Dick Cheney, quem geralmente toma a frente de Bush nos discursos mais controversos envolvendo os ataques nos EUA, são bastante tendenciosas, absolutamente contraditórias enquanto tenta acusar a Al-Qaeda, esquivando-se do fato do laboratório de suas Forças Armadas ser o único produtor da bactéria.

Em 26 de setembro é revelado que serviços de inteligência de outros países alertaram seriamente à Casa Branca de que a rede de Bin Laden planejara matar Bush, ignorados por este. Em 1º de outubro, o semanário norte-americano Newsweek revela que o FBI informou, às vésperas do 11 de Setembro, que o país estava na iminência de sofrer sérios ataques. Dois dias depois, Bin Laden concede entrevista a um jornal paquistanês, negando ser o mentor dos ataques de 11 de setembro.

A invasão ao Afeganistão em 7 outubro de 2001, batizada pela Casa Branca de Operação Liberdade Duradoura que promete ser “cirúrgica”, é aprovada pela ONU, que com isso contraria sua Carta no que diz respeito ao empreendimento de uma guerra, retrocedendo à era pré-II Guerra Mundial em que se praticou as maiores barbaridades unilateralmente, supostamente em nome de segurança nacional, civilização e raça superior.

A guerra de Bush contra ao Afeganistão iniciou-se 26 dias após os ataques em solo norte-americano (os quais não podem ser considerados atos de guerra, conforme abordado acima). A resposta para imediatez militar estadunidense agora, e perante enorme investida, está no fato já mencionado: o programa de governo de Bush já assumiu a Casa Branca preparado para investidas bélicas no Oriente Médio.

Logo, a guerra “cirúrgica” de Washington contra o Afeganistão evidencia-se tão falaciosa quanto contra o Iraque, em 1991: mata impiedosamente inúmeros civis inocentes. Um dos primeiros alvos das forças norte-americanas são os meios de comunicação afegãos, e a sede da rede de TV Al-Jazeera do Qatar na capital afegã, Cabul, matando e ferindo gravemente diversos funcionários. A justificativa do secretário de Defesa de Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, para atacar os meios afegãos é que “são porta-vozes do Taliban, e dos terroristas que os abrigam”.

A total disparidade entre as forças beligerantes em questão ferem as leis internacionais, bem como o fato de que o Estado afegão não atacou os Estados Unidos, o que torna tal invasão ilegítima além da própria prática das forças estrangeiras no Oriente Médio, não poupando civis, cujo número de mortos excede, em muitas vezes, o de militares.

As leis internacionais também desaprovam declaração de guerra até que todas as vias diplomáticas sejam buscadas, o que Bush nunca fez nem jamais faria em seus oito longos anos na Casa Branca. Para nem mencionar que o acusado pela administração de George Bush, Osama bin Laden, não foi levado a um tribunal e julgado, outro grave ferimento ao direito internacional.

Enquanto isso, os EUA se mantêm irredutíveis quanto a assinar os acordos que fortaleceriam o Tribunal Penal Internacional, e submeteriam seus soldados a um julgamento internacional se necessário, bem como o Estado por crimes de guerra. Nunca na história dos EUA, um presidente foi tão unilateralmente agressivo quanto Bush tem sido, marca esta que apenas se fortaleceria em seus dois mandatos presidenciais.

No dia 5 de dezembro, quando se somam mais de 2.500 bombardeios aéreos sobre o Afeganistão, a guerra é formalemente terminada através da Conferência de Bonn, na Alemanha. O Taliban está totalmente rendido, e em seu lugar os EUA colocam no poder, em 21 de dezembro, o cientista político e ex-consultor justamente da Unocal, Hamid Karzai, para formar gabinete interino até que hajam eleições diretas. Assim que toma posse, Karzai aprova a construção dos dutos que levarão petróleo e gás natural do Mar Cáspio ao seu país, favorecendo a companhia petrolífera dos EUA.

O Afeganistão bateria, ano a ano, todos os seus próprios recordes históricos na produção de ópio, voltando a ser líder mundial assim como foi à época do apoio estadunidense na década de 1980 e primeira metade de 1990. Vale apontar, em meio a tudo isso, que a sociedade dos EUA é a maior consumidora de drogas do mundo.

Logo, as liberdades civis dentro dos EUA sofrem o pior revés da história da nação, outro grave ferimento à Constituição através da Patriot Act (Lei Patriota), uma das medidas de linha-dura aprovadas pela Nova Estratégia de Segurança Nacional, ou Doutrina Bush na qual o governo autoriza, entre outras coisas, que sejam espionados e presos cidadãos que se julgue necessário, mesmo sem provas, de atos terroristas ou de ligação com eles. Junto desta Doutrina, Bush sentencia o eixo do mal a ser combatido, a todo custo: Iraque, Irã e Coreia do Norte. E “quem não estiver ao nosso lado, está contra nós”, isto é, do lado dos terroristas, é sua ameaça ao mundo.

É a Doutrina Bush que também permite aos EUA declarar guerra unilateralmente sempre que se sintam ameaçados, além de colocar qualquer nação que não esteja ao lao do país na “Guerra ao Terror” como inimiga, passível de ser igualmente atacada, com tudo isso se posicionando acima de qualquer lei, inclusive de sua própria Constituição.

Sob Estado policial, a histeria entre a sociedade norte-americana aumenta com publicações levianas em jornais, revistas e TVs sem nenhuma base, e extremamente sensacionalistas associando terrorismo com islamitas árabes enquanto não há nada que prove tal fato, alarmando os cidadãos, vendendo a ideia de que novos ataques, ainda piores que os de 11 de setembro, estão em curso. A partir de exposição sistemática das imagens dos aviões suicidas e das Torres Gêmeas em chamas, passam a ser criados e comercializados produtos “antiterror” em lojas do país: roupas, máscaras, paraquedas especiais que protegeriam as pessoas no caso de ataques.

A partir de então, Bush e os funcionários de seu governo concedem entrevistas totalmente desencontradas aos meios de comunicação, também excessivamente tendenciosos, aumentando as suspeitas da sociedade em reação ao 11 de Setembro e à “Luta contra o Terror”. A maior dificuldade da equipe de Bush é explicar a decisão unilateral de invadir o Iraque, enquanto a ONU afirma não haver naquele país bombas de destruição massiva: através da Resolução 1441, vários de seus inspetores de armas averiguaram e destruíram considerável quantidade de armas ao longo da década de 1990, sem no entanto ter encontrado nada que pudesse incriminar o regime de Hussein, considerado pela ONU um dos 10 países que mais respeitam as diferenças religiosas entre os 44 islamitas do mundo árabe (a ditadura local, cruel, resume-se à política e a reivindicações da minoria curda ao norte do país).

Em janeiro de 2002, o ex-agente do FBI John O’Neil, autodemitido do cargo em agosto de 2001 por ter suas investigações sobre a Al-Qaeda obstruídas pela casa Branca, afirma na CNN que “interesses petrolíferos das companhias dos EUA” não permitiram que seu trabalho seguisse. No mês seguinte, a ex-funcionária Julie Stirrs da Agência de Inteligência de Defesa do país, também autodemitida do cargo às vésperas do 11 de Setembro por ter suas investigações contra Bin Laden impedidas, afirma na rede de TV ABC News que a avalanche de documentos obtida em sua viagem ao Afeganistão fora confiscada por superiores no aeroporto de volta aos EUA, denunciando ainda que nunca nenhum alto escalão da Inteligência norte-americana se dispôs a ouvir o que ela trazia do Oriente Médio.

No dia 17 de abril, a senadora e ativista ambiental e pelos direitos humanos, Cynthia Anna McKinney do estado da Geórgia e uma das mais ressonantes apoiadores da criação de uma comissão para investigar o 11 de Setembro, inicia denúncias que Bush sabia com antecedência dos ataques em solo norte-americano. Passa então a ser duramente perseguida, política e pessoalmente.

Em maio, após constantes estudos independentes sobre o meio ambiente no local onde estavam as Torres Gêmeas, ativistas liderados pela ambientalista Jenna Orkin concluem que, ao contrário do que afirmou o prefeito nova-iorquino Rudolph Giuliani a fim de não interromper as atividades econômicas da região, o ar e a água têm estado seriamente contaminados, levando, até o presente, à morte diversos cidadãos e invalidando outros tantos, inclusive bombeiros que ali operaram no 11 de Setembro, e nos dias subsequentes.

Tal ocorrência é classificada de “desastre ambiental com proporções históricas” pelo que, nos próximos 10-15 anos segundo investigadores, número maior de pessoas morrerá por problemas respiratório, superando em muitas vezes o número de mortos nos ataques do 11 de Setembro: pela mentira governamental, milhares de trabalhadores não usaram equipamentos de proteção. Entre outras afirmações de Orkin em discurso púbico, incluem-se estas palavras:

No desastre ambiental do 11 de Setembro, Osama bin Laden não poderia
ter encontrado melhor colaborador, espírito mais próximo que o de George Bush

No final de 2002, quando fica claro que os EUA invadirão o Iraque, Hussein permite que a ONU inspecione seu país, abrindo o país como nunca antes e oferecendo cooperação integral. A vistoria da ONU não dá motivo às acusações da equipe de Bush. Tampouco há nada que ligue Hussein à Al-Qaeda e aos ataques do 11 de Setembro, ao contrário do que alega a Casa Branca.

A ONU, grande parte da sociedade local e diversos governos, inclusive de países vizinhos ao Iraque, são contrários à guerra e preveem uma catástrofe na região se os EUA invadirem Bagdá, alertando todos, constantemente, ao governo de Washington para que desista da invasão. Nada disso, porém, faz Bush mudar de ideia: “É consenso nesta administração que o Iraque desenvolve bombas de destruição em massa. (…) Saddam Hussein é aluno de Stálin. (…) Em se tratando de segurança, não precisamos da permissão de ninguém”.

Isso tudo contradiz as afirmações do presidente dos EUA quando perguntado por um jornalista sobre qual o envolvimento do Iraque no 11 de Setembro, pouco depois dos ataques daquele dia: “Nenhum”. Com o passar do tempo, conforme temos visto, nada surge para que a Casa Branca mude de ideia em relação a Bagdá. Em fevereiro de 2003, o jornal The New York Times revela que o governo britânico, principal aliado de Washington desde o início da “Guerra ao Terror”, admite que baseou as alegações de que Hussein desenvolve bombas de destruição em massa em matérias de revistas e jornais, não em provas consistentes.

Bush leva às últimas consequências a teologia do pastor evangélico William Branham (1909-1965), que pregava que os EUA eram predestinados por Deus a salvar o planeta “pelo poder da espada”: antes que os inspetores da ONU terminem a vistoria, o Iraque é unilateralmente invadido pelas forças norte-americanas.

Para a Segunda Guerra do Golfo como também fica conhecida esta invasão, em março de 2003 na qual os EUA contam com o maior e mais moderno contingente militar da história, contra a Guarda Republicana iraquiana que se defende com as poucas e obsoletas armas remanescentes da guerra contra o Irã e da própria Tempestade no Deserto de 1991, a administração de Bush cria, dentro de seu país, um clima de histeria generalizada através de discursos ufanistas e apocalípticos, alegando que Hussein pode atacar “novamente” os EUA, e destruir o mundo a qualquer momento.

É no mínimo muito curioso que, paralelamente a isso, há anos a Coreia do Norte afirma desenvolver armas nucleares capazes de destruir os EUA, que nada fazem. Tal “enigma” por trás de mais essa hipocrisia made in USA não é difícil de ser desvendada quando consideramos que a Coreia comunista faz fronteira com a temível China, além de não possuir petróleo. Isso também ilustra muito bem, entre tantos fatos que se acumulam ao longo dos anos, o caráter completamente farsante da “Guerra ao Terror” – para nem mencionar que o único ataque nuclear da história foi perpetrado justamente pelos EUA, contra Hiroshima e Nagasaki ao final da II Guerra Mundial, e que Israel, maior aliado dos EUA no Oriente Médio, possui bombas nucleares enquanto massacra a população palestina.

As invasões ao Afeganistão e ao Iraque configuram-se no maior revés das relações internacionais desde o Tratado de Paz de Westfália há quase quatro séculos. Logo, os afegãos veem claramente que as promessas de Bush de libertá-los da opressão, sobretudo da misoginia, não se concretizará – tudo foi uma mentira. No Iraque, além da morte de civis cresce assustadoramente também o número de militares norte-americanos mortos e o de feridos (muitos deles de maneira grave, retornando inválidos ao país), fato quase nada divulgado pela Imprensa local e internacional.

Denúncias no Afeganistão e Iraque de abusos por parte das forças de ocupação são silenciadas, até que crimes de guerra jamais vistos após a derrota do fascismo se tornam escândalo mundial – logo também esquecidos pela grande mídia. Ao mesmo tempo, são trazidos à prisão norte-americana de Guantánamo, território cubano, acusados (na maioria dos casos sem provas e, em todos os casos, sem terem sido submetidos a julgamento) de ligação com os ataques de 11 de Setembro: sofrem torturas que geram indignação em todo o mundo, e condenações oficiais, mas a administração de Bush não dá ouvidos a nada disso. A criação da prisão de Guantánamo fora do território dos EUA visa justamente a tirar o governo federal do alcance dos tribunais do país, tanto quanto ferem as Convenções de Genebra, assinadas pelos próprios EUA, as práticas naquela detenção.

Em agosto de 2003, é morto no Hotel Canal na capital iraquiana de Bagdá o diplomata brasileiro da ONU, Sérgio Vieira de Mello, em circunstâncias bastante obscuras. Viera de Mello, Representante Especial da ONU no Iraque, o brasileiro era muito bem visto entre os iraquianos, tendo uma de suas vozes oficiais afirmado que sem ele seria impossível a reconstrução do país, e opôs-se desde o início à invasão norte-americana ao país, considerando-a ilegal assim como o órgão que representa. “Já que houve a ocupação, que dure o menor tempo possível”, disse Vieira, explicando ainda que o governo de Washington aplicou de maneira distorcida a resolução 1483 a qual tirou a soberania do Iraque. “Ao invés de retirar a soberania e entregar à ONU, os EUA aplicaram-na a si mesmos”. Sua esposa explicaria, entre mistérios jamais revelados sobre sua morte, que a relação do diplomata com o estadunidense Paul Bremen, chefe da Coalizão, estava se esfriando rapidamente.

Contrariando todas as leis iraquianas de soberania, a administração de Bush invade o país em março de 2003 e simplesmente “vende” o país às empresas norte-americanas, que faturam trilhões de dólares, através da Ordem 39 através da qual os EUA se outorgam o direito de privatizar centenas de empresas, estatais, além de outro decreto prevendo que empresas estrangeiras podem se apropriar de 100% dos bancos, minas e fábricas.

Assim, os EUA ferem as regras estipuladas pela Convenção de Haia de 1907, as leis iraquianas, previstas na Constituição local, além da própria Lei de Guerras Terrestres e do código de ética do Exército dos EUA. Alguns analistas e organismos internacionais condenam o governo de Washington por isso, mas nada acontece e a mídia internacional ignora quase que totalmente tal questão.

Como resposta, a violência social explode no Iraque: protestos, explosões de oleodutos e homens-bomba espalham-se pelo país. O caos social iraquiano, igualmente desconsiderado no Ocidente, aumenta em relação aos anos de Hussein, hoje derrubado do poder e foragido. Dentro dos EUA, no segundo aniversário dos ataques do 11 de Setembro Bush e integrantes de sua equipe são processados por esposa de vítima fatal no World Trade Center.

Malalaï Joya é eleita a fim de participar de uma assembleia para aprovar a nova Constituição afegã em dezembro de 2003. Frente a frente com os mujahidin, hoje pertencentes à Aliança do Norte colocada no poder pelos EUA, denuncia-os em discurso de dois minutos que incendeia o local: é sumariamente expulsa e passa a viver escondida, ameaçada de morte. Passa então a enfrentar inimigos em três frentes, como costuma dizer: os senhores da guerra da Aliança do Norte, o Taliban e a ocupação norte-americana.

Em maio de 2004, são revelados chocantes crimes contra a humanidade pelos alegados “libertadores do Iraque” revelando uma “guerra particular às custas do Estado” conforme reportaria duramente dias depois o semanário alemão Der Spiegel, revista justamente de um dos países que mais se opõem à invasão ao Iraque (a começar pelo governo de Angela Merkel): inúmeras torturas de soldados dos EUA contra prisioneiros de guerra (futuramente, seria comprovado que mais de 80% eram inocentes, e viriam à tona ainda imagens de esposa e filhas desses prisioneiros estupradas pelos militares estadunidenes) a mando do secretário de Defesa de Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, que a princípio negou tudo. Tais práticas fazem o mundo recordar o terror causado pelos nazistas durante a II Guerra Mundial.

A esta altura, o mundo todo já se opões à invasão ao Iraque, havendo protestos em todas as partes. No Afeganistão é aprovada a nova Constituição, com alguns avanços e muitos retrocessos, especialmente no que diz respeito aos direitos humanos. Nesta mesma época, Richard Clarke, ex-funcionário da CIA que pediu demissão indignado pelas advertências da Inteligência sobre iminentes ataques do 11 de Setembro, ignoradas pela Casa Branca, faz sérias denúncias envolvendo as distorções de Bush e Rumsfeld para invadir o Iraque, “porque ele já planejava fazer alguma coisa contra o Iraque muito antes daquele momento”.

Também é revelado o Grupo de Operações Preventivas e Pró-Ativas (P2OG, na sigla em inglês), através do qual Donald Rumsfeld coordenou com a CIA atividades no Iraque a fim de provocar reações violentas e, assim, justificar mais intervenção militar naquele país. Seguindo perfeitamente a linha midiática na cobertura desta “Guerra ao Terror”, o P2OG é completamente ignorado pela Imprensa predominante mundial.

Pouco depois, em outubro, a primeira eleição presidencial afegã coloca no poder Hamid Karzai da Aliança do Norte, o sempre preferido de Bush. O sufrágio universal afegão é comprovadamente corrupto e violento, atingindo grande parte de civis. O caos apenas cresce no Afeganistão enquanto o bombardeio “cirúrgico” dos EUA contra o país, conforme as palavras dos norte-americanos, massacram cada vez mais inocentes. Contudo, pouco espaço há para tudo isso na grande Imprensa internacional, e assim seguiria sendo ao longo dos anos.

A Comissão do 11 de Setembro, criada pelo Congresso para investigar as implicações dos ataques em solo norte-americano, que desde o início sofreu oposição de \Bush sob argumento de que distrairia da luta contra o terror, é melancolicamente encerrada: tratou de obscurecer cada fato envolvendo o 11 de Setembro, jamais esclarecer os fatos nem muito menos as teses contrárias às do governo; não apresentou resposta aos familiares das vítimas e demais questionadores das versões oficiais dos ataques. Foi do início ao fim controlada pelo governo, que impediu análise de diversos documentos e muitos de serem ouvidos – o próprio Bush se negou a depor.

Os memorandos de agentes da CIA entregues diretamente a Bush, apresentados como provas de que o governo sabia dos ataques, nunca foram nem seriam explicados no futuro. Nenhuma das inúmeras indagações sobre as implicações dos ataques terroristas seriam jamais questionadas pela grande mídia local nem estrangeira. Investigações independentes reivindicadas por organizações não governamentais e não partidárias, especialmente o Comitê Diretivo da Família pela Comissão 11/9, incluindo especialistas renomados dentro dos EUA, não seriam jamais realizadas, mas sempre ignoradas por Washington e sem nenhum espaço para debate na mídia.

Bush também se recusa a assinar, desde o início de seu governo, tratados em prol do meio ambiente – sendo os EUA maiores poluidores do ar. Tal recusa se manteria ao longo de todos os seus anos na Casa Branca. Além disso, o país é um dos mais violentos do mundo, onde está a maior população carcerária do planeta, a qual sofre injustiça (muitos não deveriam estar presos, gerando manifestações indignadas de juristas, que condenam a “democracia” da nação, qualificando-a de falaciosa), e tem seus direitos humanos seriamente feridos, como em poucas nações ocidentais hoje.

A crise financeira que parecia iminente nos EUA já não ronda mais, ao menos não tão perceptivelmente como anos antes: o estouro da bolha econômica está adiada, cujo crescimento tem sido impulsionado pelas guerras e saques no Oriente Médio.

Em 2004 a “Guerra Santa” de Bush está no auge, quando ele se reelege, novamente envolvido em casos comprovados de fraude eleitoral. Grande parte dos norte-americanos eram contra a invasão ao Iraque, e não veem resultados da empreitada no Afeganistão. A campanha presidencial foi extremamente apelativa em relação ao terrorismo internacional, usando de muito ufanismo com aceitação profundamente emotiva de diversos setores da sociedade local.

No Afeganistão, amplamente apoiada pelo povo Joya retorna à vida política em setembro de 2005, após novos ataques terroristas em Madri (2004) e em Londres (2005): eleita ao Parlamento, passa a denunciar crimes de narcotráfico e contra as mulheres pelos senhores da guerra da Aliança do Norte.

Em julho de 2005, é assassinado em Londres o brasileiro Jean Charles de Menezes, de 27 anos, pela Scotland Yard, policia secreta britânica, a qual usou balas que causam dores aterrorizantes na vítima antes de morrer, condenadas por agências internacionais de direitos humanos. O brasileiro fora confundido com um terrorista islamita que tentara executar ataque terrorista semanas antes na capital inglesa. A polícia britânica boicotaria de todas as formas investigações do crime contra Menezes, e os culpados não seriam jamais punidos.

Em dezembro de 2006, Hussein é julgado nos EUA e enforcado no Iraque por seu governo sanguinário, e por supostamente produzir bombas químicas e biológicas. Sobre os envolvimentos corruptos da condenação de Hussein, inclusive a filmagem e ampla divulgação de seu enforcamento, a cobertura da Imprensa dos EUA é altamente tendenciosa.

Junto dos ferimentos a todas as leis internacionais por parte da Casa Branca, que contraria a ONU e todos os organismos em favor de direitos humanos, junto dos discursos vazios e ufanistas de George Bush, e junto do vertiginoso aumento do número de civis massacrados pelas forças de ocupação no Afeganistão e no Iraque, cresce a manipulação midiática sobre a “Guerra ao Terror”, maior mentira da história, apelando, como sempre, para a indústria do cinema, estigmatizando os povos árabes islamitas em todo o mundo, impondo ao inconsciente das pessoas que eles e sua religião são terroristas a fim de justificar a agenda belicista-imperialista dos EUA, “messiânica” segundo também vende a mídia, destinada a salvar a humanidade conforme a imagem que o país tem feito de si mesmo ao longo das décadas.

A atuação da mídia norte-americana tem sido a mesma em todos os eventos terroristas dos Estados Unidos ao longo do século XX, desde as dezenas de invasões, sabotagens, golpes e carnificinas contra países da América Latina, passando pelas bombas atômicas contra Hiroshima e Nagasaki em 1945, e pelos crimes de guerra contra o Vietnã a partir de duas décadas e meia mais tarde. Assim, legitima-se as empreitadas letais do Estado mais terrorista da história, ferrenhamente defendidas sobretudo pelas elites e pelos setores mais conservadores dos EUA, mudando apenas a escusa beligerante de acordo com a ocasião.

Com os direitos civis feridos como jamais aconteceu na história dos Estados Unidos, e com as invasões ao Afeganistão e Iraque sob imposição da Casa Branca ao mundo em nome da segurança nacional, o Império estabelece a política de linha-dura perfeita para expandir sua dominação global, especialmente na região mais rica em petróleo (recurso não renovável que, de acordo com o atual nível de consumo, esgotar-se-á em 50 anos segundo especialistas) do globo em tempos de crise econômica.

Em maio de 2007, Joya é novamente expulsa das atividades políticas por aqueles que acusa de corrupção e de violar direitos humanos ao perpetrar graves crimes contra civis inocentes em nome do mesmo fundamentalismo religioso dos talibans, especialmente contra as mulheres contrariando as promessas de Bush ao invadir o país.

Segundo a parlamentar, tais criminosos são apoiados pelo governo de Washington cujos soldados, denuncia também, cometem graves crimes dentro de seu país. A voz de Joya, dentro e fora do Afeganistão, tenta de todas as formas ser calada. Sua vida corre mais risco que nunca: vivendo clandestinamente em sua terra natal, trafega apenas de táxi escondida debaixo de uma burca, escoltada por 12 seguranças fortemente armados. Recebe solidariedade internacional, e passa a ser premiada em todo o mundo por sua coragem. Seu heroísmo vale até produção cinematográfica enquanto, ano a ano, cresce vertiginosamente o número de civis afegãos mortos pelos ataques das foras de ocupação.

Em fevereiro de 2008, após uma série de batalhas judiciais pelas condições em Guantánamo, o diretor da CIA, Michael Hayden, confessa no Congresso aplicação de métodos de tortura em solo cubano, cuja prisão a ONU vem condenando desde fevereiro de 2006 enquanto Bush negou, neste tempo todo, maus tratos a prisioneiros.

Em abril, Joya doa 30 mil dólares recebidos em prêmios internacionais por seu engajamento à construção de um hospital em sua cidade natal, mesmo mês que o gabinete da ex-parlamentar sofre ataque, após fazer denúncias de corrupção governamental, apontando o nome do parlamentar envolvido: o criminoso é pego, revela que foi subornado por integrantes do Parlamento, mas a Polícia local abafa o caso e ninguém é punido

Em outubro do mesmo ano, enquanto Joya tem sido premiada em todo o mundo, especialmente na Europa por sua luta contra os fundamentalistas religiosos e traficantes de drogas locais, e pelas denúncias contra a ocupação estrangeira sem sua terra natal, tendo sido motivo até de produções cinematográficas internacionais, a União Inter-Parlamentar que, com cooperação com a ONU, promove o diálogo parlamentar mundial em favor da paz e dos direitos humanos, condena, pública e documentalmente, a suspensão da militante afegã de suas atividades no Parlamento de seu país.

Ainda em 2008, é revelado que as bombas Mini-Nuke lançadas pelos EUA sobre o Iraque na Primeira Guerra do Golfo, eram de 6 a 30 vezes mais potentes que a atômica lançada contra Hiroshima, no final da II Grande Guerra. O orçamento militar norte-americano fecha este ano com os maiores gastos da história do país mesmo considerando a época da Guerra Fria.

Desta maneira, o 11 de Setembro funcionou como um novo Pearl Harbor aos EUA, exatamente como previa a expansão militar contida no programa Bush em campanha eleitoral, através do Project for a New American Century (tal documento ressaltou a necessidade de um novo acontecimento como o que levou os EUA à II Guerra Mundial, mencionando categoricamente Pearl Harbor).

Bush deixa a Casa Branca no início de 2009 com um dos índices mais baixos de aprovação da história, e com o forte estigma, dentro e fora do país, de mentiroso: não foram encontradas no Iraque bombas de destruição massiva, nem há nada que ligue Hussein à Al-Qaeda, dando razão à ONU. O Iraque agora vive um caos pior que sob a ditadura de Hussein, cujos assassinatos aumentam mês a mês vertiginosamente, a exemplo do Afeganistão que, ambos, Bush, prometeu libertar. Dentro dos EUA, seguem os crimes contra as liberdades civis além de todas as contradições e mentiras envolvendo o 11 de Setembro, completamente obscurecidas.

Demais fatos, no mínimo obscuros envolvendo o 11 de Setembro e todos os crimes cometidos na “Guerra ao Terror”, acabam em grande parte caindo no esquecimento do grosso da sociedade local, ou em muitos casos sem que se tenha tomado conhecimento após cobertura tendenciosa da mídia: fator que pesa muito contra Bush dentro de casa é a grave depressão econômica que acomete seu país, segunda pior de toda a história dos EUA.

A sociedade norte-americana em geral cobra de Bush muito mais os prejuízos econômicos advindos das empreitadas militares no Oriente Médio que, baseadas em mentiras, retiraram dos cofres públicos crescentemente ano a ano, trilhões de dólares em menos de sete anos, do que a prática imperialista e os ferimentos aos direitos humanos contra outros povos.

Estes dois últimos fatores não estão na agenda política dos principais partidos, Republicano e Democrata, nunca foram prioridade midiática local nem internacional, e, por conseguinte, estão quase que totalmente fora do debate social, bem como o alto número de militares norte-americanos mortos e seriamente feridos – para nem mencionar os militares e civis iraquianos e civis cujas vidas têm sido massacradas, especialmente crianças e mulheres. As liberdades civis nunca foram tão atacadas em toda a história, por tanto tempo quanto nestes anos de “Guerra ao Terror”.

Barack Obama, eleito presidente em 2008 com discurso de renovação profunda dentro dos EUA, gerando grandes esperanças aos povos de todo o mundo devido ao discurso mais moderado que o de seu antecessor por estar sempre apoiado em discurso apresentando sobretudo maior preocupação com os direitos humanos, logo decepciona: assume o poder em janeiro de 2009, e dali em diante as liberdades civis seguiriam sendo feridas dentro dos EUA além das prisões ilegais e práticas de tortura em Guantánamo, manutenção de cuja prisão a ONU condena desde fevereiro de 2006, e o crescimento da morte de civis nos países invadidos, de modos crueis, contrariando assim suas promessas de campanha.

Em abril de 2009, Joya encontra-se na França com Matthis Chiroux, ex-militar norte-americano que pediu demissão em plenas atividades meses antes: Chiroux denuncia o que o Exército de seu país tem praticado no Iraque e Afeganistão, e pede perdão publicamente a Joya por ter lutado em seu país, contra seu povo.

Em junho do mesmo ano, Joya concede entrevista ao jornal brasileiro O Tempo, de Minas Gerais. A tradução de uma minientrevista publicada pelo diário é enviada, de nossa parte, ao Comitê de Defesa de Joya no Afeganistão, a qual está escondida em algum lugar do país. Recebemos a espantosa resposta de que a publicação fora completamente modificada de acordo com as palavras da ativista afegã.

Joya autoriza seu comitê a enviar-nos a versão original da extensa e bombástica entrevista, bem como os registros de seu contato com a repórter Renata Medeiros do diário mineiro para que sirvam como prova, tudo isso a fim de ser publicado e, assim, denunciada a distorção midiática pró-governo de Washington. Fazemos isso em coluna que mantemos no sitio Nolan Chart dos Estados Unidos, cuja matéria é republicada no Afeganistão pela Associação Revolucionária das Mulheres do Afeganistão.

Entre as mais fortes declarações de Joya, está a da associação da CIA no tráfico de ópio a partir do Afeganistão, de cujo produto, após a invasão norte-americana, o país da ativista volta a ser líder mundial batendo seus próprios recordes históricos, levando o país novamente à liderança internacional da produção e exportação da droga. Joya também condena o fato de uma potência econômica e militar como os EUA, apoiada por outras europeias, ser incapaz de vencer o Taliban, pequeno grupo de analfabetos que, sem apoio da sociedade afegã, valem-se de armas obsoletas – a ativista afegã aponta os indiscutíveis porquês disso… O que não interessa a O Tempo.

Joya também revela outros dados oficiais envolvendo o caos social que vive seu povo, entre eles: a cada 28 minutos, morre uma mulher durante o parto, e mais de 70% delas não recebe atendimento médico durante a gravidez (proibidas pelo Taliban); 70% sofre de insuficiência alimentar aguda; apenas 2% tem acesso à eletricidade; cerca de 92% não tem acesso a serviços sanitários; taxa de desemprego em 40%; a cada mil crianças nascidas, 128 não viverão mais que um ano, entre tantas informações chocantes e de alto valor jornalístico, que em absolutamente nada interessaram a O Tempo de Minas.

Paralelamente a isso, a quantidade de civis inocentes mortos no país pela invasão dos EUA atinge níveis assustadores, crescendo mês a mês – nas poucas vezes que a mídia internacional noticia tais fatos, considera as vítimas meros números de “conflito”. Assim, o jornalismo brasileiro segue à risca a pauta estabelecida por Washington nesta “Guerra ao Terror”, a qual se baseia na desinformação. Jornalismo co-assassino, cúmplice dos piores ferimentos aos direitos humanos da atualidade, do cruel e infinito derramamento de sangue no Oriente Médio contra homens inocentes, contra milhares de mulheres, idosos e crianças. Em setembro, o chefe militar dos EUA no Oriente Médio, Matthew P. Hoh, pede demissão indignado, denunciando a corrupção de seu país no Afeganistão e Iraque, e os atentados contra civis inocentes.

A Constituição brasileira prevê diversos compromissos midiáticos, inculcando à regulação do setor. Por exemplo, as constituições sueca, alemã e britânica, países com maior tradição democrática do mundo, possuem leis bem definidas para a Imprensa, eficientemente reguladas que garantem práticas mais éticas, responsáveis respeitando, sobretudo, a liberdade de informação enquanto no Brasil os grandes meios de comunicação, paradoxalmente tendo em vista suas históricas práticas do antijornalismo, opõem-se histericamente a mesmo um debate sobre marco regulatório que transforme liberdade de Imprensa (que defende interesses comerciais e monopólio da informação) em efetiva liberdade de expressão, em uma autêntica democratização da mídia.

O exemplo mais célebre dessa liberdade de Imprensa no Brasil em detrimento da liberdade de expressão, do quanto a opinião nos meios de comunicação brasileiros são filtrados, editados, selecionados, distorcidos e/ou manipulados, foi dado pelo jornal O Tempo no caso de Joya, publicando a pífia minientrevista que a afegã jamais concedera. Essa libertinagem garantida pela anarquia jornalística que leva ao monopólio da informação, é o que as empresas de mídia, as grandes corporações que as sustentam, através de anúncios, e as elites não querem perder, evidentemente. WikiLeaks ainda revelaria telegramas em que embaixadores dos EUA no Brasil comentam a encomenda de entrevistas entre grandes veículos de informação brasileiros, especificando-os, a fim de favorecer Washington. É a verdadeira face do escárnio de “Guerra ao Terror” cada vez mais evidente.

Um histórico da cobertura da grande mídia dos EUA sobre o 11 de Setembro e a “Guerra ao Terror”, junto de uma breve análise das produções cinematográficas (que sofrem influência direta do Departamento de Defesa dos EUA, “é nosso interesse participar da produção de filmes”, pelo que impõe ao cinema local contrato restritivo) e da política histórica do país, não deixam dúvidas quanto à parceria de sucesso entre a mídia e o governo de Washington a fim de vender ao mundo ideias que coincidam com os interesses da Casa Branca, especialmente agora, na dita luta contra o terrorismo mundial que leva muita informação (em geral distorcida) e pouco conhecimento pleno às sociedades mundiais – alma do negocio chamado guerra e imperialismo. O apelo é sempre apoiado em excessivo e cego patriotismo, e nos supostos “valores cristãos” da sociedade norte-americana.

O principal objetivo midiático tem sido alcançado, com raro sucesso: associar Islã a árabes terroristas, além de fazer diversas deturpações envolvendo tal religião difundindo, assim, a islamofobia no mundo, polarizando cristãos e islamitas e reforçando a moderna “cruzada santa” dos EUA em todo o globo, em nome da salvação do país e da humanidade. Enquanto isso, jamais se menciona na Imprensa mundial, por exemplo, que aliados estratégicos dos EUA recebem enormes somas em dinheiro como investimento militar, ao mesmo tempo que ferem gravemente direitos humanos dentro de suas fronteiras.

A mesma mídia que acirrou os ânimos durante a Guerra Fria, na “Luta do Bem contra o Mal”, e que ao longo da história, desde a genocida expansão ao Oeste norte-americano passando pelo Vietnã até os dias de hoje, criou várias justificativas para a expansão militar dos EUA no mundo, inclusive as sangrentas ditaduras latino-americanas. A grande mídia da desinformação trata, nada mais, de impor ao imaginário norte-americano e mundial a nova escusa oficial para novas investidas do governo de Washington, como sempre baseada em muita distorção e manipulação.

Deste modo, perpetua-se a necessidade vital de o Império possuir inimigos a fim de justificar a expansão de suas bases militares nos quatro cantos do mundo, especialmente na região mais rica do mundo em petróleo, e mais ainda em tempos de desesperante crise econômica que joga milhares de cidadãos nos EUA às ruas, sem emprego e até sem moradia.

Em agosto de 2009, a segunda eleição presidencial no Afeganistão é mais uma vez fraudulenta e marcada por forte violência. Somado a isso, homens da Aliança do Norte colocados no poder afegão pelos Estados Unidos (entre eles o presidente Hamid Karzai, reeleito agora), acusados de narcotráfico e perpetradores de horrendos crimes contra mulheres em nome da misoginia religiosa, estão agora envolvidos em um dos maiores casos de corrupção da história do Afeganistão, o Kabul Bank, que vem à falência fazendo com que milhares de cidadãos corram ao banco a fim de salvar suas poupanças, aumentando o caos social.

Joya, proibida de retornar ao Parlamento afegão enquanto vive clandestinamente no país, jurada de morte sempre trafegando escondida sob uma burca e escoltada por 12 guarda-costas fortemente armados, escreve sua autobiografia em outubro de 2009, logo espalhada a diversos países do mundo. Ajuda a montar também, em sua cidade natal de Farah, um orfanato e uma clínica médica em favor de mulheres vítimas de violência, com o dinheiro recebido como prêmio internacional, além de seguir ativa ensinando voluntariamente em escolas, em Farah e na capital do país, Cabul.

Em outubro, quatro meses após a calamitosa manipulação da informação praticada por O Tempo, favorecendo a política imperialista dos EUA, Joya concede entrevista ao vivo à CNN, onde fala livremente e, como sempre, faz duras críticas ao governo de Washington, evidenciando uma vez mais, agora de maneira incontestável, que o pseudojornalismo brasileiro é mais subserviente aos interesses dos EUA que a própria mídia norte-americana, tudo isso porque lá a prática jornalística está regulada pelas leis de Imprensa, garantindo um pouco mais de liberdade aos profissionais da comunicação.

É nesta época que o diário The New York Times, entre alguns outros veículos internacionais, dão razão às denúncias de Malalaï Joya a O Tempo (não publicadas pelo jornal brasileiro): há fortes indícios de que o governo norte-americano está ligado ao narcotráfico a partir do Afeganistão. Crianças afegãs são mortas por helicópteros norte-americanos enquanto colhiam lenha em montanhas no interior do país chocando a população local. E uma vez mais, soldados dos EUA são fotografados cometendo crimes de guerra contra inocentes, fazendo lembrar as torturas de Abu Ghraib em 2004.

Em agosto de 2010, o sítio WikiLeaks libera importante telegrama secreto emitido pela CIA: “E Se os Estrangeiros Virem os Estados Unidos como País ‘Exportador de Terrorismo’?, reconhecendo seu país como produtor e exportador de terroristas ao longo das décadas, algo elaborado também dentro dos serviços de Inteligência locais. Tais revelações desmistificam, por completo, a difundida ideia de que o terror é subproduto do Islã, e manifestando muita preocupação com a possibilidade de que outras sociedades se deem conta disso.

No dia 5 de outubro de 2010, o jornal britânico The Daily Telegraph revela que o MI5, uma das agências de Inteligência da Grã-Bretanha, também alertou a administração de Bush que os EUA sofreriam ataques terroristas através de memorandos entregues nos dias 6 de julho de 2001, e na própria manhã de 11 de setembro daquele ano. Agora, como sempre a mídia internacional ignora este fato tanto quanto Bush ignorou todas as advertências recebidas

Nesta mesma época, WikiLeaks revela como o governo dos EUA, desde Bush em 2003 até agora com o presidente Obama e sua secretária de Estado, Hillary Clinton, tentam blindar seus concidadãos nos quatro cantos do mundo da jurisdição do Tribunal Penal Internacional, fazendo lobby secreto junto a governos nacionais: com a criação do Artigo 98, a Casa Branca busca, na prática, que nenhum norte-americano seja processado no estrangeiro, ainda que flagrado cometendo crime hediondo. No Brasil, o governo Lula se mostra inclinado a acatar mais um abuso por parte do governo de Washington, tudo isso revelado através de documentos secretos.

Em abril de 2011, WikiLeaks libera mais telegramas secretos emitidos por oficiais do governo norte-americano, agora confirmando a tenebrosa infraestrutura do terror de Guantánamo além de revelar novas verdades criminosas e mandos e desmandos oficiais, sendo curioso o fato de que, nestes quase dez anos de prisões ilegais e torturas, a grande mídia mundial, especialmente norte-americana, não tenha nunca investigado e noticiado nada disso.

Entre outros cabos sigilosos envolvendo inclusive o Brasil, esta obra traz, também de maneira inédita no Brasil, outra tradução ao português de mensagem de embaixador dos EUA revelando as sabotagens e financiamentos ocultos na Síria, a fim de desestabilizar o governo local (algo fundamental para a geopolítica norte-americana no Oriente Médio).

Em maio, Bin Laden é assassinado no Paquistão: forças norte-americanas invadem o solo paquistanês sem permissão do governo local, e executam sumariamente um cidadão jamais levado à Justiça pela acusação de ter sido mentor do 11 de Setembro, algo sem nenhuma evidência, tudo isso uma vez mais contrariando gravemente o direito internacional.

A única superpotência mundial, assim, coloca-se acima da lei, pretensa última palavra a ser creditada sem questionamentos gerando, assim, mais revolta em todo o mundo. Contudo, a Al-Qaeda, que antes da invasão norte-americana ao Afeganistão operava apenas em solo afegão, tem se espalhado a diversos países do mundo árabe, onde opera com violência sobretudo no Iraque.

Ainda no primeiro semestre de 2011, Joya tem visto de entrada aos EUA negado pela Embaixada norte-americana no Afeganistão, por “ideologia de exclusão”: suas manifestações contrárias à ocupação do Afeganistão a tornam persona non grata para o governo da única superpotência mundial. Após manifestações por parte de intelectuais cidadãos de todo o mundo, escrevendo correios eletrônicos pressionando os políticos dos EUA, Joya consegue visto: suas três semanas no país mais belicista da história não poderia ter sido mais ruidosa, onde participa de discussão em faculdade, é entrevista por rádio e outros veículos de comunicação, e toma parte em uma forte manifestação de rua contra a ocupação de seu país. Enquanto isso, Malalaï Joya, sem nenhum apoio dos EUA, luta para retornar ao Parlamento afegão, direito sempre reconhecido por organismos internacionais.

Em setembro de 2011, exatamente há dez anos dos ataques terroristas em solo norte-americano, enquanto viajam de avião dentro dos EUA, Shoshana Hebshi, por “aparência árabe”, e dois outros homens, por “demorarem muito no banheiro”, são algemados e o voo é escoltado e desviado de sua rota por caças. Trata-se do Patriot Act e o caráter preconceituoso e excessivamente agressivo da chamada Guerra ao Terror levado às últimas consequências. Após ter sido esclarecido o “mal-entendido”, a FOX News tenta deturpar e minimizar a questão, pró-governo norte-americano.

Em dez anos de “Guerra ao Terror”, a Al-Qaeda está amplamente fortalecida, além do número de adeptos ser maior e estar espalhada pelo mundo árabe. Nesta década de expansão militar norte-americana, cujos gastos militares, ferimentos de leis internacionais e liberdades civis não têm precedentes na história dos EUA nem mundial pós-II Grande Guerra, Joya grava emocionante discurso, “Viva a Liberdade”, apelando pela retirada das tropas estrangeiras de seu país.

Tudo isso com o intuito de espalhar mais bases militares dos Estados Unidos pelo mundo, especialmente no Oriente Médio, armar ainda mais o mundo, e radicalizar as posições contrárias às políticas expansionistas coercitivas de Washington, fazendo da tão dita Guerra ao Terror – que, baseada na lavagem cerebral, mata por ano muito mais civis inocentes que os ataques do 11 de Setembro – uma conveniente, fundamentalmente necessária ao governo norte-americano, a todo custo batalha sem fim. Quanto mais se espalham bases militares no mundo, mais controle se perde da política internacional e a ONU, cada vez mais de mãos atadas – são os paradoxos da mentirosa “Guerra ao Terror”, cumprindo perfeitamente a lógica de que uma mentira necessita de outra para se autossustentar.

O término da chamada “Guerra ao Terror” significaria também, mesmo com uma vitória estadunidense, o término da escusa da única superpotência mundial com caráter imperialista em sua essência, para seguir ocupando a região mais rica em petróleo do planeta. A vitória da suposta “Luta contra o Mal” dos EUA seria, então, a derrota do já moribundo Império que assistirá seu fim, não muito distante, “com uma bomba e com uma lamúria”, parafraseando o poeta T. S. Eliot.

Relatório anual de Direitos Humanos do departamento de Estado dos EUA apontou anos atrás que mais de um terço dos países que recebem ajuda financeira comete graves crimes contra os direitos humanos de suas fronteiras, além do que a Arábia Saudita, maior aliada de Washington no mundo árabe, é também, através de monarquia absolutista, uma das maiores violadoras dos direitos civis de todo o globo. Algumas das várias contradições da “zombaria de Guerra ao Terror”, como diz Joya no Afeganistão.

“Coincidentemente” às desesperadas necessidades de Washington, o Afeganistão e o Iraque têm sido, nas palavras de Joya, “levados do fogo direto à frigideira”, um caos que apenas tem se aprofundado após a invasão dos EUA, única superpotência mundial incapaz de vencer pequenos grupos mal armados, mal treinados, iletrados, com estrutura medieval. Dados internacionais apontam uma catástrofe social, econômica e política no Afeganistão em mais de uma década de “Guerra ao Terror”, onde os direitos humanos tem sido ferido como no piores momentos de sua história.

Seguindo a lógica da irracional “Guerra ao Terror”, para nem mencionar o direito internacional e a própria Constituição dos EUA conforme abordado, um governo como o de Washington que mantém armas nucleares e químicas, abriga terroristas e assassinos dos mais crueis em seu território, é aliado e fornecedor de armas a estados terroristas dentre os maiores feridores aos direitos humanos do globo, que sabia com antecedência de diversos ataques em seu solo não sendo eficaz em impedi-los, o acobertaram e em alguns casos até os fomenta, Washington que fere os direitos humanos locais como poucas nações democráticas hoje e recusa-se a assinar tratados de desarmamento, leis de guerra e ambientais, não deveria estar incluído no Eixo do Mal mundial? Enquanto enche as sociedades mundiais e sobretudo a sua própria de medo, ufanismo patriótico e extremismo religioso-cristão, a única superpotência mundial, apoiada na desinformação, faz com que tudo isso não seja nunca questionado, nem sequer lembrado ou sabido.

Mentiras e crimes praticados por um único Império, sem precedentes na história da humanidade. Império impositor de um sistema impostor, religiosamente extremista que, em nome de Deus e do monoteísmo do mercado, qualifica seres humanos de acordo com a nacionalidade, que terceiriza invasões e mercantiliza vidas a fim de alcançar seus objetivos econômicos. Desta maneira, é evidente que não se trata do Islã e de seus seguidores mais radicais tentando derrotar os valores ocidentais, mas sim estes fazendo de tudo, inclusive ferindo leis internacionais e constituições locais, para impor os seus valores e exercer domínio global.

Toda essa complexa realidade, ocultada pela mídia de massa internacional e que remete a tristes e inevitáveis conclusões envolvendo as políticas coercitivo-expansionistas dos Estados Unidos mundo afora, especialmente sobre seu imperialismo no Oriente Médio atrás de interesses econômicos e regionais, faz de Mentiras e Crimes da “Guerra ao Terror”, e o Jornalismo Brasileiro Manchado de Sangue uma obra única no Brasil, dentre as poucas no mundo (apesar do enorme interesse de tantos milhões de pessoas sobre o assunto mais importante da atualidade) que tratam a fundo a maior mentira da história que mudou o curso da política internacional contemporânea, que mais caro custou do ponto de vista econômico e de vidas humanas.

Edu Montesanti

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on ‘Guerra ao Terror’, A Maior Mentira da História

La ascensión del trumpismo

January 18th, 2017 by Barry Sheppard

Una de las características de la reciente campaña electoral presidencial habrá sido la manifestación de las profundas divisiones en el seno de los dos partidos, demócrata y republicano. Esto se añadía al atasco en el Congreso, el pat, entre los dos partidos del capitalismo. Además de esto, el país está muy polarizado a propósito de la raza, la economía y muchas otras cuestiones.

Hay que subrayar igualmente que no hay un partido de masas de la clase trabajadora que habría podido convertirse en el campeón de una alternativa.

Donald Trump ha aparecido -luego ha sido elegido- como el hombre fuerte que va a coger los asuntos en sus manos y poner las cosas en su sitio. Aunque la forma en que va a hacerlo exactamente permanezca abierta sobre muchos puntos.

El trasfondo de esta desorientación en la política de la clase dominante, es la Gran Recesión de 2007-2008 con los rescates por el presupuesto federal de las instituciones financieras y de la industria del automóvil, mientras la masa de los trabajadores era golpeada por el paro, los desahucios, los recortes salariales, etc. En el lento restablecimiento económico durante los ocho años siguientes, las ganancias han subido pero no el nivel de vida de la clase obrera. El 95 % de los hogares no han visto subir sus rentas hasta alcanzar el nivel de 2007. La desigualdad en la distribución de la riqueza y de las rentas ha aumentado.

Estos ocho años corresponden a los años de la administración Obama. Durante estos ocho años, la administración Obama ha hecho poco para contrarrestar esta realidad. De hecho, cuando los republicanos han recuperado el control de la Cámara de Representantes en 2010, para girar duramente a la derecha, los demócratas se han visto superados por la derecha pero no demasiado. Y han dado su acuerdo a grandes recortes presupuestarios en los programas sociales.

Los aparatos demócrata y republicano prestan poca atención a la desesperación y la cólera creciente en toda la clase obrera, negros, blancos, latinos, asiáticos, y otros. Mucha gente de la llamada clase media teme ser echados hacia abajo, hacia la clase obrera, o ha caído ya allí. Los dos candidatos que han hecho campaña contra el establishment, Bernie Sanders entre los demócratas y Donald Trump entre los republicanos, han sintonizado con esta cólera.

De hecho, el demagogo Trump ha planteado pocas verdaderas propuestas para restablecer los empleos bien pagados. Ha acusado a otros países, particularmente México y China, países con muy bajos salarios en los que las empresas estadounidenses subcontratan los elementos de su producción de fuerte intensidad de mano de obra. Trump se ha jurado emplear las tarifas aduaneras para oponerse a ello. Ha combinado esta posición nacionalista con la estigmatización racista -utilizando la retórica del chivo expiatorio- de los negros, los latinos y las personas migrantes, haciéndoles culpables de la pérdida de empleos de los obreros blancos.

La campaña y los debates de las elecciones primarias del Partido Republicano han visto a Donald Trump atacar a sus opositores del aparato republicano haciendo un uso de insultos y expresiones denigrantes sin precedentes. Su argumento principal, que ha repetido sin cesar, era que un hombre fuerte debía encargarse del gobierno y cambiarlo todo. Y que él era ese hombre fuerte, por oposición a los “perdedores” que eran sus rivales. Que era el candidato de la “ley” y el “orden” y que si era elegido, emplearía su poder para hacer un gobierno nuevo de arriba abajo.

Al hacerlo, Trump se ha apoderado del Partido Republicano que le está ya completamente entregado. La mayor parte de los republicanos en el Congreso, dejando aparte algunas viejas glorias oficiales marginadas, son tan de derechas que Trump les va como anillo al dedo. Además, cualesquiera que sean las divergencias que puedan tener con él, están superadas por la conciencia que tienen de que triunfarán o caerán con él.

Entre los demócratas, las primarias se han reducido rápidamente a dos candidatos, Hillary Clinton y Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton era la opción del aparato del partido y como tal ha hecho campaña. Sanders, por su parte, ha hecho campaña como el opositor al 1% de los superricos y ha propuesto medidas para atenuar la suerte de las trabajadoras y trabajadores, presentándose a sí mismo como socialista demócrata. Sus propuestas comprendían una subida del salario mínimo a 15 dólares la hora, el reemplazo del Obamacare, basado en las compañías de seguros, por un seguro de enfermedad nacional para todos y todas, la gratuidad del acceso a los colegios y universidades públicas de los Estados, y otras propuestas de este tipo.

Ante la sorpresa del aparato demócrata, su campaña ha enganchado con los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, y entre los jóvenes en particular, incluyendo los jóvenes negros. En su mayor parte de gente de menos de 25 años, su formación política ha tenido lugar durante los años que han seguido a la Gran Recesión de 2007-2008. Bernie Sanders ha celebrado grandes y entusiastas mítines de masas que contrastaban con las modestas manifestaciones de la campaña de Hillary Clinton. El establishment se ha apiñado alrededor de Hillary Clinton para desacreditar a Bernie Sanders como han revelado los documentos publicados por WikiLeaks. Hillary Clinton ha sido también ayudada por la base tradicional de los demócratas entre las personas negras de más edad. Bernie Sanders ha perdido y luego ha hecho campaña en favor de Clinton. El talón de Aquiles de la campaña de Sanders -y lo que ha seguido- es que él apoyaba al Partido Demócrata, intentando reformarle y no construir un nuevo partido, social-demócrata, opuesto a la ciudadela de la clase dominante capitalista que es el Partido Demócrata.

Durante la campaña posterior a las convenciones de los dos partidos, tanto Hillary Clinton como Donald Trump recibían evaluaciones mayoritariamente negativas en los sondeos entre la población. Donald Trump ha hecho campaña como el candidato opuesto al establishment contra la Clinton del establishment. Finalmente, aunque Hillary Clinton haya logrado el voto popular [por alrededor de 2,5 millones de votos], es Trump quien ha obtenido la mayoría del Colegio electoral para emerger tras su victoria como el hombre fuerte que iba a transformar el gobierno a su imagen.

La base electoral de Trump se sitúa entre los elementos abiertamente racistas de las clases media y obrera blancas. Son ellas y ellos quienes se han reagrupado detrás de sus ataques racistas contra los mexicanos y la emigración latina; de su amenaza de “resolver” el problema del movimiento Black Lives Matter y de las comunidades negras en general con aún más ocupación y represión policiales; de sus proposiciones de prohibir a las personas musulmanas la entrada en el país e instituir una lista de vigilancia de las que vivan en el país, incluyendo a quienes tienen la ciudadanía; y de sus alusiones antisemitas.

Sus ataques contra las mujeres por su apariencia, luego su justificación por haberse jactado de sus agresiones sexuales, han sido también aplaudidas.

Todos los ataques de este tipo en sus mítines, que se volvían cada vez más masivos, han sido celebrados con ovaciones y consignas cantadas a coro, como lo han sido sus incitaciones a la violencia contra cualquier protestatario presente. Sus ataques contra Hillary Clinton eran aplaudidos a los gritos de “¡A la cárcel! ¡A la cárcel”.

Es importante subrayar que los racistas declarados son una minoría entre los blancos de todas las clases sociales, pero una minoría significativa; pero son una mayoría entre los blancos de la antigua Confederación de los Estados esclavistas del Sur. Esto está enraizado en toda la historia de los Estados Unidos desde la época de la esclavitud hasta el actual racismo estructural e institucionalizado sobre el que Black Lives Mater ha dirigido su foco.

Desde los años 1970, los republicanos han sido vistos en su conjunto como el partido de los blancos.

No todos, ni siquiera la mayor parte de quienes han votado por Trump son racistas declarados. Muchos esperan ingenuamente que Trump obligue al sistema a traer buenos empleos. Pero han estado dispuestos a dejar de lado el racismo declarado de Trump, su misoginia, y sus brutales intimidaciones, para votar por él. Como blancos y blancas, temían también, aunque fuera de forma inconsciente, ser rebajados hasta el nivel de los pueblos de color.

Trump puede contar no solo con el control por los republicanos de las dos cámaras del Congreso, sino también de los dos tercios de los Parlamentos de los Estados. Éstos aplican ya algunas de sus propuestas, y se dedican a atacar a los sindicatos, los derechos de voto, los derechos de las mujeres, etc. Serán enardecidos por la elección de Trump.

Trump hereda igualmente muchos aspectos del Estado fuerte de las administraciones pasadas, tanto demócratas como republicanas. El espionaje electrónico tentacular por la NSA (National Security Agency) de todos los americanos y de una gran parte del mundo está ya en sus manos, como lo están la CIA, el FBI y todas las agencias similares como la NCIS (el Servicio de Investigación Criminal de la Marina), célebre por la célebre serie de TV del mismo nombre. Desde hace más de medio siglo, la guerra ha sido la prerrogativa de los presidentes. Va a ser el comandante en jefe de la más formidable máquina militar que jamás haya visto el mundo.

¿A qué se va a parecer un régimen Trump?

Sus decisiones a la hora de conformar su gobierno y otros puestos dan una idea. Pero lo que es igualmente importante es la forma en que esas decisiones han sido tomadas. Desde su lujoso apartamento en la Trump Power, en la ciudad de Nueva York, ha recibido durante todas estas semanas a un gran número de personas para entrevistas privadas, ostensiblemente para examinar un amplio abanico de candidatos y de opiniones. Se ha convertido en un circo mediático cotidiano de especulación sobre sus intenciones. Ha recibido incluso a personajes del establishment republicano como Mitt Romney que se había negado a hacer campaña a su favor. Aunque haya calificado el cambio climático como una inocentada china, ha recibido al demócrata Al Gore, que se ha posicionado desde hace años como portavoz de la necesidad de frenar el calentamiento climático.

Son numerosos quienes en los medios privados han caído en la trampa de todo esto para pensar que Trump estaba quizás cambiando. Pero la realidad es que quienes han venido a hablar con Trump se inclinaban ante él como si estuvieran suplicando a los pies de un rey o de un papa, capitulando ante él de manera abyecta. El resultado fue realzarle más aún como el autócrata en el puesto de mando, que tendría en sus manos su destino. Debemos tener presente que este desfile hacia aparecer a los elegidos como gentes gratificadas por su voluntad y enteramente devotas a él.

Dicho esto, es revelador considerar las personas elegidas. Muchos han subrayado que el gabinete gubernamental que ha reunido está en gran medida compuesto de multimillonarios que en su conjunto totalizan más de 9,5 mil millones de dólares de fortuna. Puestos clave van a ser ocupados por generales, banqueros, señores de los combustibles fósiles, por personajes autoritarios y racistas.

Una decisión había sido tomada antes de las elecciones, el del nuevo vicepresidente, Mike Pence. Viene de los ultraevangelistas cristianos blancos que por primera vez tienen a uno de sus líderes en la Casa Blanca, aunque cada noche vuelva a dormir a otra residencia. Como miembro del Congreso, se ha opuesto a la financiación federal de los tratamientos anti-VIH si el gobierno no financiaba igualmente programas contra la homosexualidad. Se ha opuesto a la autorización, otorgada ya, a los gays para entrar en las fuerzas armadas. Declara que “me alegraré el día en que Roe vs Wade (el juicio del Tribunal Supremo que legalizó el aborto) sea echado al basurero de la historia”. Como gobernador de Indiana, ha firmado una de las leyes antiaborto más restrictivas de los Estados Unidos. Está igualmente en contra de las personas migrantes, apoya las escuelas cristianas contra las escuelas públicas, niega el cambio climático, y todo en este estilo.

Veamos algunas cortas descripciones a propósito de los otros elegidos por Trump y se podría decir aún mucho más.

El Fiscal General elegido por Trump, Jeff Sessions, un racista de Alabama, estará encargado de poner en pie la “ley y el orden” de Trump en el interior del país. Como Trump, apoya a la policía contra el movimiento Back Lives Matter, apoya la Guerra contra las drogas y la encarcelación en masa, y será duro con las personas inmigrantes. Podría emplear su función contra los disidentes.

Steve Bannon será el principal consejero de Trump. Es conocido como el antiguo propietario de Breitbart News del que él mismo ha declarado que era la voz de la extrema derecha “all-right”, un eufemismo para designar a los supremacistas blancos. Pero lo que es menos conocido es un alegato a favor de una presidencia autoritaria.

El Consejero para la Seguridad Nacional será el teniente general jubilado Michael Flynn. Ataca al islam como religión, declara que “temer a los musulmanes” es “racional”, afirma que Irán es la mayor amenaza para los Estados Unidos, y que la charia no deja de progresar en los Estados Unidos, etc.

El Secretario de Defensa de Trump está previsto que sea el general jubilado, llamado “Perro loco”, James Mattis, que fue comandante central en las guerras de los Estados Unidos contra Afganistán e Irak que destruyeron los dos países. Ha bromeado diciendo que era “divertido” (fun) matar afganos que se resistían a la invasión de los Estados Unidos.

Para dirigir los departamentos del tesoro y del comercio, Trump ha elegido a Steven Mnuchin y a Wilbur Ross, dos multimillonarios a la cabeza de fondos especulativos (hedge funds) que se han beneficiado de los desahucios durante la Gran Recesión.

Como Secretario de Estado, Trump propone al director de Exxon, Rex Tillerson, un negador del cambio climático (por usar un eufemismo) cuyo saber hacer internacional está limitado a las amplias propiedades de Exxon por todo el mundo, que aprovechará para favorecer gracias a su nueva función.

Hay una serie de nombramientos para dirigir agencias que esos personajes intentan debilitar o destruir. Comprenden:

Ryan Zinke como Secretario de Interior, responsable de gestionar las tierras y las aguas federales de todo el país. Es un antiguo comandante de los submarinistas de combate de la marina y, como congresista de Montana, ha propuesto eliminar las protecciones legales y reglamentarias que tienen relación con las tierras y aguas públicas.

Rick Perry, como Secretario de Energía. Ha propuesto abolir este departamento así como la Agencia de Protección del Medio Ambiente (EPA). Es un antiguo gobernador de Texas estrechamente ligado a los gigantes de los combustibles fósiles. Y un negador del cambio climático.

Como Secretario de Trabajo, Andrew Puzder, que está a la cabeza de una gran cadena de comida rápida. Está opuesto a los sindicatos, contra un salario mínimo y contra las regulaciones de la industria. Es conocido por sus ataques contra el Departamento de Trabajo cuya dirección va a tomar, departamento al que ha acusado siempre de ser favorable a los trabajadores.

Scott Pruit para la Agencia de Protección Medioambiental /EPA, un cercano a los reaccionarios de los combustibles fósiles. Rechaza la ciencia oficial del cambio climático y ha construido su carrera combatiendo las regulaciones de protección del medio ambiente. Trump ha declarado que el EPA ha “gastado durante mucho tiempo los dólares del contribuyente para un programa antienergía fuera de todo control que ha destruido millones de empleos” y que Scott Pruit “va a invertir esta tendencia”.

Ben Carson para el Departamento de Vivienda. Este millonario es un neurocirujano que no sabe nada de vivienda. Está opuesto a los programas de ayuda a los propietarios de su vivienda, en particular a los de bajas rentas. En general, piensa que los problemas que tienen las personas de bajas rentas son por su culpa.

Betsy DeVos como Secretaria de Educación. Está opuesta a las escuelas públicas y sostiene los programas de privatización, apoya las escuelas cristianas y ha impulsado este programa en Michigan. Viene también de una familia de multimillonarios y su hermano Erik Prince fue uno de los fundadores del ejército de mercenarios Blackwater USA muy conocido y contratado por el ejército estadounidense para hacer el trabajo sucio y los asesinatos en Irak.

Tom Rice, miembro de la Cámara de Representantes por Georgia, para dirigir el Departamento de Salud y de servicios a la persona. Ha llevado a cabo una cruzada contra el Obamacare declarando que era la medicina socializada. Va a ayudar a retirarlo para reemplazarlo por algo aún peor.

Estos son algunas de las personas de las que Trump se ha rodeado. Lo que va a plantear, son las posiciones de éstas. Hasta dónde podrá ir con este programa dependerá de la oposición que suscite.

Lo que Trump va a hacer con certeza

En primer lugar, será el candidato de “la ley y el orden”. Aumentará los poderes de la policía para mantener una losa sobre las comunidades negra y latina. No habrá ya supervisión federal (ya muy escasa) de la violencia policial en las comunidades. No habrá marcha atrás en la Guerra contra las drogas, o las encarcelaciones masivas, sino su aumento. Las acciones de empresas privadas de cárceles han subido en la Bolsa como consecuencia de la elección de Trump. Habrá aún más militarización de la policía.

Va a aumentar el control, ya imponente, de la frontera con México, pero no la de Canadá. Las deportaciones masivas realizadas por el gran deportador, Obama, van a aumentar con fuerza.

Los gastos militares van a aumentar significativamente. El arsenal estadounidense de armas nucleares, ya en vías de “modernización” por Obama, al precio de alrededor de un billón de dólares, va a aumentar.

Bajo una forma u otra, va a impedir a la mayor parte de las personas de religión musulmana inmigrar a los Estados Unidos, incluyendo a los millones de personas refugiadas desesperadas de las guerras de Washington contra los países árabes.

Son seguras grandes bajadas de impuestos para los ricos. Las reglamentaciones que afectan a las sociedades financieras serán reducidas. Las que afectan a las grandes compañías del petróleo, carbón, y del gas natural, incluyendo el fracking (fractura hidráulica) serán abolidas o quedarán sin repercusión práctica (ese es el real contenido de la negación por Trump del cambio climático), igual que las reglamentaciones de otras industrias, incluyendo los bancos y demás intereses financieros. Celebrándolo por adelantado, la Bolsa se ha disparado tras la elección de Trump.

Trump y el Congreso republicano van a legislar para derogar el Obamacare, pero lo que vayan a poner en su lugar no está claro. Tanto el propio Trump como los políticos republicanos temen una respuesta si demasiada gente pierde algo de su seguro de enfermedad o ve subir rápidamente los costes de su salud.

Trump va a designar un candidato para ocupar el puesto vacante en el Tribunal Supremo que dará su voto para derogar la sentencia Roe versus Wade, que había legalizado el aborto. Este nuevo juez servirá igualmente para apoyar a Trump si éste encuentra problemas legales, lo que es probable. Los Estados serán animados a dictar más restricciones al derecho al aborto.

Lo que va a hacer probablemente

Además de aumentar los gastos militares, Trump proyecta grandes trabajos de infraestructura. Esta perspectiva ha sido también un factor de la subida de la Bolsa. Pero ofrece propuestas contradictorias para el financiamiento posible de esos grandes trabajos y el Congreso republicano ha sido siempre reticente a votar gastos para este tipo de proyectos.

La Agencia para la Protección del Medio Ambiente, además de apoyar las proposiciones de Trump para la Big Energie evocadas más arriba, va a recortar otras reglamentaciones medioambientales y dejar probablemente que la Agencia misma deje de ser pertinente. Las protecciones al medio ambiente en el trabajo que protegen a los trabajadores van probablemente a sufrir también.

Probablemente, Trump va a aumentar los derechos de aduana que gravan las importaciones, particularmente las que vienen de China. Los negocios con Rusia van probablemente a mejorar. Pero Trump va a seguir un programa general proteccionista y nacionalista en economía.

A lo largo de toda su campaña, Trump ha atacado constantemente a los grandes medios privados, calificándolos de “basura mugrienta” (scum), o incluso peor. Va a continuar haciéndolo, pues intenta así domesticarlos, un esfuerzo que va a producir frutos, y que ha tenido ya un cierto éxito. Celebrará pocas conferencias de prensa y continuará empleando tweets y otros métodos para pasar por encima de la cabeza de los periodistas. Quiere modificar las leyes sobre la difamación y la calumnia para hacer más fácil llevar ante los tribunales a las personas y la prensa que “calumnien” a las figuras públicas como él mismo, algo que es difícil de hacer en el estado actual de la legislación.

Va a atacar los derechos democráticos en general, lo que está ya en marcha en los Estados gobernados por los republicanos. Cómo va a desarrollarse esto es algo que queda por ver, pero podemos esperarnos más restricciones del derecho de reunión y de manifestación, y más violencia policial con ese motivo.

Sobre la política exterior, queda mucho por ver. El designado para ser Secretario de Estado, Rex Tillerson, es un amigo del muy conservador y muy autoritario presidente ruso Vladimir Putin. La promesa de campaña de Trump de devaluar y de rebajar (downgrade) a la OTAN puede ser olvidada, o quizás no.

Las promesas de Trump de llevar una guerra comercial contra China han recibido un impulso al nombrar a Peter Navarro como su gurú del comercio en la Casa Blanca. Navarro es conocido por sus opiniones extremas contra el comercio con China, que implican “romper el libro de reglas” a propósito de la “relación económica bilateral más importante del mundo” según el Financial Times. Esto puede desembocar en una fisura más profunda entre China y los Estados Unidos en todos los terrenos.

Sabemos que la designación de David Friedman como embajador en Israel quita la hoja de parra de Washington de la “solución de dos Estados”. Friedman tiene lazos estrechos con los colonos israelíes de Cisjordania, está opuesto a todo Estado palestino, ni siquiera un Estado desprovisto de fuerzas armadas cuyas fronteras y política exterior estén controladas por Israel -es decir, la propuesta de un “Estado” palestino que hace Washington. Friedman está a favor de la anexión de Cisjordania. Trump declara que va a desplazar la embajada de los Estados Unidos en Israel de Tel-Aviv a Jerusalén, ratificando así la pretensión de Israel a la totalidad de la ciudad.

Nada de extraño por tanto en que Netanyahu se alegre de “trabajar con” Trump y que haya proseguido a toda marcha la implantación de nuevas colonias.

¿Cuál será la naturaleza del nuevo régimen de Trump?

Algunos en la izquierda liberal, y algunos socialistas también, han subrayado el racismo de Trump, su misoginia, su autoritarismo, sus pretensiones demagógicas de apoyar a los trabajadores, sus posiciones antidemocráticas, para pretender que es un fascista.

Es completamente falso. El fascismo es un movimiento de masas, organizado, e incluso armado, dispuesto a combatir al movimiento obrero (partidos y sindicatos) en la calle antes de tomar el poder y de aplastarle mediante una violencia masiva tras haber tomado el poder, y a instituir un Estado totalitario para hacerlo. La clase dominante capitalista no recurre a esta solución extrema mientras su dominación no haya sido amenazada por los trabajadores. No existe una amenaza así en los Estados Unidos, hoy por lo menos.

El fascismo es un asunto serio y emplear este término sin reflexionar implica tomarlo a la ligera. Trotsky, cuando ponía en guardia al movimiento obrero alemán contra el peligro del fascismo en ascenso, decía que el fascismo alemán, basado en una economía más desarrollada, haría parecer al fascismo italiano una comida campestre. Un fascismo en los Estados Unidos haría parecer, en comparación, al hitlerismo como una versión un grado por debajo.

Es cierto que grupos nacionalistas blancos, que tienen una mentalidad fascista, se han sumado a la campaña de Trump. Presumen abiertamente de que éste ha hecho su mensaje más aceptable (mainstream) y que han podido crecer gracias a ello. Pero siguen siendo pequeños, siguen fragmentados. Y son incapaces de unirse detrás de un líder. La nominación de Bannon es significativa sobre todo porque va a ser el principal consejero de Trump, pero es también un hueso a roer lanzado a la extrema derecha “alt-right”.

Entonces, ¿cómo caracterizar el fenómeno Trump? Aquí es útil recordar el análisis que hizo Marx del régimen de Luis Bonaparte, elegido presidente de la República francesa en diciembre de 1848 ante la sorpresa general, y que tomó el poder en 1851 en Francia mediante un golpe de Estado militar en un acto que bajó el telón de la revolución de 1848 y estableció un gobierno autoritario del “Emperador Napoleón III” que duró veinte años. Marx citaba a Víctor Hugo que llamaba a Luis Bonaparte Napoleón el pequeño. Efectivamente, en comparación con su famoso tío, Luis era una mediocridad, como Trump. Marx le llamaba una “insípida nulidad”.

Pero entonces, ¿cómo tomó el poder? Fue en el contexto de la incapacidad de los partidos burgueses en disputa para llegar a un acuerdo suficiente entre ellos y entre sus diversas fracciones internas con el fin de lograr gobernar efectivamente. Además, el movimiento obrero estaba de retirada, tras haber sufrido una importante derrota.

Se había creado un vacío de poder y Luis Bonaparte lo ocupó, prometiendo ser el hombre fuerte que tomaría las cosas en sus manos y las pondría en orden.

Luis Bonaparte prometió un programa masivo de trabajos públicos para desarrollar la industria, como Trump. Era personalmente un corrupto, como Trump, y está fuera de duda que Trump va a aumentar su bolsa y la de sus hijos, también la de sus amiguetes capitalistas, igual que hizo Luis Bonaparte. Luis Bonaparte tenía el apoyo de la policía -casi todas las asociaciones policiales (abusivamente llamadas sindicatos) en los Estados Unidos han hecho campaña por Trump. También una gran parte de la casta de los oficiales de las fuerzas armadas.

Luis Bonaparte tenía lazos estrechos con el hampa. Trump y su padre eran tiburones del sector inmobiliario en Nueva York, con lazos estrechos con el crimen organizado, lo que por otra parte era una necesidad para los promotores inmobiliarios en esa ciudad.

Ninguna analogía histórica es perfecta y los Estados Unidos en 2016-2017 no son la Francia de 1851. Pero hay parecidos manifiestos con la subida del mediocre Trump. No ha tomado aún todo el poder en sus manos, con una fachada de democracia burguesa, como había hecho Luis Bonaparte y es posible que no lo haga nunca. En el momento actual parece más bien el astuto maniobrero que era Luis Bonaparte antes de su golpe de Estado. Caracterizaría a Donald Trump hoy como un “me gustaría” ser Luis Bonaparte.

Pero bajo un aspecto la situación en los Estados Unidos es muy diferente a la de la Francia de 1851, lo que hace de una presidencia autoritaria de Trump -es lo que vamos a tener- algo bastante más peligroso que el régimen dictatorial de Luis Bonaparte. Es sencillamente la potencia de los Estados Unidos en el mundo de hoy y el poder, económico, policial y político de la clase capitalista de los Estados Unidos comparado a aquellos años lejanos en Francia. El peligro será aún peor si Trump consolida alrededor de su persona una dominación que se parezca al bonapartismo.

¿Qué puede impedirle realizar esa ambición? Luis Bonaparte pudo cabalgar una ola de boom económico por todo un período tras el descubrimiento de grandes yacimientos mineros de oro en California y en Australia. Comenzó a perder apoyos cuando este período de prosperidad decaía. Y fue derrocado cuando Alemania derrotó a sus ejércitos en la guerra franco-prusiana de 1870, que condujo a la Comuna de París (1871).

Parece hoy que Trump va a heredar una economía que conoce un modesto crecimiento. En cualquier caso, va a gozar de un período de “luna de miel” que le concederá el beneficio de la duda que de que pueda mejorar verdaderamente la vida de los trabajadores y las trabajadoras. Pero dada la experiencia de la Gran Recesión de 2007-2008, los ocho últimos años, y la situación de la economía mundial hoy, es probable que vaya a haber otra crisis económica durante la administración Trump. En consecuencia, las y los trabajadores que han votado por él podrán sentirse traicionados, lo que minará el apoyo del que puede disponer.

¿Pueden sectores de la clase dominante, exasperados por sus políticas temerarias volverse contra él en un cierto momento?

La clase obrera organizada es débil, en tamaño, en fuerza y carece de dirección, pero se puede esperar que no va a confiar en los demócratas sino en su propia fuerza para enfrentarse a Trump y a los continuos ataques de los republicanos contra los sindicatos. No será fácil para Trump poner en práctica los ataques que proyecta contra dos poblaciones grandes y principalmente proletarias, la afroamericana y la latina, que probablemente van a defenderse. Las mujeres, los amerindios, los ecologistas, la gente defensora de las libertades civiles y otros, van a resistir. Son esas fuerzas con las que debemos contar.

 Barry Sheppard

Artículo original en francés:

Etats-Unis. L’ascension du trumpisme, publicado el 1 de enero de 2017

Traducido por Faustino Eguberri para VIENTO SUR

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La ascensión del trumpismo

I stated some months ago, while assembling a criminal dossier against the NATO powers for the ultimate war crime of aggression, that the build-up of NATO forces in Eastern Europe, particularly American, concentrated on the Baltic states and Ukraine, presaged hybrid war operations against Russia leading to a general war. This build up of forces and ancillary developments I termed Operation Barbarossa II in light of the remarkable similarities to the build up of forces by Nazi Germany for the invasion of the USSR in 1941 which the Germans code-named Operation Barbarossa. Events have only confirmed my views.

The degradation of American democracy continues before our eyes with the incessant hysterical allegations against Russia generally and the manipulation of Donald Trump as a device to put out even more sensational allegations, a campaign which serves two purposes; the first, to build up anti-Russian feeling in the west to war levels by accusing Russia of cyber attacks and attacks on “democracy,” the second to either justify the removal of Trump as a factor in the presidency or to force him to toe the line of the war faction and drop any conciliatory rhetoric towards Russia.

It appears that this strategy is working. At his recent press conference Trump not only adopted the “Russia did it” theme but went further and stated that if people thought Hilary Clinton was going to be tough on Russia, they would soon see that he will be tougher than she ever could be. The hopes by some in the United States that Trump was going to open a new policy of dialogue with Russia have been completely shattered. But this should have been no surprise with his immediate insult to China the day after his election and with his cabinet choices and their various testimonies before Congress the past days, as they are vetted for their posts, that show his administration will use war to dominate the world just as enthusiastically as the outgoing administration.

Trump has said that it is better to have good relations with Russia and that only fools would reject that idea. But this statement is part of the general line that if Russia does not do what the US dictates then, of course, force will be used instead. On the PBS Newshour on Thursday July 12 a “former” senior CIA officer, when asked whether Trump had a point in wanting good relations with Russia, laughed and said, “The United States should not look for good relations with any country. We should strive for one thing only, the advancement of American national interests, and if diplomacy does not work then coercion must be used.” This is the talk of gangsters.

The world is fatigued with the circus that is the struggle for power taking place between the ruling factions in the United States. There is clearly little to separate these factions ideologically regarding foreign policy and very little regarding domestic policy. It’s just a gang war.

The use of lurid allegations against Trump to portray him as not only a willing dupe of Russia but also a target of blackmail, which allegations appear to originate with a “former” senior MI6 agent named Christopher Steele, smacks of the MI5 and MI6 plot to bring down British Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the 1970s, as they had brought down the Labour government in 1924 with the production and distribution in the press of a forged letter from Zinoviev to the British Communist Party calling for a mass insurrection in Britain. In Wilson’s case too, forged documents were put out by MI5 and MI6 with the help of the CIA, through a compliant media, to smear him as a Russian agent and he later stated that he knew of two planned military coups against him. John Kennedy was assassinated in the coup d’état of 1963 in a poisonous atmosphere generated by allegations he was “soft on communism,” that is, once again, the Russians.

Frankly, whether Trump is ousted in a coup, or by impeachment later, as the Washington Post suggested could happen, or is allowed to stay in office as a compliant front man as the other presidents have been since Kennedy was murdered, matters not; the result is the same, the continuation of a permanent war regime in the United States, that lives for, by and through a permanent state of war. The American people were brainwashed into tolerating and accepting the coup of 1963 and it would hardly be surprising if another one is carried out and tolerated when intelligence agencies, political enemies, the media and Hollywood celebrities are openly calling for a coup to be staged. Democracy? The vote? Who cares? Civil unrest? A price to pay. The result is that the preparations for war continue, and are amplified by the Trump election, which the intelligence services are using to intensify the propaganda attack on Russia and President Putin.

Meanwhile, as the media and Obama regime keep the people off-balance with the Trump scandal US military forces continue their deployments against Russia and China. The machine is in motion. In Europe the Americans have just added to the pressure on Russia with the placement of the 3rd Armoured Brigade in Poland, right on Russia’s doorstep, which Russia rightly considers a threat to its security. This is a unit that was involved as an assault force in the Normandy landings in 1944 and was used to invade Iraq in 2003. The unit is noted for its speed of attack. These forces will fan out from Poland to cover a wide front from Estonia and Latvia to Romania with tank, artillery and armoured mobile infantry units. These are not garrison or occupation troops, these are assault troops.

US Army General Scaparrotti, commander of US forces in Europe and NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, stated that the movement of this force to Poland “marks a significant moment in European deterrence and defence.” He stated,

“The European infrastructure and integrated support has enabled our forces to rapidly be ready and postured should they need to deter Russian aggression.”

Since there is no Russian “aggression” and since the Americans are continually stating that they expect Russia to engage in hybrid, that is unconventional warfare against Eastern Europe, we can be sure that these forces themselves and their specialised units will engage in false flag attacks and provocations to make it look like Russia is taking hostile action to justify the use against Russia of these and allied European forces. It is just a matter of time unless a diplomatic breakthrough occurs which appears highly unlikely, despite Russia’s diligent efforts.

At the same time it was reported on Friday the 13th that Trump’s appointed foreign minister. Mr. Tillerson stated to Congress on the 11th of January, that the US should deny Beijing access to its islands in the South China Sea. China state media responded that any such attempt would lead to large-scale war. Yet, on January 5th, just a few days before Tillerson’s statement the Pentagon announced that “ships and units from the USS Carrier Carl Vinson strike group will soon depart San Diego for the western Pacific” where US strategic B1 and B2 bombers have already been deployed on Guam, capable of carrying nuclear armed cruise missiles.

And lastly, on the propaganda front, the recent illegal seizure of investigatory material by Dutch police from Dutch journalists returning from Donetsk once again adds to the evidence that the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 with 298 people on board in July 2014 was an action of the Kiev regime with US knowledge. I recently stated in an essay on that subject that it was a Kiev military jet that shot down the airliner, and referred to a Sukhoi 25 being used but I since been shown evidence that it was in fact a Kiev Mig-29 that was used. In any event, the NATO powers have colluded in covering up this fact in order to keep up their propaganda the Russia was behind it.

The situation is grave and the doomsday clock must be knocking on the door of midnight. Many of us have called for the anti-war and peace movements to mobilise but they are nowhere to be seen. Many of them, especially in the United States have been co-opted into supporting these wars, and the left, that is supposed to be against imperialist wars, whether the hard or the soft left, appears to be too weak to make itself felt. It seems there are too few of us in the west any more who give a damn.

But we better act now and make people give a damn or else it will be too late because as my friend, Harold Pinter, so well put it to me once at dinner in London, the world is faced with a people in love with themselves who don’t seem to care about anything or anybody except themselves and think they can commit any crime and get away with it. I can’t express the disgust so well as Harold did in a poem he once sent me that he found difficult to get published, one of several, but which is now in a short collection of his poems called War. Perhaps if there were more like him, more poems like this, read widely enough, more voices speaking out, people would react, wake up, stiffen up, get back their sense of decency and backbone. I don’t know. But I offer it to you here in the hope, perhaps naïve, that it has an effect.

God Bless America

Here they go again,

The Yanks in their armoured parade…

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on From Cold to “Hot War”? Operation Barbarossa II: US Military Buildup in Eastern Europe, The Yanks In Their Armoured Parade

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state.  Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000.  But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative.  During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington ’s quest for global domination.  This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama’s administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of ‘regime change’.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy.  All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process.  The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media.  The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to ‘regime change’ at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution:  First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect.  The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results.  Even after a recount confirmed Trump’s victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an ‘enemy agent’.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors.  This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a ‘tool of Moscow .’  The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump’s overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate ‘dodgy dossiers’ linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or ‘vulnerable to KGB blackmail’.  The CIA’s phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance ‘security’ contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip.  Months of attempts to get the US media to ‘take the bite’ on the ‘smelly’ dossier were unsuccessful.  The semi-senile US Senator John McCain (‘war-hero’ and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government ‘act on these vital revelations’!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the ‘CIA dossier’ was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former ‘British official – now – in – hiding…!’  Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA’s ‘dirty pictures hatchet job’ to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d’état.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous ‘regime changes’ overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect.  For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ‘just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump’s policies) on the United States could be profound…”

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the ‘progressive’ websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated ‘regime change’.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and ‘in`telligence’ hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a ‘red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason (‘Trump, the Stooge of Moscow’) resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany .  A broad ‘coalition’ has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA’s Overt Threats against Trump

Fighting has intensified in Mosul over the past two weeks as Iraqi government forces, backed by US-led air strikes, have pushed forward to the Tigris River in their efforts to recapture the country’s second-largest city from Islamic State.

The US-backed offensive is having a devastating impact on the civilian population, which numbered over 1 million when operations began in October. On Saturday, reports emerged that a suspected coalition air strike killed up to 30 civilians in the west of the city. Two missiles struck the home of a senior ISIS commander who was not at home.

One Iraqi commander described the fighting in the city as “guerrilla warfare” last week. In operations to retake the Mosul University campus over the weekend, led by elite Counter-Terrorism Service special forces, several buildings were completely destroyed by advancing forces. Further gains were made Sunday as government troops reportedly killed over 120 ISIS fighters.

According to estimates by the United Nations, over 800 civilians were injured in Mosul during the last week of December and a further 670 in the first week of the new year. Lise Grande, the UN’s humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, gave an indication of the heavy price civilians are paying in the fighting, telling reporters last week, “You would expect in a conflict like this that the number of civilian casualties would be around 15 percent, a high of 20 percent. What we’re seeing in Mosul is that nearly 50 percent of all casualties are in fact civilians.”

There have been reports of family members unable to bury their dead relatives for several weeks due to the intensity of the fighting in local neighborhoods.

While many civilians are being deliberately targeted by ISIS terrorists as they seek to flee, Iraqi forces have increasingly resorted to heavy weaponry in built-up areas, and coalition air strikes are driving up casualties.

The latest figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) confirm that over 144,500 civilians have fled their homes since the beginning of the Mosul offensive, a dramatic rise over the past month given that the total in December stood at 98,000.

The lack of medical care for those injured in the fighting is leading to further health problems. Doctors at a hospital in the Kurdish capital of Irbil report that casualties brought in from Mosul after several days with treatable injuries have frequently picked up infections.

The widespread disruption of the lives of hundreds of thousands of local residents has occurred before government forces even enter the most densely populated areas of the city. The UN estimates that some 750,000 civilians remain trapped in siege-like conditions on the west side of the Tigris. Early on in the offensive, the US bombed five bridges crossing the Tigris to prevent ISIS supplying its fighters in the east of the city.

The air strike killing 30 civilians marked the third time in little more than five weeks that US warplanes have carried out bombing raids with civilian casualties. On December 7, an air strike called in by Iraqi government forces targeted the Al Salem hospital in eastern Mosul, the district’s largest medical facility. The Pentagon avoided acknowledging any civilian casualties in the incident. Three weeks later, on December 29, a bomb dropped on the Ibn-Al-Athir hospital compound claimed the lives of seven civilians and prompted a rare statement from the Pentagon acknowledging the attack, which amounts to a war crime.

While government forces in the CTS, backed by Shia militias with ties to Iran and the Kurdish Peshmerga, initially advanced rapidly to the outskirts of Mosul, the offensive became bogged down in November and early December. ISIS fighters launched counterattacks, including the use of car bombs, and inflicted significant casualties on Iraqi forces. Federal police and other security forces were called up to support the offensive, and the government troops began using heavy artillery on heavily-populated residential areas. Government officials first optimistically predicted the retaking of Mosul by the end of 2016, but it is now acknowledged that the operation will last at least several more months.

In an estimate published last week, Iraq Body Count, a project run by academics and peace activists that has counted civilian deaths in the country since 2003, reported that more than 16,000 civilians died in the country in 2016. In western Anbar province, health officials have issued a warning of a potential epidemic of diseases, including plague, caused by the decomposition of dead bodies left unburied following fighting in the area last year.

The high number of civilian deaths in Mosul, and the terrible conditions under which residents are being forced to suffer, thoroughly expose the double standards of the US political establishment and pliant corporate media, which incessantly accused Russia and Syria of war crimes during its offensive in Aleppo for its bombardment of residential areas as they sought to dislodge Jihadi forces led by the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front. Under conditions of an all-out assault on a much larger population center just a few hundred miles further east, the Iraqi army, Shia militia, Kurdish Peshmerga forces and their allies in the US-led coalition are being hailed as liberators even as they lay waste to large sections of one of the Middle East’s oldest cities.

The glaring hypocrisy is bound up with the fact that Washington relied on an alliance with Al Qaeda-linked Islamist extremists in Syria to achieve its goal of overthrowing the Russian-backed Assad regime.

Media reports on the Mosul offensive focus persistently on the use by ISIS of civilians as human shields, blaming this for the overwhelming majority of casualties. The truth is that real responsibility for the disastrous conditions facing Mosul’s population, and Iraqis across the country, lies with the imperialist powers, above all the United States, which laid waste to Iraqi society during the 2003 invasion, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and forcing millions from their homes.

The bitter sectarian conflict that threatens to explode in the current Mosul offensive is directly linked to Washington’s criminal policy of divide and rule pursued in the years following the Iraq war. Support for the extremist ISIS emerged under conditions where the Sunni population was sidelined and suffered sectarian violence at the hands of the Shia-dominated Baghdad government.

While Iraqi government troops, Iranian-aligned Shia militias and Kurdish Peshmerga forces are ostensibly part of an alliance against ISIS, each is pursuing their own goals, and there are even sharp divisions within each camp.

On January 3, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi accused the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) of illegally exporting large quantities of oil via Turkey to raise finances. Under the Iraqi constitution, the national government is solely responsible for the country’s oil wealth. Abadi alleged that the KRG sent over 500,000 barrels of oil to Turkey during December, resulting in Baghdad missing its OPEC target by 200,000 barrels. An unnamed KRG minister reportedly offered to sell oilfields to Turkey for $5 billion.

The Iraqi government is moving to curtail the KRG’s control over oil supplies. Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh is to visit Baghdad this month to discuss a planned pipeline from the province of Sulaimaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan to Iran. This would put an end to the monopoly currently enjoyed by the KRG on the region’s oil reserves.

Disputes over control of Iraq’s lucrative oil wealth are also linked to territorial conflicts in the region. Kurdish officials have previously expressed the desire to gain territory in the areas surrounding Mosul because of the role played by the Peshmerga in the advance on the city, a suggestion rejected out of hand by Baghdad. The Peshmerga have been accused by international organizations of carrying out sectarian reprisals against Arab populations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraqi Civilian Death Toll Mounts as Fighting Intensifies in Mosul

Outgoing CIA Director Hypes Nonexistent Russian Threat

January 18th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

America needs enemies to advance its imperial agenda. None exist so they’re invented – a pretext for current wars, future ones, color revolutions, old-fashioned coups and assassinations.

It’s been the American way from the republic’s inception, a culture of violence persisting at home and abroad since the 18th century, far more dangerous with today’s super-weapons able to kill us all.

Neocon infest Washington, Trump’s tenure perhaps destined to be the most turbulent in US history since the Civil War, how he’ll fare yet to be determined.

Dark forces far more powerful than the office of the presidency confront him. If he diverges from longstanding practice, especially geopolitically, he may not last a full term, maybe not a full year.

Working with Russia cooperatively, instead of maintaining adversarial relations, could seal his fate.

Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, January 15, host Chris Wallace asked outgoing CIA director John Brennan if disparaging comments by two former agency heads wasn’t just cause for Trump to believe Langley is out to get him.

Former acting CIA director Mike Morell said “(i)n the intelligence business, we would say Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Former agency head Michael Hayden called Trump a “useful fool…manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but his blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

Brennan neither “defend(ed) or explain(ed) what they said.” Claiming the intelligence community will support Trump depends entirely on how his agenda unfolds, especially his policy toward Russia.

Hyping its nonexistent threat, Brennan claimed Trump doesn’t have a full appreciation of (its) capabilities, (its) intentions, and actions (it’s) undertaking in many parts of the world.”

Fact: Putin favors world peace and stability,  wants cooperative relations with all nations, deplores America’s imperial madness.

Brennan: Russia must “change (its) behavior, change (its) actions.”

Translation: Russia must play by Washington rules, be subservient to its wishes or else.

Brennan opposes Trump and Putin working together cooperatively. He’s against lifting sanctions, no matter their illegality.

He lied about what’s happening in Ukraine, in Syria, in “the cyber realm.” Trump needs to step back from “absolving Russia of various actions” it never undertook, he said.

No “Russian aggression” exists in Ukraine, Syria or anywhere else. US wars of aggression rage in multiple theaters, responsible for millions of casualties Brennan ignored.

He recited a laundry list of nonexistent threats, ones Washington uses as pretexts for raping and destroying one country after another.

US national security hasn’t been threatened since WW II. Brennan lied claiming otherwise. Asked to name his greatest accomplishments and regrets, he shamelessly expressed pride in being part of an administration involved in “advanc(ing) the interests of peace and stability,” along with related issues.

Obama’s disgraceful record speaks for itself – the most ruthless regime in US history, the most lawless, the most contemptuous of humanity at home and abroad.

As for regrets, Brennan named Syria, shamelessly claiming his “heart…bleeds over what happened” there – ignoring US naked aggression against a sovereign independent country threatening no one, the CIA under his direction playing a major role.

Brennan is an unindicted war criminal, unaccountable for Nuremberg-level crimes of war and against humanity.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Outgoing CIA Director Hypes Nonexistent Russian Threat

Job advertisements running in 20 cities across the US are offering $2,500 a month for “operatives” willing to protest the upcoming inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump.

San Francisco-based Demand Protest posted ads on Backpage.com, seeking applicants who would like to “Get paid fighting against Trump!” Along with the monthly $2,500 retainer, the company offers a “standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least 6 events a year,” and full-time operatives are eligible for vision, dental and health insurance.

Demand Protest Backpage Ad, Tulsa.
Demand Protest Backpage Ad, Tulsa.

Demand Protest describes itself as the “largest private grassroots support organization in the United States, and the ads entice potential applicants to “Get paid fighting against Trump!”

It explains, “We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why not do so with us!…We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests.” according to the Washington Times.

The ads appear as over 100 organizations have mobilized nationwide to demonstrate during the upcoming inauguration. Targeted cities include New York, Chicago,  Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Detroit and Denver.

In November 2016 a story circulated about a man claiming to have been paid $3,500 to protest a Trump rally in Fountain Hills, Arizona, after answering an ad on Craigslist.

Countering claims from the Trump camp that the Bernie Sanders campaign was paying protesters, 37-year-old Paul Horner said, “As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign…The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future.’ After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.”

Fact-checking website PolitiFact debunked Horner’s claims, pointing out that he has posted numerous fabricated news stories, making them seem legitimate by creating news sites that appear to be trustworthy sources.

Some of these stories go viral, generating thousands in ad sales. Horner later admitted he concocted the story, telling the Washington Post that, “(Trump’s) followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything,” adding that then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, “posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.”

Demand Protest appears to offer anonymous resistance for parties who want to engage in political opposition without having to deal with the fallout.

“With absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements. When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact.” the site reads.

There are some who believe that the rhetoric on the Demand Protest site indicates that the entire operation is a hoax, but they claim to have provided nearly 2,000 operatives in 48 cities, without offering further detail, also featuring vaguely-worded testimonies from unnamed satisfied clients.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Get Paid Fighting against Trump”: Ads Offer Protesters $2500 to Disrupt Trump Inauguration

Trump vs. the CIA

January 18th, 2017 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

When I read Trump’s defenders, such as Daniel Lazare, having to balance their defense with denunciations of Trump, I think the CIA’s propaganda is working. In his article, Lazare asks the rhetorical question, “Is a military coup in the works?” He then goes on to describe the CIA and presstitute coup against Trump unfolding before our eyes.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/14/the-scheme-to-take-down-trump/

Having described the unprecedented frame-up of the president-elect of the United States by the CIA and the Western media, Lazare has to square himself with those doing the frame-up:

“This is not to say that the so-called President-elect’s legitimacy is not open to question. . . . Trump is a rightwing blowhard whose absurd babblings about Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen reveal a man who is dangerously ignorant about how the world works.”

Note that Lazare goes beyond the CIA and the presstitutes by elevating Trump from someone not sufficiently suspicious of Vladimir Putin to “dangerously ignorant.” I suppose Lazare means dangerously ignorant like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. If this is what Lazare means, why is Trump any less qualified to be president than his three most recent predecessors and his opponent in the election?

Of course, Lazare has no idea what he means. He is simply afraid he will be called a “Trump deplorable,” and he stuck in some denuciatory words to ward off his dismissal as just another Russian agent.

At other times I conclude that the CIA is discrediting itself with its fierce and transparently false attack on the president elect. The attack on Trump from the CIA and its media agents at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, the network TV channels, the BBC, the Guardian, and every other Western print and TV source with the exception of Fox News, is based on no evidence whatsoever. None of the US 16 intelligence agencies can produce a tiny scrap of evidence. The evidence consists of nothing but constant repetitions of blatant lies fed into the presstitute media by the CIA .

We have witnessed this so many times before: “Tonkin Gulf,” “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” “Iranian nukes,” “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” “Russian invasion of Ukraine.”

General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in the history of the US military said that he and the US Marines spent their lives defending the interests of the United Fruit Company and some lousy investment of the banks in Latin America. That’s all the attack on Trump is about. Trump is saying that “America first” doesn’t mean a license for America to rape and plunder other countries.

Normalized relations with Russia removes the orchestrated “Russian threat” justification for the $1,000 billion taxpayer dollars taken annually from ordinary Americans and given to the military/security complex via the federal budget.

Trump’s question about the relevance of NATO 25 years after the collapse of NATO’s purpose—the Soviet Union—threatens the power and position not only of the US military/security complex but also of Washington’s European vassals who live high in money and prestige as Washington’s servants. All European governments consist of Washington’s vassals. They are accustomed to supporting Washington’s foreign policy, not having had a policy of their own since World War II.

Trump is taking on a policy world long under the influence of the CIA. Little wonder WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and a number of other clued-in people say that the CIA will assassinate Trump if he cannot be brought into line with a Western alliance organized for the power and profit of the few.

So what is Trump to do?

There are various alternatives. Trump could fire CIA director John Brennan, have the Attorney General indict him for treason, have the FBI locate all participants in the intelligence agencies and presstitute media who aided and abetted the attempted frame-up of the president-elect of the United States and put them all on trial. This would be the best and surest way for Trump to clean out the snakepit that is Washington, D.C. To call a snakepit a “swamp” is to use an euphemism.

Another alternative is for Trump to make the obvious point that despite the allegations of the CIA and the presstitutes, any hacking that occurred was not the fault of Trump and Russia, but the fault of the US intelligence agencies who were too incompetent to prevent it. Trump’s trump question to the CIA, NSA, FBI is: So, you know the Russians hacked us and you did not prevent it? If you repeat your incompetence, I am going to fire everyone of you incompetents.

The same goes for terror attacks. Trump should ask the intelligence agencies: “How were you so totally incompetent that a handful of Saudi Arabians who could not fly airplanes brought down three WTC skyscrappers and desroyed part of the Pentagon, humiliating the world’s sole super-power in the eyes of the world?”

Trump should make the point that the huge amount of money spent on security does not produce security. The massive security budget cannot prevent hacking of an American election and it cannot prevent humiliating attacks on the SuperPower by a handful of Saudi Arabians operating independently of any intelligence service.

Trump should raise the obvious question: Has the Saudi’s oil trillions purchased the CIA and the presstitutes so that the CIA and the corrupt Western media now serve foreign interests against the United States? The story is being established that the Saudis are responsible or 9/11 and nothing is done about it. Instead the Saudis are supplied with more weapons with which to murder women and children in Yemen.

All of the CIA’s propaganda can be turned against the agency. 9/11 was due to CIA failure, and to nothing else. Putin’s theft of the US presidential election was due to CIA failure, and to nothing else. All the bombings in France, UK, and Germany are due to intelligence failings, and to nothing else, as is the Boston Marathon bombing and every other alleged “terror event.”

I mean, really, the CIA is a sitting duck for Trump. He has every reason to abolish the agency that has traditionally operated in behalf of narrow interests. In his book, The Brothers, Stephen Kinzer documents the use of the CIA and State Department in behalf of the clients of the Dulles brothers’ law firm’s clients. The CIA serves no American purpose, only the private purposes of the ruling elites, who are the real deplorables who have used corrupt Western governments to solidify all income and wealth in a few greedy hands.

There is no reason for Trump to tolerate spurious charges against him by the CIA. At best the CIA is incompetent. At worst the agency is complicit in, or organizer of, terrorist events.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump vs. the CIA

More than 20 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans are calling on President Obama to release the evidence backing up allegations that Russia aided the Trump campaign – or admit that the proof is lacking.

MEMORANDUM FOR: President Barack Obama

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: A Key Issue That Still Needs to be Resolved

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office Friday, a pall hangs over his upcoming presidency amid an unprecedentedly concerted campaign to delegitimize it. Unconfirmed accusations continue to swirl alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized “Russian hacking” that helped put Mr. Trump in the White House.

President Obama in the Oval Office.

As President for a few more days, you have the power to demand concrete evidence of a link between the Russians and WikiLeaks, which published the bulk of the information in question. Lacking that evidence, the American people should be told that there is no fire under the smoke and mirrors of recent weeks.

We urge you to authorize public release of any tangible evidence that takes us beyond the unsubstantiated, “we-assess” judgments by the intelligence agencies. Otherwise, we – as well as other skeptical Americans – will be left with the corrosive suspicion that the intense campaign of accusations is part of a wider attempt to discredit the Russians and those – like Mr. Trump – who wish to deal constructively with them.

Remember the Maine?

Alleged Russian interference has been labeled “an act of war” and Mr. Trump a “traitor.” But the “intelligence” served up to support those charges does not pass the smell test. Your press conference on Wednesday will give you a chance to respond more persuasively to NBC’s Peter Alexander’s challenge at the last one (on Dec. 16) “to show the proof [and], as they say, put your money where your mouth is and declassify some of the intelligence. …”

You told Alexander you were reluctant to “compromise sources and methods.” We can understand that concern better than most Americans. We would remind you, though, that at critical junctures in the past, your predecessors made judicious decisions to give higher priority to buttressing the credibility of U.S. intelligence-based policy than to protecting sources and methods. With the Kremlin widely accused by politicians and pundits of “an act of war,” this is the kind of textbook case in which you might seriously consider taking special pains to substantiate serious allegations with hard intelligence – if there is any.

During the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, President Kennedy ordered us to show highly classified photos of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and on ships en route, even though this blew sensitive detail regarding the imagery intelligence capabilities of the cameras on our U-2 aircraft.

President Ronald Reagan’s reaction to the Libyan terrorist bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin on April 5, 1986, that killed two and injured 79 other U.S. servicemen is another case in point. We had intercepted a Libyan message that morning: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with success, without leaving a trace behind.” (We should add here that NSA’s dragnet SIGINT capability 30 years later renders it virtually impossible to avoid “leaving a trace behind” once a message is put on the network.)

President Reagan ordered the U.S. Air Force to bomb Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s palace compound to smithereens, killing several civilians. Amid widespread international consternation and demands for proof that Libya was responsible for the Berlin attack, President Reagan ordered us to make public the encrypted Libyan message, thereby sacrificing a collection/decryption capability unknown to the Libyans – until then.

As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it, there are occasions when more damage is done by “protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them.

Where’s the Beef?

We find the New York Times- and Washington Post-led media Blitz against Trump and Putin truly extraordinary, despite our long experience with intelligence/media related issues. On Jan. 6, the day after your top intelligence officials published what we found to be an embarrassingly shoddy report purporting to prove Russian hacking in support of Trump’s candidacy, the Times banner headline across all six columns on page 1 read: “PUTIN LED SCHEME TO AID TRUMP, REPORT SAYS.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin answering questions from Russian citizens at his annual Q&A event on April 14, 2016. (Russian government photo)

The lead article began: “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.” Eschewing all subtlety, the Times added that the revelations in “this damning report … undermined the legitimacy” of the President-elect, and “made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.”

On page A10, however, Times investigative reporter Scott Shane pointed out: “What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission.”

Shane continued, “Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’ There is no discussion of the forensics used to recognize the handiwork of known hacking groups, no mention of intercepted communications between the Kremlin and the hackers, no hint of spies reporting from inside Moscow’s propaganda machinery.”

Shane added that the intelligence report “offers an obvious reason for leaving out the details, declaring that including ‘the precise bases for its assessments’ would ‘reveal sensitive sources and methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.’”

Shane added a quote from former National Security Agency lawyer Susan Hennessey: “The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.” Ms. Hennessey served as an attorney in NSA’s Office of General Counsel and is now a Brookings Fellow in National Security Law.

Everyone Hacks

There is a lot of ambiguity – whether calculated or not – about “Russian hacking.” “Everyone knows that everyone hacks,” says everyone: Russia hacks; China hacks; every nation that can hacks. So do individuals of various nationalities. This is not the question.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)

You said at your press conference on Dec. 16 “the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their [U.S. intelligence agencies’] assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.” “Which hack?” you were asked. “The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta,” you answered.

Earlier during the press conference you alluded to the fact that “the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.” The key question is how the material from “Russian hacking” got to WikiLeaks, because it was WikiLeaks that published the DNC and Podesta emails.

Our VIPS colleague William Binney, who was Technical Director of NSA and created many of the collection systems still in use, assures us that NSA’s “cast-iron” coverage – particularly surrounding Julian Assange and other people associated with WikiLeaks  – would almost certainly have yielded a record of any electronic transfer from Russia to WikiLeaks. Binney has used some of the highly classified slides released by Edward Snowden to demonstrate precisely how NSA accomplishes this using trace mechanisms embedded throughout the network. [See: “U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims,” Dec. 12, 2016.]

NSA Must Come Clean

We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks. If NSA can produce such evidence, you may wish to order whatever declassification may be needed and then release the evidence. This would go a long way toward allaying suspicions that no evidence exists. If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.

In all candor, the checkered record of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for trustworthiness makes us much less confident that anyone should take it on faith that he is more “trustworthy than the Russians,” as you suggested on Dec. 16. You will probably recall that Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, about NSA dragnet activities; later apologizing for testimony he admitted had been “clearly erroneous.” In our Memorandum for you on Dec. 11, 2013, we cited chapter and verse as to why Clapper should have been fired for saying things he knew to be “clearly erroneous.”

In that Memorandum, we endorsed the demand by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that Clapper be removed. “Lying to Congress is a federal offense, and Clapper ought to be fired and prosecuted for it,” said Sensenbrenner in an interview with The Hill. “The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced.”

Actually, we have had trouble understanding why, almost four years after he deliberately misled the Senate, Clapper remains Director of National Intelligence – overseeing the entire intelligence community.

Hacks or Leaks?

Not mentioned until now is our conclusion that leaks are the source of the WikiLeaks disclosures in question – not hacking. Leaks normally leave no electronic trace. William Binney has been emphasizing this for several months and suggesting strongly that the disclosures were from a leaker with physical access to the information – not a hacker with only remote access.

Former National Security Agency official William Binney sitting in the offices of Democracy Now! in New York City. (Photo credit: Jacob Appelbaum)

This, of course, makes it even harder to pin the blame on President Putin, or anyone else. And we suspect that this explains why NSA demurred when asked to join the CIA and FBI in expressing “high confidence” in this key judgment of the report put out under Clapper’s auspices on Jan. 6, yielding this curious formulation:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence. (Emphasis, and lack of emphasis, in original)

In addition, former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray has said publicly he has first-hand information on the provenance of the leaks, and has expressed surprise that no one from the New York Times or the Washington Post has tried to get in touch with him. We would be interested in knowing whether anyone from your administration, including the intelligence community, has made any effort to contact Ambassador Murray.

What to Do

President-elect Trump said a few days ago that his team will have a “full report on hacking within 90 days.” Whatever the findings of the Trump team turn out to be, they will no doubt be greeted with due skepticism, since Mr. Trump is in no way a disinterested party.

A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)

You, on the other hand, enjoy far more credibility – AND power – for the next few days. And we assume you would not wish to hobble your successor with charges that cannot withstand close scrutiny. We suggest you order the chiefs of the NSA, FBI and CIA to the White House and ask them to lay all their cards on the table. They need to show you why you should continue to place credence in what, a month ago, you described as “uniform intelligence assessments” about Russian hacking.

At that point, if the intelligence heads have credible evidence, you have the option of ordering it released – even at the risk of damage to sources and methods. For what it may be worth, we will not be shocked if it turns out that they can do no better than the evidence-deprived assessments they have served up in recent weeks. In that case, we would urge you, in all fairness, to let the American people in on the dearth of convincing evidence before you leave office.

As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Obama’s Legacy

Mr. President, there is much talk in your final days in office about your legacy. Will part of that legacy be that you stood by while flames of illegitimacy rose willy-nilly around your successor? Or will you use your power to reveal the information – or the fact that there are merely unsupported allegations – that would enable us to deal with them responsibly?

In the immediate wake of the holiday on which we mark the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it seems appropriate to make reference to his legacy, calling to mind the graphic words in his “Letter From the Birmingham City Jail,” with which he reminds us of our common duty to expose lies and injustice:

Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up, but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret) and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research

Thomas Drake, former Senior Executive, NSA

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official, ret.

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)

Brady Kiesling, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer, ret. (Associate VIPS),

John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)

Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Demand for Russian ‘Hacking’ Proof, by Veteran Intelligence Officials

Centralization in our social, economic, and political systems has given rise to a deep sense of powerlessness among the people, a growing alienation throughout society, the depersonalization of vital services, excessive reliance on the techniques of management and control, and a loss of great traditions.

Forty years ago, a group bringing together the political left and right, Democrats and Republicans, attempted to create a “third way” called the Decentralist League of Vermont. It was convened by Robert O’Brien, a state senator who had recently lost the Democratic primary for governor, and John McClaughry, a Republican critical of his Party’s leadership. Each invited some allies for a series of meetings to forge a new political vision.

“We oppose political and economic systems which demand obedience to the dictates of elite groups, while ignoring abuses by those who operate the controls,” its founding statement announced.

Vermont had been fertile ground for “outside the box” thinking before. To start, it didn’t immediately join the new United States after the War of Independence, remaining an independent republic until 1791. Almost half a century later it was the first US state to elect an Anti-Mason governor, during a period when opposition to elites and secret societies was growing.

The Anti-Mason movement – which also elected a Pennsylvania governor and ran a candidate for president in 1832 – lasted only a decade. Most of its political leaders eventually joined either the short-lived Whig Party or the more durable Republicans. Along the way, however, it exposed the dangers of special interest groups and secret oaths and, on a practical level, initiated changes in the way political parties operated — notably nominating conventions and the adoption of party platforms, reforms soon embraced by other parties.

Early in its history, Vermont also had direct experience with another type of challenge to centralized power — nullification. The general idea is that since states created the federal government they also have the right to judge the constitutionality of federal laws — and potentially refuse to enforce them. It happened when American Colonists nullified laws imposed by the British. Since then states have occasionally used nullification to limit federal actions, from the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs.

In November 1850 the Vermont legislature joined the club, approving a so-called Habeas Corpus Law that required officials to assist slaves who made it to the state. The controverial law rendered the Fugitive Slave Act effectively unenforceable, a clear case of nullification. Poet and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier praised Vermont’s defiance, but President Millard Fillmore threatened to impose federal law through military action, if necessary. It never came to that.

Even a short-lived political movement can produce new thinking and unexpected change. In 1912, for example, the new Progressive Party inspired by Theodore Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to William Howard Taft led to the election of Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt left the Party, but its work continued under Robert La Follette. Although La Follette’s run for president in 1924 netted only 17 percent, he won Wisconsin, his home state, and successful reforms were implemented there.

In recent times, Vermont has emerged as a testing ground for political, economic and environmental thinking that challenges conventional wisdom. But the ex-urbanite professionals and members of the counterculture who arrived to help make that possible built on a solid foundation. Questioning of illegitimate, centralized power began before the American Revolution, as early settlers in the Green Mountains organized to declare themselves free of British rule and exploitation by land speculators. It continued with the jailhouse congressional re-election of Matthew Lyon in defiance of President Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, resistance to an embargo of Britain and the War of 1812, rejection of slavery and Masonic secrecy, and Town Meeting defeat of the Green Mountain Parkway during the New Deal. The pattern reflects a libertarian streak that has resisted the excesses of both liberal and conservative leadership.

One key reason is localism, a long cherished Vermont value. Even when Gov. Deane Davis, a conservative Republican, backed a state land use law in the late 1960s, he chose to call it “creative localism.” Town Meeting exerts a powerful enduring influence, both practical and symbolic. A form and reminder of direct democracy, it holds out hope that self-government remains possible in the age of powerful administrative states. The stakes may be overstated at time, but the use of this forum – in some cases the only one available – can be a form of self-reliance and self-determination reminiscent of the early Jeffersonian impulse.

In a similar spirit, the group of Vermonters who launched an alliance in 1976 aimed at decentralizing political and economic power. Invited by Bob O’Brien, I acted as secretary and helped to craft its Statement of Principles.

That Fall, Bernie Sanders made his second run for Governor as a Liberty Union candidate and called for the break up of big banks. The winner was Republican businessman Richard Snelling, who defeated Employment Commissioner Stella Hackel after a fractious primary season. But Jimmy Carter became President and soon appointed Hackel as Director of the US Mint. According to a March 28, 1977 article by UPI, the Decentralist League was officially launched in Montpelier with a press conference and had 12 initial public signatories. The plan was not to become another political party, the press coverage said, but rather to “speak out for the interests of persons not protected by rigged deals.”

Charter members included McClaughry of Kirby; Sen. O’Brien of Orange County; Sen. Melvin Mandigo, a Republican representing Essex-Orleans; Rep. William Hunter, a Democrat from Weathersfield; John Welch of Rutland, who sought the 1976 GOP nomination for U.S. Senate; and Frank Bryan, a UVM professor. I also made the eclectic list, identified as a magazine editor and activist from Burlington, joining former Democratic party vice-chairman Margaret Lucenti from Barre; James Perkins of Sheffield, co-chair of the Vermont Caucus for the Family; William Staats of Newfane, founder of the Green Mountain Boys; Martin Harris of Sudbury, leader of the National Farmers Organization; and John Schnebley Jr. of Townshend, who ran in the 1976 Democratic primary for the U.S. House.

As I outlined in Decentralism & Liberation in the Workplace, a July 1976 essay published in response to the US Bicentennial celebrations, Decentralism involves participatory democracy and worker ownership, home rule and neighborhood assemblies, regional self-sufficiency in food and energy, and voluntary inter-community alliances. Through efforts at both the industrial and local political levels, it can move us toward a social libertarian culture that respects the traditions of freedom and independence in America’s past, and that adds to this heritage a more positive vision of human nature, ethical and ecological tools, and an internationalist perspective.

The basic purpose of the League, McClaughry argued at the time, was to “re-orient the political spectrum so that people begin to see issues in terms of power widely dispersed — close to them in communities, and power centralized — in large institutions over which they have no control.”

Bryan and McClaughry continued to explore the concept and Vermonters’ attraction to decentralism in The Vermont Papers: Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale. “God-given liberties, hostility to the central power, whatever it may be,” they wrote in 1990, “their attachment to their towns and schools and local communities, their dedication to common enterprise for the common good – all these have been among the most cherished Vermont traits, the subject of countless eulogies of Vermont tradition over the years.”

Although the League lasted only a few years — a casualty of Reagan era polarization — it did identify a set of core beliefs, priorities and policies that could unite those who find the current national and global order unsustainable and dangerous. In Burlington, one legacy was the creation of Neighborhood Planning Assemblies. Taking aim at centralized power and wealth, the League asserted that decentralizing both, where and whenever possible, is the best way to preserve diversity, increase self-sufficiency, and satisfy human needs. Its principles, released in March 1977, may resonate anew in the current global atmosphere of resurgent authoritarianism.

Decentralist League of Vermont
Statement of Principles

In a free and just society all men and women will have the fullest opportunity to enjoy liberty, achieve self-reliance, and participate effectively in the political and economic decisions affecting their lives. Wealth and power will be widely distributed. Basic human rights will be protected. The principle of equal rights for all, special privileges for none, will prevail.

When economic and political power is centralized in the hands of a few, self-government is replaced by rigid and remote bureaucracies, the independence of each citizen is threatened, and the processes of freedom and justice are subverted. Centralized power is the enemy of individual liberty, self-reliance, and voluntary cooperation. It tends to corrupt those who wield it and to debase its victims.

The trend toward centralization in our social, economic, and political systems has given rise to a deep sense of powerlessness among the people, a growing alienation throughout society, the depersonalization of vital services, excessive reliance on the techniques of management and control, and a loss of great traditions.

Decentralists share with “conservatives” repugnance for unwarranted governmental interference in private life and community affairs. We share with “liberals” an aversion to the exploitation of human beings. We deplore, however, conventional “liberal” and “conservative” policies which have concentrated power, ignored the importance of the human scale, and removed decision making from those most directly affected.

Decentralists thus favor a reversal of the trend toward all forms of centralized power, privileged status, and arbitrary barriers to individual growth and community self-determination. We oppose political and economic systems which demand obedience to the dictates of elite groups, while ignoring abuses by those who operate the controls. We believe that only by decentralization will we preserve that diversity in society which provides the best guarantee that among the available choices, each individual will find those conditions which satisfy his or her human needs.

Decentralists believe in the progressive dismantling of bureaucratic structures which stifle creativity and spontaneity, and of economic and political institutions which diminish individual and community power.

We support a strengthening of family, neighborhood and community life, and favor new forms of association to meet social and economic needs.

We propose and support:

— Removal of governmental barriers which discourage initiative and cooperative self-help

— Growth of local citizen alliances which strengthen self-government and broaden participation in economic and political decisions

— Widespread ownership of productive industry by Vermonters and employees

— Protection of the right to acquire, possess and enjoy private property, where the owner is personally responsible for its use and when this use does not invade the equal rights of others

— Rebuilding a viable and diverse agricultural base for the Vermont economy, with emphasis on homesteading

— A decent level of income for all, through their productive effort whenever possible, or through compassionate help which enhances their dignity and self-respect

— Reshaping of education to promote self-reliance, creativity, and a unity of learning and work

— A revival of craftsmanship in surroundings where workers can obtain personal satisfaction from their efforts

— The use of technologies appropriate to local enterprise, and which increase our energy self-sufficiency

— Mediation of disputes rather than reliance on regulations and adversary proceedings

This decentralist program implies a de-emphasis of status, luxury, and pretense, and a new emphasis on justice, virtue, equality, spiritual values, and peace of mind.

Decentralism will mean a rebirth of diversity and mutual aid, a new era of voluntary action, a full appreciation of our heritage, an affirmation of meaningful liberty, and a critical awareness of Vermont’s relationship to the rest of the nation and to the world.

Greg Guma is the Vermont-based author of Dons of Time, Uneasy Empire, Spirits of Desire, Big Lies, and The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. He helped to write the Decentralist League’s Statement of Principles and led a successful campaign for neighborhood assemblies in Burlington. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vermont’s Decentralists: Questioning Authority, Power and Wealth

The super-wealth of an elite eight equals a staggering $427 billion – as much as humanity’s 3.6 billion poorest, struggling daily to survive, many not making it.

Oxfam highlighted unprecedented global inequality, threatening social stability. The chasm between super-rich and desperate poor is obscene. Instead of abating, wealth disparity is increasing, Oxfam explaining:

Since 2015, the richest 1% owns more than the rest of humanity. Eight mega-billionaires are as wealthy as humanity’s 3.6 poorest.

“Over the next 20 years, 500 people will hand over $2.1 trillion to their heirs – a sum larger than the GDP of India, a country of 1.3 billion people.”

From 1988 – 2011, the incomes of humanity’s poorest 10% increased by less than $3 a year – less than nothing when adjusted for inflation.

Over the same period, the incomes of humanity’s richest 1% increased 182 times as much.

“A FTSE-100 CEO earns as much in a year as 10,000 people in working in garment factories in Bangladesh. A Dow CEO likely earns as much as 20,000 or 30,000 impoverished third-world workers.

Over the last 30 years, income growth of the world’s bottom 50% was zero. The top 1% tripled their income over the same period.

“In Vietnam, the country’s richest man earns more in a day than the poorest earns in 10 years.”

Super-wealth in the hands of a select few used to make obscene greater amounts is incompatible with peace, equity and justice – what so-called Western civilization abhors, exploiting the many by every means imaginable for greater riches, war-profiteering a favorite way.

Mass slaughter and destruction enriches them, unspeakable human misery considered a small price to pay.

Here’s the Oxfam infamous 8:

  • Bill Gates: Net worth $75 billion
  • Amancio Ortega: NW $67 billion
  • Warren Buffet: NW $60.8 billion
  • Carlos Slim: NW $50 billion
  • Jeff Bezos: NW $45.2 billion
  • Mark Zuckerberg: NW $44.6 billion
  • Larry Ellison: NW $43.6 billion
  • Michael Bloomberg: NW $40 billion

Beyond the infamous 8, the two Koch brothers have a net worth of nearly $80 billion. The world’s billionaire class in total has a staggering net worth of $6.5 trillion.

The above figures courtesy of Forbes, publishing a guide to the world’s billionaire class for the past 30 years – 1,810 members in the class of 2016.

Oxfam international executive director Winnie Byanyima called it “obscene for so much wealth to be held in the hands of so few when one in ten people survive on less than $2 a day.”

If the present trend continues, one or more trillionaires may top the super-wealth list in another generation. Predatory capitalism enriches the few at the expense of most others.

Growing inequality pulls societies apart, said Oxfam. “It increases crime and insecurity, and undermines the fight to end poverty.”

Billions of people live on the edge, impoverishment crushing them. The obscenity of today’s gilded age dwarfs the earlier one in super-wealth concentration.

Prosperity for the few at the expense of most others is a prescription for dystopian hell. There’s no good ending to this scenario if not checked and reversed.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Globalization and Social Inequality: Obscene Wealth of Eight Mega-Billionaires

Iraqi security forces (ISF), backed up by US-led coalition warplanes and military advisors, have regained more areas from the ISIS terrorist group inside the major Iraqi city of Mosul in the province of Nineveh.

ISF troops have recently, liberated the districts of Al-Hadba, Kafaat, al-Kindy, Andalus, Dhubat, al-Furqan, Al-Faisaliyah, and al-Shorta. Also liberated are the Mosul University complex and the mosque of Nabi Yunus.

The Mosul University had been a major weapon and drone factory used by ISIS terrorists.

The areas of Nabi Yunus, East Nineveh and Al-Zerai are contested and clashes between ISF and ISIS are ongoing there.

The Iraqi military announced on Monday that the Iraqi army’s 16th brigade had destroyed 17 ISIS car bombs in the recent clashes.

Considering recent developments, the whole eastern part of Mosul will soon be in the hands of ISF.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraqi Forces Are Close To Full Liberation Of Eastern Mosul From ISIS-Daesh

It should be a point of some delicious reflection for peace activists who have fought for decades against the nature of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.  It brought the US deep into West European affairs, turning European states into garrisons.  It involved the stationing of nuclear weapons. It compelled member states to go to war if the security of any one was threatened or breached.

Donald Trump, however, has little time for it.  Selecting the Bild newspaper and the Times of London as forums to expand on his views on NATO, the President-elect decided to shake the tree that much more.

America First as an idea means that the alliance system needs to be reviewed.  For one, Trump took issue with military spending from the members, suggesting that it did not even make 2 percent of gross domestic product.

But for Trump, the core issue was utility.  What had the alliance actually done?  Ever in the zone of the next news entertainment cycle, Trump felt that the alliance had done little on the issue of dealing with terrorism.

It was, in his carefree words, “obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror.” It had been “designed many, many years ago.”  Just to confuse readers, and perhaps himself, Trump then explained that NATO was still “very important to me.”

Obsolescence is probably not quite the term. If it had just been a museum piece, a historical reminder, little fuss would be made.  In actual fact, this was an alliance which ballooned with aggressive enthusiasm, one that was treated as a mechanism, not merely as a defence against the old Soviet Union and its allies, but offensively to operate in theatres far away from the area.

The one thing that stands out here is the momentum NATO developed at the end of the Cold War, doing its bit, less for stability than aggravating instability.   With gloating hubris, the US-led alliance began to move into areas of influence in eastern Europe.  Russian strategists, ever sensitive to threats on its borders, wished to prevent that matter in negotiations in 1990 which also featured the re-unification of Germany.

As an old foe was set to merge, Washington and Moscow were debating where traditional alliances would go. Would a reunified Germany join hands with NATO, or embrace the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact?  The third option, that it would have nothing to do with either in middle-European distance, was also considered.

Meetings that took place in February 1990 show US Secretary of State James Baker discussing that a cooperative arrangement with Germany could be bought by making “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not enlarge “one inch eastward.”[1] Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was sufficiently moved by the suggestion to begin reunification talks within a matter of days.

The picture soon changed.  US policymakers were wondering whether they had given too much unnecessary ground.  An initial concession was made: the former German Democratic Republic would be designated as an area where NATO forces would have limited influence.  This was not a “status” that would last.

By March 1990, the State Department was pretending it had never proffered an enticing olive branch to Soviet officials. Eastern Europe, breathing gusts of the post-communist air, would be gathered to Washington’s large bosom.  The odd remark would still be issued to reassure Moscow that this process would take place in a cooperative way.

None of this got away from the objective, as noted in a National Security Council memo from October 1990, that the US should “signal to the new democracies of Eastern Europe NATO’s readiness to contemplate their future membership.”  In what seemed like a giddying rush, old Soviet foes – the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary – became card carrying NATO members, happy to become forward bases for Washington’s weapons.  Murmurs of encouragement were then sent on their merry way to Georgia and Ukraine.

As the sole superpower, and the Soviet Union unravelling, promises were there to be ignored. The Russian bear had repaired to the forest of desperate isolation to lick its wounds, powerless to hold any sway over the decisions being made to its west. Now resurgent, that bear remains curious to see how a Trump administration will deal with NATO.

Trump’s comments, for all their worth, will have to bear up against the views of his own appointee for Defense Secretary, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis. As he reasoned in his Senate confirmation hearing last week, “If we didn’t have NATO today, we’d need to create it.  NATO is vital to our interests.”[2]

Mattis also sees old threats in newly fashioned bottles.  “We recognize that [Vladimir Putin] is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance, and that we take steps – the integrated steps, diplomatic, economic, military and the alliance steps – working with our allies to defend ourselves where we must.”

Members of Congress, among them Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, have already told European allies that the alliance will be a business as usual affair, though German Foreign Minister Frank-Walker Steinmeier concedes to there having been “no easing of tensions.”[3]  It is hard to envisage that much will change on the ground, though it adds to the delightful dysfunction that is abound to descend upon Washington and various European capitals.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal–20160530-snap-story.html

[2] http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/17/trump-widens-potential-rift-with-mattis-over-nato.html

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-idUSKBN1500XW

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO, An Obsolete Cold War Military Construct: Donald Trump and the History of the Atlantic Alliance

On January 16, ISIS terrorists split the government-held pocket in Deir Ezzor into two separate parts, capturing Wadi An Nishan, Jiraiya, the al-Maqabis production area and the workers area. This move allowed ISIS units to encircle the strategic Deir Ezzor Airport controlled by Syrian army troops.

Early on January 17, ISIS units advanced on the cemetery and captured a bus station north of it.

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) launched a counter-attack in the area of the cemetery but without notable results. Intense fighting is still ongoing there.

The close deployment of ISIS tactical units and vehicles equipped with anti-aircraft guns reportedly does not allow aircraft to operate from the Deir Ezzor Airbase, cutting off air movement of supplies there.

Local sources report a high number of Russian and Syrian airstrikes against ISIS targets – over 100 only on January 17. However, the situation is very complicated for pro-government forces.

The so-called “Syrian Democratic Forces”, an YPG-led force backed up by the US-led coalition, said in a statement on January 16 that the second phase of the Operation Warth of Euphrateus successfully finished. According to the statement, YPG forces seized from ISIS 2480 square kilometers, including 197 villages, and killed some 260 ISIS terrorists in the province of Raqqah. The SDF statement added that 42 SDF fighters were killed and claimed that the ISIS stronghold of Raqqah was isolated from the western and northern axis.

The provided number of ISIS casualties per one liberated village clearly showed that the terrorist group had not been attempting to defend its areas in the Raqqah countryside and had been preparing for a long defense in the area close to its stronghold. The same strategy was implemented by the terrorists in Mosul.

Meanwhile, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham units attacked government forces at the Mallah Farms north of the city of Aleppo, engaging army troops in a series of firefights. While no gains were made by the terrorists, this move was described as indication of the fact that the so-called “moderate opposition” could attempt to use a tense situation near Palmyra and Deir Ezzor to launch an advance against government forces at other fronts.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian War: ISIS-Daesh Advances in Deir Ezzor, Encircles Airport. Intense Fighting

Just one week after thousands of US troops arrived in Poland to “support NATO’s Anti-Russian buildup” across Eastern Europe, 300 U.S. Marines from Camp Lejeune landed in Norway on Monday for a six-month deployment, marking the first time since World War II that foreign troops have been allowed to be stationed there, in a deployment breaking with decades of tradition by Norway not to host foreign forces, and angering Norway’s Arctic neighbor Russia, according to Reuters.

After leaving North Carolina aboard a chartered 747 on Sunday evening, the troops landed at 10am CET on Monday with their luggage and weapons at the Vaernes airport near Trondheim, Norway’s third-largest city, television footage showed. The Marines will be hosted at the Vaernes base of the Norwegian Home Guards near Trondheim, Norway’s third-largest city.

The US soldiers, which will stay in Norway for a year with the current batch of Marines being replaced after their six-month tour is complete. Until now, the US has had large quantities of military materiel pre-positioned in tunnels dug into Norway’s mountains, but no troops.

A spokesman for the Norwegian Home Guards, who will host the Marines at the Vaernes military base, about 1,500 km (900 miles) from the Russian border, said the U.S. troops will learn about winter warfare. “For the first four weeks they will have basic winter training, learn how to cope with skis and to survive in the Arctic environment,” said Rune Haarstad, a Home Guard spokesman. In March, the Marines will take part in the Joint Viking exercises, which will also include British troops, he added.

As the deployment coincides with the U.S. sending several thousand troops to Poland to beef up its Eastern European allies worried about Moscow’s assertiveness, Russia has been understandably concerned. However, both Norway and the US deny the notion that the deployment is meant to “irk” Russia as part of NATO’s wider campaign to oppose what it calls “Russian aggression” in Europe, by sending additional troops and weapons closer to the Russian border. A spokeswoman for Norwegian Ministry of Defence also said the arrival of U.S. Marines had nothing to do with concerns about Russia.

“It has nothing to do with Russia or the current situation” Haarstad doubled down.

Moscow disagrees. While the Russian Embassy in Oslo did not immediately reply to a request for comment by Reuters on Monday, it previously questioned the need for such a move and when the rotational deployment of US Marines in Norway was confirmed last year, Russia said it was puzzled by it.

“Taking into account multiple statements of Norwegian officials about the absence of threat from Russia to Norway we would like to understand for what purposes is Norway so … willing to increase its military potential, in particular through stationing of American forces in Vaernes?” it told Reuters at the time.

This “for sure won’t make better (the) security situation in Northern Europe,” a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Oslo, Maxim Gurov, told AFP in an October email.

Norway, which is a founding member of NATO, has pledged not to host foreign forces to allay Moscow’s concerns that it could serve as a platform for a surprise attack. According to RT, for decades the Scandinavian country stashed massive stockpiles of weapons in preparation for a possible conflict, but only allowed in other allies’ troops for training purposes. Oslo dismisses the notion that the deployment goes against the old commitment, saying that American troops would be rotated rather than stationed permanently. NATO routinely applies the same reasoning to all its deployments in Eastern Europe as a way to circumvent the alliance’s agreement with Russia, which bans permanent deployments of “significant” forces near Russia.

Meanwhile, the US Marine Corps touted the practical benefits of a full-time deployment as the reason for the move. “We’ve been going to Norway for 25 years. So I don’t really know what the hype is about,” Maj. Gen. Niel Nelson, commander of Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa, told Military.com ahead of the deployment. “We’re just doing our job, from a more economical standpoint. I don’t put a lot of stock in people pointing back and forth.”

“By putting Marines in Norway and above the Arctic Circle for 30-60 days at a time, that’s a whole different environment,” Nelson added. “You not only learn to survive, you are surviving. It’s a harsh environment; it takes a lot of tough lessons and we reinforce that by the length of time.”

Norway and Russia share a small land border far in the north. The Vaernes base is located 1,500km from any part of Russia, but the Arctic training program involves traveling closer to it. We anticipate that the inevitable retaliatory Russian deployment of troops in proximity to the Norwegian border, will be promptly dubbed by NATO, and western media, as a provocative act.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-NATO Militarization of Russia’s Border: US Marines Land In Norway, The First Time Since World War II, Angering Russia

 Tho I myself am despised by society, and cast aside, it is I who must prove my innocence. Yogmaya Neupane

Nepal is perhaps unique in the world of nations today with its three top public offices occupied by women: Bidhya Devi Bhandari is president; Sushila Karki is chief justice; and Onsari Gharti Magar is speaker of Nepal’s parliament.   This record is particularly noteworthy in a fledgling democracy, a new Asian republic that since its founding in 2008, has been by members of Nepal’s communist and Maoist parties.

Those three appointments are surely a credit to leftist politicians currently dominating Nepal’s elected positions: prime-minister, and cabinet and parliament members. Although one must caution that these “socialist” administrations have done almost nothing to advance parity at institutional levels through land reform, economic equity, job creation and worker protection, or by attacking caste discrimination.

Parity for most Nepalese women is advancing only slowly as well. In the recent constitutional referendum, campaigners failed to win a 50% quota of parliamentary seats for women. In the family, discriminatory customs deny women their inheritance rights. And older women, even professionals, face strong resistance when asserting their independence from brothers and sons.

Nepal’s appointments of women to high office may be seen as merely symbolic. But symbols are potent– as effective today as in the past, in the West, acrossAfrica, and in the East. Note how (not so very long ago) a U.S. presidential hopeful set her sights on her nation’s top job, partly as a symbolic demonstration that American women were truly equal, and the country was fully democratic. (She didn’t succeed. And many Americans view this defeat as a sign of the many obstacles women still face.)

There are compelling indications that the symbolic promotion of women, such as those three Nepalese appointees, does make a difference. Its impact may even surpass the work of multitudes of NGOs devoted to ‘uplifting’ women. (Gender projects registered in Kathmandu constitute a sizable industry; its’ a burgeoning branch of human rights, absorbing many educated women in fundraising and planning, although with questionable results.

Yes, the number of educated Nepalese girls is less than boys. Yes, sisters and mothers are refused inheritance rights by domineering brothers and sons. Yes, there’s widespread wife abuse by drunken husbands. Yes, children are abandoned or sent to work far from home. Yes, many Nepalese women are victims of human trafficking. But most of these social ills can be tackled by good government, by policies which create more jobs for everyone, and enforce laws already in place to protect women and children. (Regulating out-of-control liquor consumption would certainly help as well.)

Symbols can be powerful incentives to motivate women too. So President Bhandari and other political women are to be applauded. We should welcome any actions that champion women’s achievements since these projects remind us of our historical precedents (and potential). And they correct the historical record.

Scanning world history even in the era of Google, one is hard-pressed to identify more than a handful of women who are widely acknowledged as outstanding public figures. (English-language web-lists are regrettably dominated by American personalities.)

So what has Nepalto offer beyond its current president, chief justice and speaker of parliament? Perusal of Nepali postage stamps by my colleague Sukanya Waiba offers more models than expected. In a list of 18, in addition to goddesses Sita and Shrina (wives of the Hindu god Ram), Maya Devi (mother of Gautam Buddha), a ‘living goddess’ Kumari, Princess Bhrikuti, daughter of an ancient king, and three 20th century queens of the Shah dynasty, we find noteworthy secular leaders. There’s the eminent singer Melwa Devi Gurung, the much admired, radical Marxist agitator and award-winning poet, Parijat Lama (Bishnu Waiba), and two Everest mountaineers Pemba Doma Sherpa and Passang Lhamu Sherpa. (The latter’s statue overlooks a prominent square inKathmanduValley.)

The most recent addition to this collection is one of several political activists. She’s the yogi, poet and revolutionary Yogmaya Neupane. A firebrand operating at a repressive time in Nepal’s history, at the turn of the 20th century, she chose a remote valley far from the capital as her center of operation. This past November (16.11.2016) a postage stamp issued in her honor marks her restoration and her recognition as a major historical figure, a champion of women’s rights, and an opponent of exploitation by religious functionaries and the rich.

An individual of profound insight and courage, Neupane confronted the rule of Juddha Shumshere Rana, an entrenched dictatorship. No dissent was tolerated duringNepal’s Rana era. Hindu priests’ authority was unassailable; and religious law dictated that women endure cruel conventions.

Yogmaya Neupane was eventually driven to her death (in 1940/41) whereupon all historical references to her and her movement were suppressed. Mention of her was forbidden; her surviving followers dispersed and fell silent. Only after 1990 when free speech was permitted, have Nepalese begun to examine Neupane’s career and conduct research into her movement. This is aided by a treasury of extraordinary poems newly brought to light, known as “Sarwartha Yogbani”. The declarations embodied in her quatrains are receiving serious attention by Nepali language scholars, historians, the Nepali press, and by interested Nepalese citizens as well as a London-based professor of Nepali literature.[1] Even novelists seem inspired by her. Here are more examples of Neupane’s fiery invocations composed in the 1920s in that faraway Himalayan village:

 Your fat bellies burst, and look: those bribes you horded and now ooze from you are poison/ so savor your riches while you can.

And:

Kill the corrupt, jail the thief/ judge with virtue, eliminate lies/ truth will reign when our redeemer arrives/ smashing king and courtiers alike.

A substantial and reliable Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogmaya_Neupane) devoted to Neupane is certain to increase interest in her. In addition to the stamp, a Yogmaya National Women’s Prize founded by Nepal’s Srastā Samaj organization is awarded in recognition of her fight for women’s rights. The 2016 winner is Durga Ghimere, recognized as the first person to campaign against women trafficking (Kantipur, Nepali-language daily, 09/18/2016).[2] With this award a circle seems to have been completed.

The stamp honoring Neupane continues a tradition of recognizing women’s political activism in Nepal: in addition to the outspoken poet Parijat, five other contemporary women are featured: Setu B.K., martyred during the 2005 revolution that finally overthrew the king; Congress Party activist Chhaya Devi Parajuli; Mangala Devi, a major figure in Nepal’s Congress Party along with her husband Ganesh Man Singh; activist Sadhana Adhikari; and Moti Devi Shrestha, one of the founders of Nepal’s Communist Party. From this we may reasonably conclude that there’s nothing symbolic about President BD Bhandari, justice S. Karki, and Speaker OG Magar.

Notes

[1]  See BN Aziz, 1993, M. Hutt 2011, and D. Neupane, 2015 listed in the Wikipedia entry.

[2] With special thanks for assistance to U. Pant, DJK Sherpa, N. Subedi,  NM Tuladhar, and S. Waiba  

Barbara Nimri Aziz, a New York-based anthropologist and writer, hosted RadioTahrir on Pacifica-WBAI in New York City for 24 years. Her 2007 book Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq is based on her 13 years covering Iraq. Aziz’ writings and radio productions can be accessed at www.RadioTahrir.org.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Nepalese Women: Symbols of Historical Achievements and Political Leadership

 Tho I myself am despised by society, and cast aside, it is I who must prove my innocence. Yogmaya Neupane

Nepal is perhaps unique in the world of nations today with its three top public offices occupied by women: Bidhya Devi Bhandari is president; Sushila Karki is chief justice; and Onsari Gharti Magar is speaker of Nepal’s parliament.   This record is particularly noteworthy in a fledgling democracy, a new Asian republic that since its founding in 2008, has been by members of Nepal’s communist and Maoist parties.

Those three appointments are surely a credit to leftist politicians currently dominating Nepal’s elected positions: prime-minister, and cabinet and parliament members. Although one must caution that these “socialist” administrations have done almost nothing to advance parity at institutional levels through land reform, economic equity, job creation and worker protection, or by attacking caste discrimination.

Parity for most Nepalese women is advancing only slowly as well. In the recent constitutional referendum, campaigners failed to win a 50% quota of parliamentary seats for women. In the family, discriminatory customs deny women their inheritance rights. And older women, even professionals, face strong resistance when asserting their independence from brothers and sons.

Nepal’s appointments of women to high office may be seen as merely symbolic. But symbols are potent– as effective today as in the past, in the West, acrossAfrica, and in the East. Note how (not so very long ago) a U.S. presidential hopeful set her sights on her nation’s top job, partly as a symbolic demonstration that American women were truly equal, and the country was fully democratic. (She didn’t succeed. And many Americans view this defeat as a sign of the many obstacles women still face.)

There are compelling indications that the symbolic promotion of women, such as those three Nepalese appointees, does make a difference. Its impact may even surpass the work of multitudes of NGOs devoted to ‘uplifting’ women. (Gender projects registered in Kathmandu constitute a sizable industry; its’ a burgeoning branch of human rights, absorbing many educated women in fundraising and planning, although with questionable results.

Yes, the number of educated Nepalese girls is less than boys. Yes, sisters and mothers are refused inheritance rights by domineering brothers and sons. Yes, there’s widespread wife abuse by drunken husbands. Yes, children are abandoned or sent to work far from home. Yes, many Nepalese women are victims of human trafficking. But most of these social ills can be tackled by good government, by policies which create more jobs for everyone, and enforce laws already in place to protect women and children. (Regulating out-of-control liquor consumption would certainly help as well.)

Symbols can be powerful incentives to motivate women too. So President Bhandari and other political women are to be applauded. We should welcome any actions that champion women’s achievements since these projects remind us of our historical precedents (and potential). And they correct the historical record.

Scanning world history even in the era of Google, one is hard-pressed to identify more than a handful of women who are widely acknowledged as outstanding public figures. (English-language web-lists are regrettably dominated by American personalities.)

So what has Nepalto offer beyond its current president, chief justice and speaker of parliament? Perusal of Nepali postage stamps by my colleague Sukanya Waiba offers more models than expected. In a list of 18, in addition to goddesses Sita and Shrina (wives of the Hindu god Ram), Maya Devi (mother of Gautam Buddha), a ‘living goddess’ Kumari, Princess Bhrikuti, daughter of an ancient king, and three 20th century queens of the Shah dynasty, we find noteworthy secular leaders. There’s the eminent singer Melwa Devi Gurung, the much admired, radical Marxist agitator and award-winning poet, Parijat Lama (Bishnu Waiba), and two Everest mountaineers Pemba Doma Sherpa and Passang Lhamu Sherpa. (The latter’s statue overlooks a prominent square inKathmanduValley.)

The most recent addition to this collection is one of several political activists. She’s the yogi, poet and revolutionary Yogmaya Neupane. A firebrand operating at a repressive time in Nepal’s history, at the turn of the 20th century, she chose a remote valley far from the capital as her center of operation. This past November (16.11.2016) a postage stamp issued in her honor marks her restoration and her recognition as a major historical figure, a champion of women’s rights, and an opponent of exploitation by religious functionaries and the rich.

An individual of profound insight and courage, Neupane confronted the rule of Juddha Shumshere Rana, an entrenched dictatorship. No dissent was tolerated duringNepal’s Rana era. Hindu priests’ authority was unassailable; and religious law dictated that women endure cruel conventions.

Yogmaya Neupane was eventually driven to her death (in 1940/41) whereupon all historical references to her and her movement were suppressed. Mention of her was forbidden; her surviving followers dispersed and fell silent. Only after 1990 when free speech was permitted, have Nepalese begun to examine Neupane’s career and conduct research into her movement. This is aided by a treasury of extraordinary poems newly brought to light, known as “Sarwartha Yogbani”. The declarations embodied in her quatrains are receiving serious attention by Nepali language scholars, historians, the Nepali press, and by interested Nepalese citizens as well as a London-based professor of Nepali literature.[1] Even novelists seem inspired by her. Here are more examples of Neupane’s fiery invocations composed in the 1920s in that faraway Himalayan village:

 Your fat bellies burst, and look: those bribes you horded and now ooze from you are poison/ so savor your riches while you can.

And:

Kill the corrupt, jail the thief/ judge with virtue, eliminate lies/ truth will reign when our redeemer arrives/ smashing king and courtiers alike.

A substantial and reliable Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogmaya_Neupane) devoted to Neupane is certain to increase interest in her. In addition to the stamp, a Yogmaya National Women’s Prize founded by Nepal’s Srastā Samaj organization is awarded in recognition of her fight for women’s rights. The 2016 winner is Durga Ghimere, recognized as the first person to campaign against women trafficking (Kantipur, Nepali-language daily, 09/18/2016).[2] With this award a circle seems to have been completed.

The stamp honoring Neupane continues a tradition of recognizing women’s political activism in Nepal: in addition to the outspoken poet Parijat, five other contemporary women are featured: Setu B.K., martyred during the 2005 revolution that finally overthrew the king; Congress Party activist Chhaya Devi Parajuli; Mangala Devi, a major figure in Nepal’s Congress Party along with her husband Ganesh Man Singh; activist Sadhana Adhikari; and Moti Devi Shrestha, one of the founders of Nepal’s Communist Party. From this we may reasonably conclude that there’s nothing symbolic about President BD Bhandari, justice S. Karki, and Speaker OG Magar.

Notes

[1]  See BN Aziz, 1993, M. Hutt 2011, and D. Neupane, 2015 listed in the Wikipedia entry.

[2] With special thanks for assistance to U. Pant, DJK Sherpa, N. Subedi,  NM Tuladhar, and S. Waiba  

Barbara Nimri Aziz, a New York-based anthropologist and writer, hosted RadioTahrir on Pacifica-WBAI in New York City for 24 years. Her 2007 book Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq is based on her 13 years covering Iraq. Aziz’ writings and radio productions can be accessed at www.RadioTahrir.org.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nepalese Women: Symbols of Historical Achievements and Political Leadership

Headlines are announcing the early release of US Army whistle-blower Private Manning from a jail sentence that began in 2013 and was to last 35 years. Manning is accused of passing US government documents to information clearing house Wikileaks before being arrested and charged for “espionage” in 2010.

Manning’s release indicates an admission by the US of unjust imprisonment. However, the US has so far failed to acknowledge this fact publicly, assign blame, or hold responsible those who played a direct role in Manning’s arrest, trial, conviction, and now over 6 year imprisonment.

Manning’s release, however, was a carefully timed, politically-motivated stunt, devoid of moral convictions, principles, or mercy – as the stunt is designed to appear. At any time during the administration of Barack Obama, Manning’s sentence could have been both vigorously opposed and commuted. However it was not. Manning was left to languish in prison, unjustly confined, so an exiting US president could perform a spectacle, adding to the illusion of both his own legacy, and to that of the office itself.

It is fitting that the United States, at this juncture in its history, cannot even exhibit positive qualities without polluting them with self-serving, political, and manipulative agendas.

Regardless of the depravity that defined both Manning’s imprisonment and release, it should be remembered by all that despite Obama’s “pardon,” for each day Manning was imprisoned unjustly – or anyone for that matter – a crime is being committed against us all.

Meanwhile, there are vast number of other political prisoners languishing either in American prisons or defacto in legal limbo under threat of arrest or assassination, including NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange. and lesser known prisoners including Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Army Whistle-blower Manning’s Overdue Freedom Granted Amid Shameless Political Stunt

Unknown to the American public and revealed by renowned historian Professor Beverly Gage in  a 2014 New York Times Magazine article, Martin Luther King Jr. received a hideous and threatening anonymous letter, the purpose of which was to intimidate him.

MLK suspected that this letter was an initative of the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. According to Prof. Beverly Gage: 

The note is just a single sheet gone yellow with age, typewritten and tightly spaced. It’s rife with typos and misspellings and sprinkled with attempts at emending them. Clearly, some effort went into perfecting the tone, that of a disappointed admirer, appalled by the discovery of “hidious [sic] abnormalities” in someone he once viewed as “a man of character.”

The word “evil” makes six appearances in the text, beginning with an accusation: “You are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that.” In the paragraphs that follow, the recipient’s alleged lovers get the worst of it. They are described as “filthy dirty evil companions” and “evil playmates,” all engaged in “dirt, filth, evil and moronic talk.” The effect is at once grotesque and hypnotic, an obsessive’s account of carnal rage and personal betrayal. “What incredible evilness,” the letter proclaims, listing off “sexual orgies,” “adulterous acts” and “immoral conduct.” Near the end, it circles back to its initial target, denouncing him as an “evil, abnormal beast.” (The New York Times Magazine, November 11, 2014)

The letter contained references to MLK’s personal life, it intimated that if he did not conform, he could be blackmailed into submission:

The unnamed author suggests intimate knowledge of his correspondent’s sex life, … It concludes with a deadline of 34 days “before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.”

“There is only one thing left for you to do,” the author warns vaguely in the final paragraph. “You know what it is.”

Martin Luther King was assassinated on August 4th, 1968. According to Beverly Gage, the letter was sent to him in November 1994, four years prior to his assassination:

When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. received this letter, nearly 50 years ago, he quietly informed friends that someone wanted him to kill himself — and he thought he knew who that someone was. Despite its half-baked prose, self-conscious amateurism and other attempts at misdirection, King was certain the letter had come from the F.B.I. Its infamous director, J. Edgar Hoover, made no secret of his desire to see King discredited. A little more than a decade later, the Senate’s Church Committee on intelligence overreach confirmed King’s suspicion.

Since then, the so-called “suicide letter” has occupied a unique place in the history of American intelligence — the most notorious and embarrassing example of Hoover’s F.B.I. run amok. For several decades, however, only significantly redacted copies of the letter were available for public scrutiny. This summer, while researching a biography of Hoover, I was surprised to find a full, uncensored version of the letter tucked away in a reprocessed set of his official and confidential files at the National Archives. The uncovered passages contain explicit allegations about King’s sex life, rendered in the racially charged language of the Jim Crow era. Looking past the viciousness of the accusations, the letter offers a potent warning for readers today about the danger of domestic surveillance in an age with less reserved mass media.

‘You Are Done’: The letter sent to King by the F.B.I. (One person’s name has been obscured because The Times could not verify or disprove the claims about her.)
NATIONAL ARCHIVES, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND

The F.B.I.’s entanglement with King began not as an inquiry into his sex life but as a “national security” matter, one step removed from King himself. In 1961, the bureau learned that a former Communist Party insider named Stanley Levison had become King’s closest white adviser, serving him as a ghostwriter and fund-raiser. …  Around the same time, King began to criticize bureau practices in the South, accusing Hoover of failing to enforce civil rights law and of indulging the racist practices of Southern policemen.

This combination of events set Hoover and King on a collision course. In the fall of 1963, just after the March on Washington, the F.B.I. extended its surveillance from Levison and other associates to King himself, planting wiretaps in King’s home and offices and bugs in his hotel rooms.

…. F.B.I. officials began to peddle information about King’s hotel-room activities to friendly members of the press, hoping to discredit the civil rights leader. To their astonishment, the story went nowhere. … In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passed Congress, and just a few months later King became the youngest man ever to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

At this point Hoover decided to escalate his campaign. On Nov. 18, 1964 — 50 years ago this week — Hoover denounced King at a Washington news conference, labeling him the “the most notorious liar in the country.” A few days later, one of Hoover’s deputies, William Sullivan, apparently took it upon himself to write the anonymous letter and sent an agent to Miami, to mail the package to Atlanta. (emphasis added)

Read the complete article of Prof Beverly Gage 

Professor Gage concludes her article with reference to the  current F.B.I. director, James Comey, who “keeps a copy of the King wiretap request on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s capacity to do wrong.”

Professor Gage points to the

“possibility that agencies like the N.S.A. or the F.B.I. will use such information not to serve national security but to carry out personal and political vendettas. King’s experience reminds us that these are far from idle fears, conjured in the fevered minds of civil libertarians. They are based in the hard facts of history.”

Beverly Gage is a professor of American history at Yale.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Threatening Anonymous Letter Sent to Martin Luther King Jr. Four Years Prior to His Assassination. Was It From the FBI?

A troubling series of revelations about German failures to prevent Islamic State operations within the country raise questions about their ability and willingness to effectively combat terror. The string of intelligence fiascos in 2016 comes as documents from Wikileaks show that Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees had a policy of admitting migrants who were a known terror risk with the intention of recruiting them as informants over a decade and a half ago.

I. Germany failed to heed multiple warnings about Berlin truck attacker Anis Amri

In the aftermath of the recent December 2016 Berlin truck attack, reports have emerged that German intelligence received prior warnings about the likelihood that an incident was due to occur but failed to take action. On December 22nd, 2016, Moroccan World News revealed that Morocco had warned German intelligence officials in September 2016 that Berlin truck attacker Anis Amri had jihadist tendencies and was known to have sworn allegiance to the Islamic State. On October 11th, they gave German intelligence a second tip that Amri had been residing in Germany illegally for 14 months and that he was regularly meeting with two known members of ISIS who were described as “dangerous.” German officials do no appear to have acted on either tip from their Moroccan counterparts.

The article further explained that Spanish and French authorities have successfully dismantled terror cells based on information passed to them by Moroccan intelligence in the past. Why Germany failed to heed a tip from an intelligence source which had a proven track record of assisting anti-terror operations in other European states is unknown.

II. ISIS was able to successfully infiltrate German intelligence organizations in 2016

This series of failures to properly investigate Anis Amri and prevent the Berlin truck attack came on the heels of November 2016 reports that an intelligence officer working for Germany’s internal intelligence agency, the Bundesverfassungsschutz (BfV) was arrested for taking part in a plot to bomb the BfV’s headquarters in Cologne, Germany. This news was given little to no attention by U.S. media. See The Telegraph and The Sun

German news source Der Spiegel reported that the 51 year-old intelligence officer made a “partial confession” to his role in plotting the attack following his arrest.

These failures to properly respond to warnings about the Berlin truck attack and the infiltration of intelligence organizations by ISIS operatives seem to indicate either a troubling level of incompetence or complicity within German intelligence and anti-terror bureaus.

III. Wikileaks’ BND Inquiry Exhibit reveals German willingness to admit at risk migrants to use as informants

In Wikileaks’ recent BND-NSA Inquiry Exhibit, there is a cache of files from the Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) or Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. The document reveals criteria for tips that the BAMF was giving in the early 2000’s to German intelligence agencies looking to recruit informants from among refugee populations:

https://wikileaks.org/bnd-inquiry/docs/BAMF/MAT%20A%20BAMF-1a.pdf

The significant portions of this document are as follows:

On page 14:

We’re looking for accomplices or candidates involved in terrorist activities that have not yet become perpetrators

They were specifically looking for Taliban defectors from Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan as well as civilians born in Afghanistan and Egypt as well as a few other Middle Eastern countries.

On pages 15-16 they list tiers of individuals they are looking to recruit from:

Tier 1: Males with the following personal features: Aged 18-45, single, lower-middle-class to poor background, lived in refugee camps for a while, poor occupational and societal prospects, sketchy CV, Muslim belief, doesn’t support UMMA (collective community of Islamic peoples).

Tier 2: Individuals with knowledge about suspected terrorist organizations

Tier 3: Individuals that resided in or have knowledge about Al-Azher University, Cairo, or the El-Haramein Institute of Culture which is founded by Saudi Arabia and used to promote Wahabbism, the Islamic sect that most jihadist groups draw upon for their ideology.

This is highly alarming, because it proves that German intelligence has in the past been aware of the fact that there are individuals among the refugee population that have knowledge of terror organizations, are “defectors” from them or have been exposed to radical Islamic ideologies at certain educational institutions.

Why have they not simply been arresting these people and preventing them from 1) committing attacks and 2) radicalizing even more males from the refugee population? Does the BAMF continue to have a similar policy towards migrants today? A basic assumption is that German intelligence would not admit any migrants they felt they could not maintain control over. Given their string of failures to tackle extremists that confidence can no longer be extended to them.

The apparent willingness of German officials to admit at risk migrants is certainly very strange. Unless of course, one views it from the perspective that they might want “incidents” to occur as a result of neglecting to crack down on known and potential extremists.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Merkel Government Failed to Prevent ISIS Terror Operations in Germany, Intelligence Bodies Received Warnings and Failed to Act

China’s Challenge to the World Economic Order

January 17th, 2017 by Erik Hakans

Now well into the second decade of the 21st century, the world is witnessing the true extent of China’s economic, political, and growing military reach. This reach and integration into the globalized world has been gradual, incremental, and quiet over the past three decades. In the shadows, China has accelerated significantly in the past 10 years. What does this mean for the established global order? This paper is a roadmap looking to join the dots on that journey.

China has experienced unprecedented success in recent years in its opposition to the Western-dominated international economic order. These successes, from the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) to the rolling out of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative and the internationalization of the Renminbi (RMB) are all part of a grand strategy to achieve economic hegemony.

Our key takeaways are as follows:

  • The domestic economic realignment, very much misinterpreted and still an ongoing process, will assist the country in securing internal confidence to support external aspirations.
  • The BRICS block (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is moving towards veto power in the IMF starting in 2017. Coupled with China’s range of economic initiatives intertwined with their OBOR and globalization strategy and the coupling of China initiated financial mechanisms towards integration of regional economies, China sits in a prime position of influence, power and patronage.
  • The sweeping changes pursued by China today are intended to contribute to the rebalancing of world economic order. They essentially seek to challenge US hegemony and bring about a Eurasian century.
  • The RMB is being positioned to overtake the USD over the next few years as China works from within and without the existing world community to establish a new economic order that it sees as more equitable than the current US-dominated order. If they are prepared, investors do not need to fear this new order.

Introduction

2015 and 2016 have proven to be monumental years in China’s challenge to the global economic order. The approach taken by the sovereign differs dramatically from virtually all other post-communist economic system reform paths seen to date.

As the developing countries of the world have entered into an increasingly globalized market under the rules dictated by the post-Bretton Woods monetary institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and, increasingly, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), each has had to navigate a system composed of rules and regulations of which they had little say in the establishment and in which they enjoy limited influence at best. China stands out as arguably the most successful country at navigating this system, and its four decades of breakneck growth are evidence of this fact.

The Chinese system consists of a peculiar blend of state institutions with strong directional credit towards industry, a growing service sector composed of successful private companies, and Peoples Bank of China and other key banking institutions that remain fully state-owned. While China’s economy has liberalised in many areas, money supply, credit and bond issuance remain mostly a state affair. The Finance Ministry’s approach sheltered the country when hedge fund speculative attacks destabilized the Tiger economies in 1997, and then unexpectedly triggered a default on Russian sovereign bonds in 1998. It was the same type of crisis that previously provoked currency crises in the United Kingdom and Sweden against which the Chinese successfully defended themselves.

The United States is a key enabler of China’s unprecedented economic success, and yet also remains its greatest opponent as the Asian giant seeks to enter global markets. The rivalry is observed in US commentary on Chinese financial policy and currency valuation, what appear to be multiple ongoing ‘proxy’ energy conflicts in Africa and Washington’s outspoken resistance to Chinese participation in Bretton Woods institutions.

As always, China remains committed to a long-term strategy, and this strategy has brought the country critical successes in 2016, the significance of which are little understood outside the financial industry. Importantly, many of China’s successes within the framework of its globalization strategy are interconnected more than most realize. The choreographing of China’s strategy is culminating in what the government has termed the One Belt One Road initiative, comprising the land-based Silk Road and Belt (SREB) and the Maritime Silk Route. This initiative has tightly integrated China’s conceptual approach, whilst simultaneously underpinning the country’s all-important domestic economic realignment.

The SREB and its multiple nodes run through the continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, connecting Eurasia’s Pacific and Atlantic coastal rims via the establishment of economic trade corridors. At one end lies the developed European economic region, at the other the engine of global growth for the next half century – Asia. More specifically, the Silk Road Economic Belt focuses on economically integrating China, Central Asia, Russia and Europe (the Baltics) through trade, thus linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea through Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. In tandem with the SREB, the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road is designed to connect China to Europe with one lane passing through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, and the other from China’s coast through the South China Sea to the South Pacific.

Chinese President Xi Jinping first announced the SREB concept publicly during a September 2013 visit to Kazakhstan. In a speech delivered at Nazarbayev University, Xi suggested that China and Central Asia cooperate to build a Silk Road Economic Belt. This was the first time the Chinese leadership had shared publicly its strategic vision.

The Big Picture

China’s strategic concept has, as one might anticipate, evolved and mushroomed since its 2013 announcement. The foundations of the strategy, however, remain firm. The Silk Road initiative intends to enable not only the linkages discussed above, but also China’s overarching challenge to the contemporary world order. China has laid the groundwork to achieve this goal incrementally over the last two decades. The world is currently witnessing the galvanization and culmination of those plans. This report seeks to connect the dots that have appeared over the years and explain where this strategy is ultimately heading in regard to Beijing’s game plan for achieving economic hegemony.

The following milestones illustrate just how far China has already come in its plans:

  • 2001 – China granted WTO membership
  • 2002 – Beijing initiates Go West Program to develop its Western regions
  • 2009 – RMB internationalization begins.
  • 2010 – Offshore RMB markets open in Hong Kong.
  • 2012 – Chinese companies start using RMB for trade finance.
  • 2013 – Chinese RMB trade stands at 8% of global currency trading volumes. Over RMB 270 billion in bonds are issued (Dim Sum Bonds), with RMB bank deposits reaching over RMB 100 billion in Hong Kong.
  • 2015 – The initiation of the harmonization of the financial institutions of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
  • 2015 – An estimated one-third of all Chinese trade is settled in RMB. RMB became the third most traded currency in the world after EUR and USD.
  • 2017/18 – RMB to become a fully-convertible currency. Shanghai is on a clear path to becoming a truly global financial centre.

Contextualizing the path to growth – what petro-dollars’ dynamics finally meant for China

In order to comprehend China’s actions and aspirations related to the global economic system, it is important to understand the system as it currently stands, as well as how this system came into being and China’s role in the system.

China started to liberalize its economy in the 1970’s, coinciding with a crucial time in United States economic history. Much attention has been paid to the geostrategic reasons for the US engagement with China vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, but relatively few analysts acknowledge the role economic considerations played in the historical events of that period.

After the US defaulted on the gold exchange window established at the Bilderberg conference in 1971, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his team set their sights on a new petro-dollar standard. Conspiracy theories abound regarding the US government’s alleged role in orchestrating the oil supply shock of the 1970s and other catastrophes in order to strengthen the US dollar to support spending on the Vietnam War efforts. An examination of these theories falls beyond the scope of this paper. It is important to note, however, that, regardless of whether or not there is any truth to such claims, the US is widely held in non-American circles to have acted less than virtuously in creating and preserving the current economic order.

This is where China comes in. In order to realise its strategy, the US needed to increase the recycling capacity of the petro-dollar, and this required a much larger market. With the largest untapped pool of cheap labour on the planet, China was exactly what the Nixon administration was looking for. By moving low-skilled production from the US to China, multinational corporations could keep their domestic market filled with goods while greatly increasing margins and, consequently, profits.

The initial support and change by the communist regime was slow; however, Secretary of State Kissinger saw potential:

No doubt, in time, there will be profound changes in this vast social experiment, perhaps the most extensive one in human history, but there are no present indications to that effect.[1]

Kissinger’s observations could not have been more astute. The transformation of communist China from largely an agrarian economy to an autocratic capitalist state, while slow-moving at first, rapidly accelerated in the 1990’s. Small villages throughout the country transformed into megacities, and unprecedented achievements in geo-engineering, commerce and poverty reduction occurred at a rate that outside observers still struggle to grasp. However, this progress came at a cost. The export revenues from the United States came in the form of US Treasury Bonds. This remains the case today, meaning that China has exported its undervalued production in exchange for paper notes for almost four decades, while the majority of profits have remained abroad.

The build-up of Chinese foreign exchange reserves peaked in 2014 around the unprecedented USD 4 trillion mark.

Backed by an aggressive military posture, the United States’ petro-dollar standard has long given it what former French President Charles de Gaulle termed “the exorbitant privilege.”[2]The ability to recycle the Petro Dollar remains one of the top priorities of US foreign policy. Many of Washington’s most controversial foreign policy positions have been, many believe, in part motivated by an effort to preserve the USD’s world reserve currency status. Examples include US opposition to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s plan to trade oil in Euros, to Iraq’s establishing trade ties directly in Euros during the lifting of the failed Oil-for-Food program in the 1990’s, and to the attempt of Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya’s to establish the Gold Dinar in the African Union.

In an email made public by Wikileaks, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressly mentioned the Gold Dinar as the primary reason for invading Libya, as it had the potential to unleash strong economic development in the region. The fact that today’s Libya is a failed state drives home, in the minds of China’s leadership, the very real consequences of US realpolitik regarding the petro-dollar and the importance of China’s own financial reform strategy.

The great financial crisis, a Chinese policy reversal

It is true as it is funny. That deficits increase our money.

In understanding this there lies, the power of States to Stabilize.[3]

China suffers from the Triffin Dilemma, also known as the exorbitant privilege. One of the great ironies of exorbitant privilege is that it cannot be sustained without a permanent deficit economy. Deficits literally create money (credit) – an absolute necessity if it is the currency to be used for world trade. But a permanent deficit economy will eventually default, hyper-inflate, or both; there can be no other outcome long-term. In practice, exporting debt is the export of inflation. Once the flow of currency returns home, given the trade imbalances, the source nation has no choice but to monetize the debt or default.

The United States is no different in this regard, but this simple economic reality is poorly understood and even ignored among financial analysts. This ignorance works in the favour of policymakers, as easily accessible economic debates of such a stark reality in the public sphere could eventually spark a confidence crisis. Historical precedent shows that lack of confidence is often the ultimate tinder that induces debt default. The United States will do all in its power not to let go of its exorbitant privilege voluntarily.

The 2008 global financial crisis that started in the United States and quickly sent shook the entire world had been brewing long before the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, but then the world only became fully aware of it as equity markets collapsed and liquidity in the money markets evaporated.  China’s central bank felt pressured to respond to this alarming economic development.

In 2009, Xiaochuan Zhou, Governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) issued a statement now famous among central bankers, calling for “an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit based national currencies.”[4] The reserve currency Zhou referred to is the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Right (SDR).

Banking officials in China recognized that the country’s enormous domestic foreign exchange reserves faced the real risk of never being honoured. The exorbitant privilege conundrum was being laid bare, and China had to act. In order to counter this risk, Beijing has undertaken concerted efforts in multiple economic sectors to support the OBOR project and to challenge USD hegemony. These include:

  • Payment system reform
  • Multilateral development banks
  • Bilateral non-USD denominated trade agreements
  • Accumulation of gold reserves and the establishment of the Shanghai Gold Exchange
  • Positioning in the IMF and currency reform

The financial policies pursued by China, as with any country, may often differ substantially from predictions of the mainstream press. This is due, in part, to the independence of central banks which sometimes act in direct contradiction to leading government officials. The sweeping changes pursued by China today are intended to contribute to the rebalancing of world economic order. With this objective in mind, each of the five economic steps listed above aims to help bring about reforms in one of the organizations standing in the way of this global rebalancing, the IMF. They essentially seek to challenge US hegemony and bring about a Eurasian century.

A new payment system: China Unionpay & CIPS, a response to Russian sanctions

One of China’s recent accomplishments in its task of rebalancing the global economic order lies in the realm of payment system reform. In 2002, China Unionpay was established as an alternative to US-owned card payment networks such as Visa and MasterCard. Unionpay quickly grew to become the largest card payment scheme in the world, having surpassed Visa in number of issued cards in 2010. While relatively unheard of in the West until recently, the scheme has seen fast-growing acceptance worldwide, and the Unionpay logo is now seen on main street ATMs throughout the world. International coverage does not compare to the Visa/Master Card acceptance network at this stage, but this only means that there is further room for growth as banks adopt Unionpay and become network issuers within the network in their own right within their domestic markets.

Consumer payments are an important factor in payment networks but, for international banking, only one network reigns supreme. The Belgium based private network SWIFT is the spider in the web of international finance. International bank wires require a SWIFT identification number or BIC code.[5] The organization is so crucial to world finance, that sanctions issued by world government bodies like the UN are technically managed through SWIFT. The importance of this is nowhere more apparent than in the pressure the US and UK governments placed on the SWIFT organization to block Russia from using its network. Had SWIFT given into their pressure, the resulting financial crisis would have been devastating. Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that it would be akin to a declaration of war. In response to this incident, Russia began creating a domestic clearing system and a SWIFT alternative.[6]Additionally, Russia mandated domestic switching of Visa and MasterCard payments, coupled with a USD 3.8 billion security deposit as a requirement prerequisite for these two organizations’ continued operations in the Russian market.[7] Though not referred to as such, this was in practice a ransom to keep the payment networks in line  if they wished to continue to service the Russian domestic market, at least until their government’s domestic alternative was ready. Should Putin not have mandated the switch, the potential damage to Russian GDP could have been catastrophic.

Seeing what happened to Russia and understanding the possibility of such tactics being used against them at some time in the future, China’s leaders followed suit with the creation of the Cross Border Inter-bank Payments System (CIPS). CIPS is currently operational, and in 2015 it launched a trial with Russia.  Success of this network will allow China to sidestep one of the most powerful western tools to control international finance, SWIFT. CIPS and SWIFT signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 25t March 2016, with a goal of connecting CIPS to the international payments network while it is expanding.[8] As China remains the top trading partner for huge swaths of countries in the Asia-Pacific, the CIPS interbank network is aspiring to become a viable alternative for exchanging Chinese RMB in trade-related payments.

Countries with a “positive attitude towards Chinese business” are now being handsomely rewarded for their perspective. Lithuania, a small Baltic state with a population of less than 3 million, landed an agreement with China to become a hub for CIPS. It will act as a settlement centre between China and Europe. Lithuania, not famous for its international banking capabilities, obtained this reward due to the “flexible and broad attitude of Lithuanians, friendly bureaucrats and recommendations of Chinese companies investing in Klaipeda.”[9]

The importance of these above developments should not be understated. With this first phase completed, the second phase is for CIPS to be the operating window towards the Special Drawing Right issued by the IMF. The implications of this are simple – second phase completion will affect the reduction of dependency on the US economic domination with the diversification of clearing and thus trading mechanisms. At the risk of being overly simplistic it will deliver an insurance on bank clearing, an infrastructure China has not had until now. For an SDR reform to be effective in China, a customer eligible for SDR holdings is required in the form of multilateral banks.

China’s multilateral banks: AIIB and BRICS New Development Bank

On 12 March 2015, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the United Kingdom’s intention to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB).[10]The announcement was a complete surprise and in direct defiance to the US, which had been trying to kill the project from behind the scenes. This was, without question, a strategic victory for China, as UK membership provides substantial global influence. However, given the UK’s tradition to intermittently switch allies according to its self-interest in what the UK refers to as the “great game,” it should not be seen as extraordinary decision.

Despite the heavy-handed but doomed opposition by the US, the foundation was a success and, as of December 2016, 57 member nations have ratified the AOA to join the bank.[11]

The bank’s goal is to engage in “green” infrastructure and development projects, and it has not wasted any time in this regard. On 1 June 2016, the first project was approved in Indonesia, bringing the total to eight authorized projects thus far. An additional six projects are scheduled to be proposed to the board between now and next year.

As a multilateral organization, the AIIB enjoys certain aspects of immunity from nation states and operates internationally in the same manner as the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and others. Each of these forms part of a global network of supranational shareholder-based banking vehicles that hold a key stone in the next phase of global finance governance.

Some commentators propose that AIIB is a direct competitor to the IMF. However, the two organizations are actually very different. The IMF’s structure is towards payments of balance (currency support for countries running deficits), whereas AIIB runs on an infrastructure project basis.[12] There are, however, rumours from people in “the know” that the US was not even invited to participate in the AIIB as a founding member, but there is currently no way to validate this. However, if even partially true, this would imply a Machiavellian approach to the Chinese economic aspirations far beyond Beijing’s current stated goals.

The AIIB is a Chinese-led bank, and China currently holds 28.79% of the voting rights.[13] This percentage is by no means arbitrary. Voting in these types of institutions, including the IMF, is based on a simple or qualified majority, depending on the situation. Simple majority is required for most common decisions while for material votes, such as decisions regarding voting rights, capital allocation and the like, a qualified majority is required. To achieve this, 75% of all votes must be behind a proposal. With China holding 28%, it effectively holds a veto on any decision. This mirrors the position the US currently enjoys in the IMF. It is also noteworthy that 21% of the AIIB’s shares are held by non-regional members. Some of the more notable ones are the UK, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, France, Poland and Egypt.[14]

In addition to China’s AIIB, the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) founded the New Development Bank, which is a powerful alliance between countries representing five regions that, combined, reserve 40% of the world population and a third of the world’s landmass.[15] Launched in 2014, each founding BRICS member took a subscription of 100,000 shares totalling USD 10 billion, whereof 20% is allocated to capital. The difference in share allocation between these two banks is noteworthy. The BRICS Development Bank is built on equitable balance, a rare occurrence in these types of institutions. The organization has fallen into public obscurity as Brazil has entered into recession and the news has calmed significantly in regard to its formation and potential. This bank represents, however, a challenge to the existing world governance, which former US President George H.W. Bush famously referred to as the New World Order in 1991. The lending undertaken by NDB and AIIB is pursued without conditions. The IMF refers to the conditionality dictum as austerity. The purpose, though not stated as such, is to engage nations in unsustainable debt and recover proceeds through national assets. Greece is a good example to study for more recent evidence of this modus operandi

Together, these two banks are pushing for reform of the IMF in terms of operation procedures and voting rights. Chinas message to the world could not be any more evident.

China’s growing SWAP agreement infrastructure

While China has been actively reforming its payments and banking infrastructure, it has not been idle on Swap and trade agreements. Swap agreements hold significance for China. Since Xiaochuan Zhou’s speech in 2009, the RMB has taken several steps towards internationalization. Various moves included the first pilot scheme between Hong Kong and China for cross border trade settlement. In 2010, foreign financial companies were allowed to invest the RMB surplus into the affectionately named “Dim Sum Bonds.” These, along with other steps undertaken in recent years have led many observers to wonder, whether they will eventually lead to the exchange rate floating on a basket of currencies, liberalization of the equity investment market, and more.[16] The role of the CIPS payment system for the above liberalization of the economy is obvious.

Swap agreements are an ominous sign for the USD. In practice, they are quite straight-forward. PBOC and a foreign central bank, like the ECB, enter into an agreement to freely access up to a fixed amount of respective currency.

This is significant because world trade provides a balance of payment challenge. When a company exports goods for say USD 100,000 over one year, they end up with a large USD asset on their balance sheet. Some of it is required for continued operations such as buying raw materials, energy, or outside services. However, domestically, the USD holds little function for a company so they exchange it for local currency to service salaries and operating expenses. The surplus exchanged ends up on the central bank’s balance sheet. This is what is referred to as foreign exchange reserves. So why not simply use the foreign currency domestically?

Having foreign currency commonly traded or crowding out the domestic currency would provide a direct challenge to the central bank’s sovereign power. Countries that endure this process and become dollarized, essentially end up being modern day vassal states economically subservient to and reliant upon the benevolence of foreign banks. All dollarized countries suffer immensely from economic stagnation. The USD will never hold a place for common trade in everyday activities in China. This is why it always ends up as a reserve rather than domestically stimulating economic activity.

In world trade today, the majority of contracts are denominated in USD. This is true of oil, export agreements, supply agreements, commodities, and most other economic activity. Multinationals must have access to USD in order to buy the services and goods that they need, particularly oil. However, if there is a swap agreement in place, the need for pricing in USD is limited.

When Russia and China enter into a swap agreement, foreign exchange reserves at each Central bank increase with their respective currency. Two companies engaging in cross border business are no longer required to engage in trade denominated in USD as their respective central banks guarantee clearing of the payments at a set rate, thus making the trade more efficient. Essentially, it is like a credit card where instant funding is available for trade. Note that in this scenario the USD has no place. Swap agreements are in practice an effort to decrease the USD global recycling capacity and increase the internationalization of the RMB.

The efforts have been successful. The following chart from Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco shows the growth of the swap agreement network. [17]

Regional to International …

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is the South East Asian version of what most western media knows as the TPP, a free trade agreement that encompasses the world’s largest population. Though not complete at this stage, it essentially mirrors the western alternatives that provide supranational support to corporations and puts trade ahead of national borders. All current trade agreements are about transferring power to global multinationals. The efforts are led by the G20 block. Since the deal is still in progress and negotiations continue to be secret, it is better not to explore this agreement in depth.

China’s gold: pet rock or global strategy?

In 2015, the Wall Street Journal famously declared “Let’s get real about gold: It’s a pet rock.”[18]

There is no asset hated more in mainstream media today than gold and silver, also known as the precious metals. Several assassination pieces on the metal have emanated from the leading financial press over the past few years. As always, when media make concerted and collaborative efforts to promote or discredit certain events, be it fake news, the red scare, or the threat of terrorism, there is another motivating factor in the background. This is particularly true about investing. Nobody needs a crowded trade when there is a bargain in the making.

During a testimony with the Bank and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives, J. P. Morgan responded to the following question:

Q. But the basis of banking is credit, is it not?

A. Not always. That is an evidence of banking, but it is not the money itself.

Money is gold, and nothing else.[19]

There is no debate among central bankers whether gold is money or not. Gold always has been and always will be money in its purest form. It does not degrade, is sufficiently scarce, universally accepted, and is easily divisible into practical units. The foremost quality however is that it bears no counterparty risk. In financial speak, it is unencumbered. This quality ensures it will remain the ultimate insurance for wealth preservation. As such, there is not a reputable central bank in the world that does not hold the asset on its balance sheet with one notable exception – Canada.

According to the World Gold Council, China’s official reserves as of December 2016 sit at 1,842.6 metric tonnes. It is well established that this does not reflect China’s true gold holdings. The statistics for Chinese gold reserves did not update monthly until June 2016. After the great financial crisis, China’s gold holdings suddenly surged and then remained unchanged until mid-2016.[20]

Determining the true size of China’s gold wealth is speculative in nature. Jim Rickards, in his book the New Case for Gold, estimates China’s true gold holdings in the region of 4,000 metric tonnes. This is based on import statistics from Hong Kong, Chinese mine production, and similar sources. This would set China as the world’s second biggest gold holder after the United States with 8,100 metric tonnes. Bullionstar, a Singaporean bullion dealer, frequently posts research on China and its gold holdings. They estimate that the size of the Chinese gold market (not PBOC holdings) is in the region of 16,000 tonnes.[21]

However, more speculative reports suggest the true holdings to be in the region of 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes. Whatever the real number is, it is no secret that China is importing as much gold it can get a hold of while also becoming the world’s biggest gold producer. Chinese state media is encouraging gold ownership among the populace as a method to secure wealth.

The Shanghai Gold Exchange started actively trading in 2016. It has one seemingly technical detail that sets it apart from its London and New York counterparties. In order to trade on the Shanghai Gold Exchange, you need to deliver physical gold to the marketplace. This means that in order to have price discovery, you have to first acquire gold, deposit it in Shanghai, and participate. LBMA and Comex are highly leveraged paper markets where over 90% of all trades are settled in cash. The derivative contracts give the option of settling in physical trades of gold, but this rarely take place. Just like a bank, paper markets can easily suffer a run on the exchange in the same manner as the peculiar Camel market crash (Souk Al-Manakh Stock Market) in Kuwait.

With the exchanges working so differently, we should expect a divergence of pricing, also known as arbitrage. As supply is scarce in the Shanghai market compared to the paper counterparties, the price should be higher in Shanghai. If the arbitrage grows too wide, opportunists will invest on the trade, withdraw gold from Comex and LBMA, turn around and sell it on the Shanghai exchange. This would be a serious threat to western power of gold pricing. For this to happen, the arbitrage is required to be sufficiently high to cover for the actual movement of the metal.

Seeking Alpha, an established finance blog, published a piece displaying the arbitrage opportunity. It showed that on the 1st of December 2016, the Shanghai gold was trading USD 37.50 higher than London.[22]

China’s tango with the IMF

The RMB’s position as the third-most used currency and its subsequent inclusion in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) has shifted the balance within the existing framework, which had been in place essentially since the end of World War II. John Meynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White were the authors of the famous Bretton Woods agreement, named after the luxury hotel where the agreement was signed. Ironically, the Soviet Union never participated in the new USD Gold Standard despite being part of the negotiations. The agreement marked the terminal end of the “as good as sterling” era and provided the building blocks for the ascendance of the USA’s hegemonic period.

Keynes had envisioned a one-world currency called the Unitas but he lived before its time. Instead, the compromise of the technocratically named Special Drawing Rights (SDR) was spawned in the IMF. The SDR is a basket flat currency, synthetic in nature and issued by the IMF. The last issuance of the SDR, or world money, was in relation to the financial crisis of 2008. The SDR is not accessible to the average person, but can be mimicked by buying a composition of the currencies in the basket.

On 1 October 2016, China became a member in the global SDR currency basket. This demarks a pivotal achievement by the nation state. A few weeks later, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, entered a provision in the US budget bill on increased voting rights for China in the IMF. Outside of financial circles, the news was generally met with a yawn.

The weighting of SDR currencies prior to the inclusion of the Renminbi was as follows:

  • USD – 41.9%
  • EUR – 37.4%
  • GBP – 11.3%
  • YEN – 9.4%

And after 1 October 2016, it became:

  • USD – 41.73%
  • EUR – 30.93%
  • RMB – 10.92%
  • YEN – 8.33%
  • GBP – 8.09%[23]

The RMB is now the third-largest currency in the SDR currency basket, a pivotal achievement as envisioned by Xiaochuan Zhou in 2009. Technically, the RMB does not qualify for SDR inclusion, as it is not yet a world reserve currency, so the inclusion was clearly political. The wide sweeping reforms planned for the global economy cannot be implemented without the support of the world’s biggest export economy, China.

A qualified majority in the IMF requires support from 85% of IMF members. The United states currently hold 16.54% of voting rights and effectively a veto in the organization.

As of the 20th of December 2016, the BRICS nations hold respectively:

  • Brazil – 2.23%
  • Russia – 2.60%
  • India – 2.64%
  • China – 6.09%
  • South Africa – 0.64%

The total voting rights of the economic block represent 14.2%. Worded differently, they only need 0.8% in increased voting power in the next voting reform in order to establish a veto power as an economic block. That change is closer than most realize.[24]

The final communiqué from the 2016, the G20 summit in Hangzhou, China states:

We welcome the entry into effect of the 2010 IMF quota and governance reform and are working towards the completion of the 15th General Review of Quotas, including a new quota formula, by the 2017 Annual Meetings. We reaffirm that any realignment under the 15th review in quota shares is expected to result in increased shares for dynamic economies in line with their relative positions in the world economy, and hence likely in the share of emerging market and developing countries as a whole.[25]

An IMF technical paper, it further states:

Board of Governors Resolution 66-2 states that “Any realignment under the 15th review is expected to result in increases in the quota shares of the dynamic economies in line with their relative positions in the world economy, and hence likely in the share of emerging market and developing countries as a whole.”[26]

In other words, the BRICS bloc is moving towards veto power in the IMF in 2017.

The SDR inclusion of the Renminbi coupled with the BRICS voting block veto will structure a world order wherein which the United States must seek common ground with other trading blocs in order to enact or oppose policy.

Coupled with China’s range of economic initiatives intertwined with their OBOR and globalization strategy and the coupling of China initiated financial mechanisms to integration of regional economies, then China sits in a prime position of influence, power and patronage.

Welcome to the new world order, and China is driving

“Equitable” will be the cornerstone word guiding where world finance will travel in the next two years. The Economist boldly predicted a one world currency by 2018 in its iconic cover from 1988, “Phoenix rising.” Their penchant for mythology implies that a world financial crash, or reset, will spawn a one-world currency. Although some time off, it is difficult to imagine a new world economic order where Russia and China would not have equitable balance.

A global monetary reset is inevitably on the table; however, this paper is focused on identification of the complex shifts taking place leading to such an event, not the event itself. Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, spoke about this at length in one of her Bloomberg interviews from the World Economic Forum in Davos.[27] Lagarde talks about the option of a ‘structured reset,’ not one forced by macroeconomic activity. However, resets are panic-based and responsive; reforms do not hold popular support.

It is evident in both action and public statements that Russia and China are moving together towards displacing the USD as the world’s reserve currency and ending the latter’s exorbitant privilege. If the recycling of the petrodollar is finally greatly reduced, a dramatic and painful adjustment must take place in the US economy. An end to the petrodollar would mean increased inflation in the United States as trade could no longer be sustained by the endless demand for USD treasury notes. Reduced deficit spending and higher confiscation of personal wealth remain the only two options. It is a bleak future for the US consumer and corporations. The interim period as the US fights its corner is also a difficult period for developing and emerging markets. The shelves are bare of alternatives, but that is changing; new stock is arriving.

The military approach previously used by the United States to ensure USD dominance in world trade may prove costly. The China-Russia power block is simply too formidable of an enemy to secure a victory within the bounds of acceptable losses. However, it is certain that the United States will not relinquish its reserve currency power status voluntarily. Their hand will have to be forced. Consequently, we expect increased instances of staged crisis events such as the private funded democracy store fronts used to destabilize BRICS governments. We also expect agitation and multiple provocations on various fronts for China, similar to the umbrella movement in Hong Kong, the Maidan square coup in Ukraine, and recent political turmoil in South Africa. The struggle for world power is only warming up.

Lateral thinking: an abbreviated analysis of what is likely to transpire, or challenging conformity

The primary option for China and the G20 countries is a global bank regulatory framework organized around regulation from Bank of International Settlements (BIS), worldwide taxation governed by the OECD organization and the BEPS project. The game plan for the next financial crisis is the ‘Bail in plan and Stay powers’ outlined in detail in the Geneva report, the ‘Financial Stability Board’ and other world government bodies already in late stage of completion among the G20 participants. The resolution mechanism, activated on multiple occasions in Europe, will be a sombre awakening for the average saver as their pensions and savings are ‘utilized’ by the worldwide banking system.

If the SDR is to become the mechanism for a one-world currency then drastic reform would then need to be undertaken in the IMF. For now, the United States has veto power and can refuse or only accept a compromise where they retain ultimate control of the organization. Should this happen, the SDR reform will fail. Even with a US concession, the lack of an anchor (i.e. gold) in the SDR may not restore confidence in world finance in the next global reset. Should the reform be successful, the USD will be relegated to a trade currency among others, forcing a new world order with balanced trade deficits compared to runaway spending as it stands today. US President-elect Trump’s emerging confrontational strategy and position with China on trade may be the first volley in the salvo that is to come. No pun intended, but American protectionism and aggressiveness towards the looming hegemonic challenge may ‘trump’ global stability.

The consequences could be dire beyond the remit of this paper. Nevertheless, China will respond with typically Chinese characteristics. It is imperative to look at these Chinese actions through the prism of Chinese, not Western, lenses.

Trump’s canning of the TTP presents China with additional opportunities in the short-term, but it is all really about timing, the real question is how much of an opportunity does it present and how they execute that opportunity. Within the 19th Party Congress there exists the opportunity to pursue with vigour the outstanding pieces of the domestic economic realignment puzzle in China. The events of the past four years in China since Xi’s ascendency are significantly misunderstood, and massively over simplified by the West. The end game is unquestionably one of control, but the motivation for that control is perhaps what is most misunderstood in the bigger scheme of things. Like a cancer patient the country is riddled with it, but this cancer is corruption, to attain the goal of sustainability the procedures for eradication were severe, and the treatment has yet to conclude. But, it is beyond merely surviving, it is about resurgence after survival. It is about taking up your rightful place before the cancer took hold. Everything happens for a reason. With the Chinese, everything happens for multiple aligned reasons, they do not act on a singular impulsive or reactionary motive, and it is strategic thinking at its best.

What if the interconnectivity of the Chinese strategic thinking is so aligned that even events such as the massive structural reforms in the energy sector and the banking sector, which will unforgivingly kick in in 2017 are actually tied to the abovementioned milestones and mechanisms to attain their global economic positioning? How do they do this? More importantly, what is the relevance to events in the coming few months pertaining to global economic positioning and posturing? Of course they are interconnected. Their responses to US reactions to BRIC ascendency to veto position within the IMF are also interconnected.

There are several tools at China’s disposal should the US stall IMF reforms or a deal is struck that does not meet the Chinese / Russian standards of equitable reform. What if China can announce a gold denominated short-term trade bond used for world trade? This move would shock world economic markets, but can only be successful if the supply (liquidity) of the instruments is on such a scale to support world trade. For this, you need a mechanism to control the world gold price. Enter the Shanghai Gold Exchange. It will be a rudimentary process for China to increase the price of gold as to cause an arbitrage run and eventual default of the western paper gold markets. In such a crisis, the price of gold will run away and anyone not prepared will see the value of his or her paper holdings devalue in a rapid fashion.

What if China and Russia make a surprise announcement of rapidly increased gold reserves to cement confidence in their national currencies? They can also propose a new IMF structure based on the New Development Bank, built on an equitable foundation, as the worldwide solution to monetary order. Of the world’s top gold producers, BRICS represent:

  • Brazil – Number 11
  • Russia – Number 3
  • India – Not a significant amount
  • China – Number 1
  • South Africa – Number 6

With rapid inclusion of key member states, the New Development Bank can become a credible alternative to world financial order or a parallel financial system to the traditional western one.

As pointed out above, Gold always has been and always will be money. For the unprepared and distracted by political theatre, this lesson will be detrimental as we progress towards a global economic order.

Summary

This paper has been written as a roadmap for the uninitiated to what China is planning for its place in the world order. As such, the financial history of China and events leading up to today have been heavily abbreviated. The New World Order is unquestionably in play, but the rules of the game are not being dictated by the writers of the last episode in history. The new contenders in the ‘Great Game’ are defining their own rules. This paper has sought to connect the dots to deliver a narrative of what we see developing. The dots, thus connected, are loosely:

  • 2001 – China granted WTO membership
  • 2002 – Go West Program initiated in China
  • 2009 – RMB Internationalization begins
  • 2010 – Offshore markets start in Hong Kong
  • 2012 – Chinese companies start using RMB for trade finance
  • 2013 – Chinese RMB trade stands at 8% of currency trade. Over CNY 270 billion in bonds are issued (Dim Sum Bonds), RMB bank deposits reach RMB 100 billion in Hong Kong.
  • 2015 – The initiation of the harmonization of the financial institutions of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
  • 2015 – Estimated that 1/3 of all Chinese trade settled in RMB. The RMB became the third most traded currency in the world after Euro and Dollar
  • 2017/18 – RMB to become full convertible currency Shanghai on a clear path to becoming a truly global financial centre

The critical dots to add:

  • IMF – Inclusion of the SDR / Voting rights
  • Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (read Eurasia or Globalisation strategy under the auspices of OBOR)
  • Full convertibility of the RMB
  • Gold – Shanghai Gold Exchange

The timing of the convertibility of the RMB will tell its own tale. The release of so much RMB on the world investment market will be a critical game changer, but where will this unrivalled level of surplus money migrate to? Again, it is all about the timing, as the Silk Road and Belt takes hold and embeds that timing will be critical to attract second level investment to the program, no doubt the Chinese government will encourage a ‘close to home’ approach and support the ‘motherland’ approach, the delay in full convertibility may actually be more orchestrated than first thought.

The end goal of China’s economic policy is increasingly evident. It seeks not to dominate the current petro dollar reserve currency system, but rather have an influential position in the next monetary world order. All the above described efforts are conscious policy to be ready for the next phase in world economic globalization. If China stays on track with its focus on equitable common goal of building the world economy, we may not need to fear China’s new economic order. Perhaps how the United States reacts to this challenge is where the fear should be directed.

Notes

[1]https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1973PEKING00848_b.html, August 1973, Proposal for exchange of exhibitions with PRC in 1976. 

[2]  Currency internationalisation: Analytical and policy issues, Hans Genberg. BIS paper No. 61.

[3] Boulding Kenneth. 1950, A reconstruction of economics.

[4] Bank of International Settlements, Working Paper, No 444, March 2014.

[5] SWIFT is not the only clearing network. Fedwire routes all USD denominated transactions in cooperation with SWIFT and UK has CHAPS .

[6] http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/14/china-carefully-moving-to-displace-dollar/

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/russia-security-deposit-visa-mastercard-sanctions-ukraine

[8] https://www.swift.com/insights/press-releases/swift-and-cips-co_sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-cross-border-interbank-payment-system-cooperation

[9] http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/good_for_business/?doc=124793

[10] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-plans-to-join-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank

[11] http://www.aiib.org/html/aboutus/introduction/Membership/?show=0

[12] Author’s conversations with the Swedish Finance department re: AIIB further confirms this position.

[13] Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Subscriptions and Voting Power of Member Countries, 22 September 2016.

[14] IBID.

[15] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1011813.shtml

[16] http://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/the-rise-and-role-of-the-renminbi-as-an-international-reserve-currency

[17] http://www.frbsf.org/banking/asia-program/pacific-exchange-blog/banking-on-china-renminbi-currency-swap-agreements/

[18] http://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-get-real-about-gold-its-a-pet-rock-1437174733

[19] J. P. Morgan’s testimony, The justification of Wall Street. 18th December 1912

[20] Graphics: www.tradingeconomics.com

[21] https://www.bullionstar.com/

[22] http://seekingalpha.com/article/4028130-gold-price-discovery-shifting-physical-shanghai-gold-exchange-prices-diverge-vs-lbma

[23] IMF Annual report 2016, P15.

[24] https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

[25] http://www.g20.org/English/Dynamic/201609/t20160906_3396.html

[26] https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2016/080916.pdf

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on China’s Challenge to the World Economic Order

China’s Challenge to the World Economic Order

January 17th, 2017 by Erik Hakans

Now well into the second decade of the 21st century, the world is witnessing the true extent of China’s economic, political, and growing military reach. This reach and integration into the globalized world has been gradual, incremental, and quiet over the past three decades. In the shadows, China has accelerated significantly in the past 10 years. What does this mean for the established global order? This paper is a roadmap looking to join the dots on that journey.

China has experienced unprecedented success in recent years in its opposition to the Western-dominated international economic order. These successes, from the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB) to the rolling out of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative and the internationalization of the Renminbi (RMB) are all part of a grand strategy to achieve economic hegemony.

Our key takeaways are as follows:

  • The domestic economic realignment, very much misinterpreted and still an ongoing process, will assist the country in securing internal confidence to support external aspirations.
  • The BRICS block (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is moving towards veto power in the IMF starting in 2017. Coupled with China’s range of economic initiatives intertwined with their OBOR and globalization strategy and the coupling of China initiated financial mechanisms towards integration of regional economies, China sits in a prime position of influence, power and patronage.
  • The sweeping changes pursued by China today are intended to contribute to the rebalancing of world economic order. They essentially seek to challenge US hegemony and bring about a Eurasian century.
  • The RMB is being positioned to overtake the USD over the next few years as China works from within and without the existing world community to establish a new economic order that it sees as more equitable than the current US-dominated order. If they are prepared, investors do not need to fear this new order.

Introduction

2015 and 2016 have proven to be monumental years in China’s challenge to the global economic order. The approach taken by the sovereign differs dramatically from virtually all other post-communist economic system reform paths seen to date.

As the developing countries of the world have entered into an increasingly globalized market under the rules dictated by the post-Bretton Woods monetary institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and, increasingly, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), each has had to navigate a system composed of rules and regulations of which they had little say in the establishment and in which they enjoy limited influence at best. China stands out as arguably the most successful country at navigating this system, and its four decades of breakneck growth are evidence of this fact.

The Chinese system consists of a peculiar blend of state institutions with strong directional credit towards industry, a growing service sector composed of successful private companies, and Peoples Bank of China and other key banking institutions that remain fully state-owned. While China’s economy has liberalised in many areas, money supply, credit and bond issuance remain mostly a state affair. The Finance Ministry’s approach sheltered the country when hedge fund speculative attacks destabilized the Tiger economies in 1997, and then unexpectedly triggered a default on Russian sovereign bonds in 1998. It was the same type of crisis that previously provoked currency crises in the United Kingdom and Sweden against which the Chinese successfully defended themselves.

The United States is a key enabler of China’s unprecedented economic success, and yet also remains its greatest opponent as the Asian giant seeks to enter global markets. The rivalry is observed in US commentary on Chinese financial policy and currency valuation, what appear to be multiple ongoing ‘proxy’ energy conflicts in Africa and Washington’s outspoken resistance to Chinese participation in Bretton Woods institutions.

As always, China remains committed to a long-term strategy, and this strategy has brought the country critical successes in 2016, the significance of which are little understood outside the financial industry. Importantly, many of China’s successes within the framework of its globalization strategy are interconnected more than most realize. The choreographing of China’s strategy is culminating in what the government has termed the One Belt One Road initiative, comprising the land-based Silk Road and Belt (SREB) and the Maritime Silk Route. This initiative has tightly integrated China’s conceptual approach, whilst simultaneously underpinning the country’s all-important domestic economic realignment.

The SREB and its multiple nodes run through the continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, connecting Eurasia’s Pacific and Atlantic coastal rims via the establishment of economic trade corridors. At one end lies the developed European economic region, at the other the engine of global growth for the next half century – Asia. More specifically, the Silk Road Economic Belt focuses on economically integrating China, Central Asia, Russia and Europe (the Baltics) through trade, thus linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea through Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. In tandem with the SREB, the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road is designed to connect China to Europe with one lane passing through the South China Sea and Indian Ocean, and the other from China’s coast through the South China Sea to the South Pacific.

Chinese President Xi Jinping first announced the SREB concept publicly during a September 2013 visit to Kazakhstan. In a speech delivered at Nazarbayev University, Xi suggested that China and Central Asia cooperate to build a Silk Road Economic Belt. This was the first time the Chinese leadership had shared publicly its strategic vision.

The Big Picture

China’s strategic concept has, as one might anticipate, evolved and mushroomed since its 2013 announcement. The foundations of the strategy, however, remain firm. The Silk Road initiative intends to enable not only the linkages discussed above, but also China’s overarching challenge to the contemporary world order. China has laid the groundwork to achieve this goal incrementally over the last two decades. The world is currently witnessing the galvanization and culmination of those plans. This report seeks to connect the dots that have appeared over the years and explain where this strategy is ultimately heading in regard to Beijing’s game plan for achieving economic hegemony.

The following milestones illustrate just how far China has already come in its plans:

  • 2001 – China granted WTO membership
  • 2002 – Beijing initiates Go West Program to develop its Western regions
  • 2009 – RMB internationalization begins.
  • 2010 – Offshore RMB markets open in Hong Kong.
  • 2012 – Chinese companies start using RMB for trade finance.
  • 2013 – Chinese RMB trade stands at 8% of global currency trading volumes. Over RMB 270 billion in bonds are issued (Dim Sum Bonds), with RMB bank deposits reaching over RMB 100 billion in Hong Kong.
  • 2015 – The initiation of the harmonization of the financial institutions of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
  • 2015 – An estimated one-third of all Chinese trade is settled in RMB. RMB became the third most traded currency in the world after EUR and USD.
  • 2017/18 – RMB to become a fully-convertible currency. Shanghai is on a clear path to becoming a truly global financial centre.

Contextualizing the path to growth – what petro-dollars’ dynamics finally meant for China

In order to comprehend China’s actions and aspirations related to the global economic system, it is important to understand the system as it currently stands, as well as how this system came into being and China’s role in the system.

China started to liberalize its economy in the 1970’s, coinciding with a crucial time in United States economic history. Much attention has been paid to the geostrategic reasons for the US engagement with China vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, but relatively few analysts acknowledge the role economic considerations played in the historical events of that period.

After the US defaulted on the gold exchange window established at the Bilderberg conference in 1971, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his team set their sights on a new petro-dollar standard. Conspiracy theories abound regarding the US government’s alleged role in orchestrating the oil supply shock of the 1970s and other catastrophes in order to strengthen the US dollar to support spending on the Vietnam War efforts. An examination of these theories falls beyond the scope of this paper. It is important to note, however, that, regardless of whether or not there is any truth to such claims, the US is widely held in non-American circles to have acted less than virtuously in creating and preserving the current economic order.

This is where China comes in. In order to realise its strategy, the US needed to increase the recycling capacity of the petro-dollar, and this required a much larger market. With the largest untapped pool of cheap labour on the planet, China was exactly what the Nixon administration was looking for. By moving low-skilled production from the US to China, multinational corporations could keep their domestic market filled with goods while greatly increasing margins and, consequently, profits.

The initial support and change by the communist regime was slow; however, Secretary of State Kissinger saw potential:

No doubt, in time, there will be profound changes in this vast social experiment, perhaps the most extensive one in human history, but there are no present indications to that effect.[1]

Kissinger’s observations could not have been more astute. The transformation of communist China from largely an agrarian economy to an autocratic capitalist state, while slow-moving at first, rapidly accelerated in the 1990’s. Small villages throughout the country transformed into megacities, and unprecedented achievements in geo-engineering, commerce and poverty reduction occurred at a rate that outside observers still struggle to grasp. However, this progress came at a cost. The export revenues from the United States came in the form of US Treasury Bonds. This remains the case today, meaning that China has exported its undervalued production in exchange for paper notes for almost four decades, while the majority of profits have remained abroad.

The build-up of Chinese foreign exchange reserves peaked in 2014 around the unprecedented USD 4 trillion mark.

Backed by an aggressive military posture, the United States’ petro-dollar standard has long given it what former French President Charles de Gaulle termed “the exorbitant privilege.”[2]The ability to recycle the Petro Dollar remains one of the top priorities of US foreign policy. Many of Washington’s most controversial foreign policy positions have been, many believe, in part motivated by an effort to preserve the USD’s world reserve currency status. Examples include US opposition to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s plan to trade oil in Euros, to Iraq’s establishing trade ties directly in Euros during the lifting of the failed Oil-for-Food program in the 1990’s, and to the attempt of Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya’s to establish the Gold Dinar in the African Union.

In an email made public by Wikileaks, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressly mentioned the Gold Dinar as the primary reason for invading Libya, as it had the potential to unleash strong economic development in the region. The fact that today’s Libya is a failed state drives home, in the minds of China’s leadership, the very real consequences of US realpolitik regarding the petro-dollar and the importance of China’s own financial reform strategy.

The great financial crisis, a Chinese policy reversal

It is true as it is funny. That deficits increase our money.

In understanding this there lies, the power of States to Stabilize.[3]

China suffers from the Triffin Dilemma, also known as the exorbitant privilege. One of the great ironies of exorbitant privilege is that it cannot be sustained without a permanent deficit economy. Deficits literally create money (credit) – an absolute necessity if it is the currency to be used for world trade. But a permanent deficit economy will eventually default, hyper-inflate, or both; there can be no other outcome long-term. In practice, exporting debt is the export of inflation. Once the flow of currency returns home, given the trade imbalances, the source nation has no choice but to monetize the debt or default.

The United States is no different in this regard, but this simple economic reality is poorly understood and even ignored among financial analysts. This ignorance works in the favour of policymakers, as easily accessible economic debates of such a stark reality in the public sphere could eventually spark a confidence crisis. Historical precedent shows that lack of confidence is often the ultimate tinder that induces debt default. The United States will do all in its power not to let go of its exorbitant privilege voluntarily.

The 2008 global financial crisis that started in the United States and quickly sent shook the entire world had been brewing long before the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, but then the world only became fully aware of it as equity markets collapsed and liquidity in the money markets evaporated.  China’s central bank felt pressured to respond to this alarming economic development.

In 2009, Xiaochuan Zhou, Governor of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) issued a statement now famous among central bankers, calling for “an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit based national currencies.”[4] The reserve currency Zhou referred to is the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Right (SDR).

Banking officials in China recognized that the country’s enormous domestic foreign exchange reserves faced the real risk of never being honoured. The exorbitant privilege conundrum was being laid bare, and China had to act. In order to counter this risk, Beijing has undertaken concerted efforts in multiple economic sectors to support the OBOR project and to challenge USD hegemony. These include:

  • Payment system reform
  • Multilateral development banks
  • Bilateral non-USD denominated trade agreements
  • Accumulation of gold reserves and the establishment of the Shanghai Gold Exchange
  • Positioning in the IMF and currency reform

The financial policies pursued by China, as with any country, may often differ substantially from predictions of the mainstream press. This is due, in part, to the independence of central banks which sometimes act in direct contradiction to leading government officials. The sweeping changes pursued by China today are intended to contribute to the rebalancing of world economic order. With this objective in mind, each of the five economic steps listed above aims to help bring about reforms in one of the organizations standing in the way of this global rebalancing, the IMF. They essentially seek to challenge US hegemony and bring about a Eurasian century.

A new payment system: China Unionpay & CIPS, a response to Russian sanctions

One of China’s recent accomplishments in its task of rebalancing the global economic order lies in the realm of payment system reform. In 2002, China Unionpay was established as an alternative to US-owned card payment networks such as Visa and MasterCard. Unionpay quickly grew to become the largest card payment scheme in the world, having surpassed Visa in number of issued cards in 2010. While relatively unheard of in the West until recently, the scheme has seen fast-growing acceptance worldwide, and the Unionpay logo is now seen on main street ATMs throughout the world. International coverage does not compare to the Visa/Master Card acceptance network at this stage, but this only means that there is further room for growth as banks adopt Unionpay and become network issuers within the network in their own right within their domestic markets.

Consumer payments are an important factor in payment networks but, for international banking, only one network reigns supreme. The Belgium based private network SWIFT is the spider in the web of international finance. International bank wires require a SWIFT identification number or BIC code.[5] The organization is so crucial to world finance, that sanctions issued by world government bodies like the UN are technically managed through SWIFT. The importance of this is nowhere more apparent than in the pressure the US and UK governments placed on the SWIFT organization to block Russia from using its network. Had SWIFT given into their pressure, the resulting financial crisis would have been devastating. Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that it would be akin to a declaration of war. In response to this incident, Russia began creating a domestic clearing system and a SWIFT alternative.[6]Additionally, Russia mandated domestic switching of Visa and MasterCard payments, coupled with a USD 3.8 billion security deposit as a requirement prerequisite for these two organizations’ continued operations in the Russian market.[7] Though not referred to as such, this was in practice a ransom to keep the payment networks in line  if they wished to continue to service the Russian domestic market, at least until their government’s domestic alternative was ready. Should Putin not have mandated the switch, the potential damage to Russian GDP could have been catastrophic.

Seeing what happened to Russia and understanding the possibility of such tactics being used against them at some time in the future, China’s leaders followed suit with the creation of the Cross Border Inter-bank Payments System (CIPS). CIPS is currently operational, and in 2015 it launched a trial with Russia.  Success of this network will allow China to sidestep one of the most powerful western tools to control international finance, SWIFT. CIPS and SWIFT signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 25t March 2016, with a goal of connecting CIPS to the international payments network while it is expanding.[8] As China remains the top trading partner for huge swaths of countries in the Asia-Pacific, the CIPS interbank network is aspiring to become a viable alternative for exchanging Chinese RMB in trade-related payments.

Countries with a “positive attitude towards Chinese business” are now being handsomely rewarded for their perspective. Lithuania, a small Baltic state with a population of less than 3 million, landed an agreement with China to become a hub for CIPS. It will act as a settlement centre between China and Europe. Lithuania, not famous for its international banking capabilities, obtained this reward due to the “flexible and broad attitude of Lithuanians, friendly bureaucrats and recommendations of Chinese companies investing in Klaipeda.”[9]

The importance of these above developments should not be understated. With this first phase completed, the second phase is for CIPS to be the operating window towards the Special Drawing Right issued by the IMF. The implications of this are simple – second phase completion will affect the reduction of dependency on the US economic domination with the diversification of clearing and thus trading mechanisms. At the risk of being overly simplistic it will deliver an insurance on bank clearing, an infrastructure China has not had until now. For an SDR reform to be effective in China, a customer eligible for SDR holdings is required in the form of multilateral banks.

China’s multilateral banks: AIIB and BRICS New Development Bank

On 12 March 2015, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the United Kingdom’s intention to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB).[10]The announcement was a complete surprise and in direct defiance to the US, which had been trying to kill the project from behind the scenes. This was, without question, a strategic victory for China, as UK membership provides substantial global influence. However, given the UK’s tradition to intermittently switch allies according to its self-interest in what the UK refers to as the “great game,” it should not be seen as extraordinary decision.

Despite the heavy-handed but doomed opposition by the US, the foundation was a success and, as of December 2016, 57 member nations have ratified the AOA to join the bank.[11]

The bank’s goal is to engage in “green” infrastructure and development projects, and it has not wasted any time in this regard. On 1 June 2016, the first project was approved in Indonesia, bringing the total to eight authorized projects thus far. An additional six projects are scheduled to be proposed to the board between now and next year.

As a multilateral organization, the AIIB enjoys certain aspects of immunity from nation states and operates internationally in the same manner as the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and others. Each of these forms part of a global network of supranational shareholder-based banking vehicles that hold a key stone in the next phase of global finance governance.

Some commentators propose that AIIB is a direct competitor to the IMF. However, the two organizations are actually very different. The IMF’s structure is towards payments of balance (currency support for countries running deficits), whereas AIIB runs on an infrastructure project basis.[12] There are, however, rumours from people in “the know” that the US was not even invited to participate in the AIIB as a founding member, but there is currently no way to validate this. However, if even partially true, this would imply a Machiavellian approach to the Chinese economic aspirations far beyond Beijing’s current stated goals.

The AIIB is a Chinese-led bank, and China currently holds 28.79% of the voting rights.[13] This percentage is by no means arbitrary. Voting in these types of institutions, including the IMF, is based on a simple or qualified majority, depending on the situation. Simple majority is required for most common decisions while for material votes, such as decisions regarding voting rights, capital allocation and the like, a qualified majority is required. To achieve this, 75% of all votes must be behind a proposal. With China holding 28%, it effectively holds a veto on any decision. This mirrors the position the US currently enjoys in the IMF. It is also noteworthy that 21% of the AIIB’s shares are held by non-regional members. Some of the more notable ones are the UK, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, France, Poland and Egypt.[14]

In addition to China’s AIIB, the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) founded the New Development Bank, which is a powerful alliance between countries representing five regions that, combined, reserve 40% of the world population and a third of the world’s landmass.[15] Launched in 2014, each founding BRICS member took a subscription of 100,000 shares totalling USD 10 billion, whereof 20% is allocated to capital. The difference in share allocation between these two banks is noteworthy. The BRICS Development Bank is built on equitable balance, a rare occurrence in these types of institutions. The organization has fallen into public obscurity as Brazil has entered into recession and the news has calmed significantly in regard to its formation and potential. This bank represents, however, a challenge to the existing world governance, which former US President George H.W. Bush famously referred to as the New World Order in 1991. The lending undertaken by NDB and AIIB is pursued without conditions. The IMF refers to the conditionality dictum as austerity. The purpose, though not stated as such, is to engage nations in unsustainable debt and recover proceeds through national assets. Greece is a good example to study for more recent evidence of this modus operandi

Together, these two banks are pushing for reform of the IMF in terms of operation procedures and voting rights. Chinas message to the world could not be any more evident.

China’s growing SWAP agreement infrastructure

While China has been actively reforming its payments and banking infrastructure, it has not been idle on Swap and trade agreements. Swap agreements hold significance for China. Since Xiaochuan Zhou’s speech in 2009, the RMB has taken several steps towards internationalization. Various moves included the first pilot scheme between Hong Kong and China for cross border trade settlement. In 2010, foreign financial companies were allowed to invest the RMB surplus into the affectionately named “Dim Sum Bonds.” These, along with other steps undertaken in recent years have led many observers to wonder, whether they will eventually lead to the exchange rate floating on a basket of currencies, liberalization of the equity investment market, and more.[16] The role of the CIPS payment system for the above liberalization of the economy is obvious.

Swap agreements are an ominous sign for the USD. In practice, they are quite straight-forward. PBOC and a foreign central bank, like the ECB, enter into an agreement to freely access up to a fixed amount of respective currency.

This is significant because world trade provides a balance of payment challenge. When a company exports goods for say USD 100,000 over one year, they end up with a large USD asset on their balance sheet. Some of it is required for continued operations such as buying raw materials, energy, or outside services. However, domestically, the USD holds little function for a company so they exchange it for local currency to service salaries and operating expenses. The surplus exchanged ends up on the central bank’s balance sheet. This is what is referred to as foreign exchange reserves. So why not simply use the foreign currency domestically?

Having foreign currency commonly traded or crowding out the domestic currency would provide a direct challenge to the central bank’s sovereign power. Countries that endure this process and become dollarized, essentially end up being modern day vassal states economically subservient to and reliant upon the benevolence of foreign banks. All dollarized countries suffer immensely from economic stagnation. The USD will never hold a place for common trade in everyday activities in China. This is why it always ends up as a reserve rather than domestically stimulating economic activity.

In world trade today, the majority of contracts are denominated in USD. This is true of oil, export agreements, supply agreements, commodities, and most other economic activity. Multinationals must have access to USD in order to buy the services and goods that they need, particularly oil. However, if there is a swap agreement in place, the need for pricing in USD is limited.

When Russia and China enter into a swap agreement, foreign exchange reserves at each Central bank increase with their respective currency. Two companies engaging in cross border business are no longer required to engage in trade denominated in USD as their respective central banks guarantee clearing of the payments at a set rate, thus making the trade more efficient. Essentially, it is like a credit card where instant funding is available for trade. Note that in this scenario the USD has no place. Swap agreements are in practice an effort to decrease the USD global recycling capacity and increase the internationalization of the RMB.

The efforts have been successful. The following chart from Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco shows the growth of the swap agreement network. [17]

Regional to International …

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is the South East Asian version of what most western media knows as the TPP, a free trade agreement that encompasses the world’s largest population. Though not complete at this stage, it essentially mirrors the western alternatives that provide supranational support to corporations and puts trade ahead of national borders. All current trade agreements are about transferring power to global multinationals. The efforts are led by the G20 block. Since the deal is still in progress and negotiations continue to be secret, it is better not to explore this agreement in depth.

China’s gold: pet rock or global strategy?

In 2015, the Wall Street Journal famously declared “Let’s get real about gold: It’s a pet rock.”[18]

There is no asset hated more in mainstream media today than gold and silver, also known as the precious metals. Several assassination pieces on the metal have emanated from the leading financial press over the past few years. As always, when media make concerted and collaborative efforts to promote or discredit certain events, be it fake news, the red scare, or the threat of terrorism, there is another motivating factor in the background. This is particularly true about investing. Nobody needs a crowded trade when there is a bargain in the making.

During a testimony with the Bank and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives, J. P. Morgan responded to the following question:

Q. But the basis of banking is credit, is it not?

A. Not always. That is an evidence of banking, but it is not the money itself.

Money is gold, and nothing else.[19]

There is no debate among central bankers whether gold is money or not. Gold always has been and always will be money in its purest form. It does not degrade, is sufficiently scarce, universally accepted, and is easily divisible into practical units. The foremost quality however is that it bears no counterparty risk. In financial speak, it is unencumbered. This quality ensures it will remain the ultimate insurance for wealth preservation. As such, there is not a reputable central bank in the world that does not hold the asset on its balance sheet with one notable exception – Canada.

According to the World Gold Council, China’s official reserves as of December 2016 sit at 1,842.6 metric tonnes. It is well established that this does not reflect China’s true gold holdings. The statistics for Chinese gold reserves did not update monthly until June 2016. After the great financial crisis, China’s gold holdings suddenly surged and then remained unchanged until mid-2016.[20]

Determining the true size of China’s gold wealth is speculative in nature. Jim Rickards, in his book the New Case for Gold, estimates China’s true gold holdings in the region of 4,000 metric tonnes. This is based on import statistics from Hong Kong, Chinese mine production, and similar sources. This would set China as the world’s second biggest gold holder after the United States with 8,100 metric tonnes. Bullionstar, a Singaporean bullion dealer, frequently posts research on China and its gold holdings. They estimate that the size of the Chinese gold market (not PBOC holdings) is in the region of 16,000 tonnes.[21]

However, more speculative reports suggest the true holdings to be in the region of 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes. Whatever the real number is, it is no secret that China is importing as much gold it can get a hold of while also becoming the world’s biggest gold producer. Chinese state media is encouraging gold ownership among the populace as a method to secure wealth.

The Shanghai Gold Exchange started actively trading in 2016. It has one seemingly technical detail that sets it apart from its London and New York counterparties. In order to trade on the Shanghai Gold Exchange, you need to deliver physical gold to the marketplace. This means that in order to have price discovery, you have to first acquire gold, deposit it in Shanghai, and participate. LBMA and Comex are highly leveraged paper markets where over 90% of all trades are settled in cash. The derivative contracts give the option of settling in physical trades of gold, but this rarely take place. Just like a bank, paper markets can easily suffer a run on the exchange in the same manner as the peculiar Camel market crash (Souk Al-Manakh Stock Market) in Kuwait.

With the exchanges working so differently, we should expect a divergence of pricing, also known as arbitrage. As supply is scarce in the Shanghai market compared to the paper counterparties, the price should be higher in Shanghai. If the arbitrage grows too wide, opportunists will invest on the trade, withdraw gold from Comex and LBMA, turn around and sell it on the Shanghai exchange. This would be a serious threat to western power of gold pricing. For this to happen, the arbitrage is required to be sufficiently high to cover for the actual movement of the metal.

Seeking Alpha, an established finance blog, published a piece displaying the arbitrage opportunity. It showed that on the 1st of December 2016, the Shanghai gold was trading USD 37.50 higher than London.[22]

China’s tango with the IMF

The RMB’s position as the third-most used currency and its subsequent inclusion in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) has shifted the balance within the existing framework, which had been in place essentially since the end of World War II. John Meynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White were the authors of the famous Bretton Woods agreement, named after the luxury hotel where the agreement was signed. Ironically, the Soviet Union never participated in the new USD Gold Standard despite being part of the negotiations. The agreement marked the terminal end of the “as good as sterling” era and provided the building blocks for the ascendance of the USA’s hegemonic period.

Keynes had envisioned a one-world currency called the Unitas but he lived before its time. Instead, the compromise of the technocratically named Special Drawing Rights (SDR) was spawned in the IMF. The SDR is a basket flat currency, synthetic in nature and issued by the IMF. The last issuance of the SDR, or world money, was in relation to the financial crisis of 2008. The SDR is not accessible to the average person, but can be mimicked by buying a composition of the currencies in the basket.

On 1 October 2016, China became a member in the global SDR currency basket. This demarks a pivotal achievement by the nation state. A few weeks later, Paul Ryan, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, entered a provision in the US budget bill on increased voting rights for China in the IMF. Outside of financial circles, the news was generally met with a yawn.

The weighting of SDR currencies prior to the inclusion of the Renminbi was as follows:

  • USD – 41.9%
  • EUR – 37.4%
  • GBP – 11.3%
  • YEN – 9.4%

And after 1 October 2016, it became:

  • USD – 41.73%
  • EUR – 30.93%
  • RMB – 10.92%
  • YEN – 8.33%
  • GBP – 8.09%[23]

The RMB is now the third-largest currency in the SDR currency basket, a pivotal achievement as envisioned by Xiaochuan Zhou in 2009. Technically, the RMB does not qualify for SDR inclusion, as it is not yet a world reserve currency, so the inclusion was clearly political. The wide sweeping reforms planned for the global economy cannot be implemented without the support of the world’s biggest export economy, China.

A qualified majority in the IMF requires support from 85% of IMF members. The United states currently hold 16.54% of voting rights and effectively a veto in the organization.

As of the 20th of December 2016, the BRICS nations hold respectively:

  • Brazil – 2.23%
  • Russia – 2.60%
  • India – 2.64%
  • China – 6.09%
  • South Africa – 0.64%

The total voting rights of the economic block represent 14.2%. Worded differently, they only need 0.8% in increased voting power in the next voting reform in order to establish a veto power as an economic block. That change is closer than most realize.[24]

The final communiqué from the 2016, the G20 summit in Hangzhou, China states:

We welcome the entry into effect of the 2010 IMF quota and governance reform and are working towards the completion of the 15th General Review of Quotas, including a new quota formula, by the 2017 Annual Meetings. We reaffirm that any realignment under the 15th review in quota shares is expected to result in increased shares for dynamic economies in line with their relative positions in the world economy, and hence likely in the share of emerging market and developing countries as a whole.[25]

An IMF technical paper, it further states:

Board of Governors Resolution 66-2 states that “Any realignment under the 15th review is expected to result in increases in the quota shares of the dynamic economies in line with their relative positions in the world economy, and hence likely in the share of emerging market and developing countries as a whole.”[26]

In other words, the BRICS bloc is moving towards veto power in the IMF in 2017.

The SDR inclusion of the Renminbi coupled with the BRICS voting block veto will structure a world order wherein which the United States must seek common ground with other trading blocs in order to enact or oppose policy.

Coupled with China’s range of economic initiatives intertwined with their OBOR and globalization strategy and the coupling of China initiated financial mechanisms to integration of regional economies, then China sits in a prime position of influence, power and patronage.

Welcome to the new world order, and China is driving

“Equitable” will be the cornerstone word guiding where world finance will travel in the next two years. The Economist boldly predicted a one world currency by 2018 in its iconic cover from 1988, “Phoenix rising.” Their penchant for mythology implies that a world financial crash, or reset, will spawn a one-world currency. Although some time off, it is difficult to imagine a new world economic order where Russia and China would not have equitable balance.

A global monetary reset is inevitably on the table; however, this paper is focused on identification of the complex shifts taking place leading to such an event, not the event itself. Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, spoke about this at length in one of her Bloomberg interviews from the World Economic Forum in Davos.[27] Lagarde talks about the option of a ‘structured reset,’ not one forced by macroeconomic activity. However, resets are panic-based and responsive; reforms do not hold popular support.

It is evident in both action and public statements that Russia and China are moving together towards displacing the USD as the world’s reserve currency and ending the latter’s exorbitant privilege. If the recycling of the petrodollar is finally greatly reduced, a dramatic and painful adjustment must take place in the US economy. An end to the petrodollar would mean increased inflation in the United States as trade could no longer be sustained by the endless demand for USD treasury notes. Reduced deficit spending and higher confiscation of personal wealth remain the only two options. It is a bleak future for the US consumer and corporations. The interim period as the US fights its corner is also a difficult period for developing and emerging markets. The shelves are bare of alternatives, but that is changing; new stock is arriving.

The military approach previously used by the United States to ensure USD dominance in world trade may prove costly. The China-Russia power block is simply too formidable of an enemy to secure a victory within the bounds of acceptable losses. However, it is certain that the United States will not relinquish its reserve currency power status voluntarily. Their hand will have to be forced. Consequently, we expect increased instances of staged crisis events such as the private funded democracy store fronts used to destabilize BRICS governments. We also expect agitation and multiple provocations on various fronts for China, similar to the umbrella movement in Hong Kong, the Maidan square coup in Ukraine, and recent political turmoil in South Africa. The struggle for world power is only warming up.

Lateral thinking: an abbreviated analysis of what is likely to transpire, or challenging conformity

The primary option for China and the G20 countries is a global bank regulatory framework organized around regulation from Bank of International Settlements (BIS), worldwide taxation governed by the OECD organization and the BEPS project. The game plan for the next financial crisis is the ‘Bail in plan and Stay powers’ outlined in detail in the Geneva report, the ‘Financial Stability Board’ and other world government bodies already in late stage of completion among the G20 participants. The resolution mechanism, activated on multiple occasions in Europe, will be a sombre awakening for the average saver as their pensions and savings are ‘utilized’ by the worldwide banking system.

If the SDR is to become the mechanism for a one-world currency then drastic reform would then need to be undertaken in the IMF. For now, the United States has veto power and can refuse or only accept a compromise where they retain ultimate control of the organization. Should this happen, the SDR reform will fail. Even with a US concession, the lack of an anchor (i.e. gold) in the SDR may not restore confidence in world finance in the next global reset. Should the reform be successful, the USD will be relegated to a trade currency among others, forcing a new world order with balanced trade deficits compared to runaway spending as it stands today. US President-elect Trump’s emerging confrontational strategy and position with China on trade may be the first volley in the salvo that is to come. No pun intended, but American protectionism and aggressiveness towards the looming hegemonic challenge may ‘trump’ global stability.

The consequences could be dire beyond the remit of this paper. Nevertheless, China will respond with typically Chinese characteristics. It is imperative to look at these Chinese actions through the prism of Chinese, not Western, lenses.

Trump’s canning of the TTP presents China with additional opportunities in the short-term, but it is all really about timing, the real question is how much of an opportunity does it present and how they execute that opportunity. Within the 19th Party Congress there exists the opportunity to pursue with vigour the outstanding pieces of the domestic economic realignment puzzle in China. The events of the past four years in China since Xi’s ascendency are significantly misunderstood, and massively over simplified by the West. The end game is unquestionably one of control, but the motivation for that control is perhaps what is most misunderstood in the bigger scheme of things. Like a cancer patient the country is riddled with it, but this cancer is corruption, to attain the goal of sustainability the procedures for eradication were severe, and the treatment has yet to conclude. But, it is beyond merely surviving, it is about resurgence after survival. It is about taking up your rightful place before the cancer took hold. Everything happens for a reason. With the Chinese, everything happens for multiple aligned reasons, they do not act on a singular impulsive or reactionary motive, and it is strategic thinking at its best.

What if the interconnectivity of the Chinese strategic thinking is so aligned that even events such as the massive structural reforms in the energy sector and the banking sector, which will unforgivingly kick in in 2017 are actually tied to the abovementioned milestones and mechanisms to attain their global economic positioning? How do they do this? More importantly, what is the relevance to events in the coming few months pertaining to global economic positioning and posturing? Of course they are interconnected. Their responses to US reactions to BRIC ascendency to veto position within the IMF are also interconnected.

There are several tools at China’s disposal should the US stall IMF reforms or a deal is struck that does not meet the Chinese / Russian standards of equitable reform. What if China can announce a gold denominated short-term trade bond used for world trade? This move would shock world economic markets, but can only be successful if the supply (liquidity) of the instruments is on such a scale to support world trade. For this, you need a mechanism to control the world gold price. Enter the Shanghai Gold Exchange. It will be a rudimentary process for China to increase the price of gold as to cause an arbitrage run and eventual default of the western paper gold markets. In such a crisis, the price of gold will run away and anyone not prepared will see the value of his or her paper holdings devalue in a rapid fashion.

What if China and Russia make a surprise announcement of rapidly increased gold reserves to cement confidence in their national currencies? They can also propose a new IMF structure based on the New Development Bank, built on an equitable foundation, as the worldwide solution to monetary order. Of the world’s top gold producers, BRICS represent:

  • Brazil – Number 11
  • Russia – Number 3
  • India – Not a significant amount
  • China – Number 1
  • South Africa – Number 6

With rapid inclusion of key member states, the New Development Bank can become a credible alternative to world financial order or a parallel financial system to the traditional western one.

As pointed out above, Gold always has been and always will be money. For the unprepared and distracted by political theatre, this lesson will be detrimental as we progress towards a global economic order.

Summary

This paper has been written as a roadmap for the uninitiated to what China is planning for its place in the world order. As such, the financial history of China and events leading up to today have been heavily abbreviated. The New World Order is unquestionably in play, but the rules of the game are not being dictated by the writers of the last episode in history. The new contenders in the ‘Great Game’ are defining their own rules. This paper has sought to connect the dots to deliver a narrative of what we see developing. The dots, thus connected, are loosely:

  • 2001 – China granted WTO membership
  • 2002 – Go West Program initiated in China
  • 2009 – RMB Internationalization begins
  • 2010 – Offshore markets start in Hong Kong
  • 2012 – Chinese companies start using RMB for trade finance
  • 2013 – Chinese RMB trade stands at 8% of currency trade. Over CNY 270 billion in bonds are issued (Dim Sum Bonds), RMB bank deposits reach RMB 100 billion in Hong Kong.
  • 2015 – The initiation of the harmonization of the financial institutions of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
  • 2015 – Estimated that 1/3 of all Chinese trade settled in RMB. The RMB became the third most traded currency in the world after Euro and Dollar
  • 2017/18 – RMB to become full convertible currency Shanghai on a clear path to becoming a truly global financial centre

The critical dots to add:

  • IMF – Inclusion of the SDR / Voting rights
  • Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (read Eurasia or Globalisation strategy under the auspices of OBOR)
  • Full convertibility of the RMB
  • Gold – Shanghai Gold Exchange

The timing of the convertibility of the RMB will tell its own tale. The release of so much RMB on the world investment market will be a critical game changer, but where will this unrivalled level of surplus money migrate to? Again, it is all about the timing, as the Silk Road and Belt takes hold and embeds that timing will be critical to attract second level investment to the program, no doubt the Chinese government will encourage a ‘close to home’ approach and support the ‘motherland’ approach, the delay in full convertibility may actually be more orchestrated than first thought.

The end goal of China’s economic policy is increasingly evident. It seeks not to dominate the current petro dollar reserve currency system, but rather have an influential position in the next monetary world order. All the above described efforts are conscious policy to be ready for the next phase in world economic globalization. If China stays on track with its focus on equitable common goal of building the world economy, we may not need to fear China’s new economic order. Perhaps how the United States reacts to this challenge is where the fear should be directed.

Notes

[1]https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1973PEKING00848_b.html, August 1973, Proposal for exchange of exhibitions with PRC in 1976. 

[2]  Currency internationalisation: Analytical and policy issues, Hans Genberg. BIS paper No. 61.

[3] Boulding Kenneth. 1950, A reconstruction of economics.

[4] Bank of International Settlements, Working Paper, No 444, March 2014.

[5] SWIFT is not the only clearing network. Fedwire routes all USD denominated transactions in cooperation with SWIFT and UK has CHAPS .

[6] http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/14/china-carefully-moving-to-displace-dollar/

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/russia-security-deposit-visa-mastercard-sanctions-ukraine

[8] https://www.swift.com/insights/press-releases/swift-and-cips-co_sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-cross-border-interbank-payment-system-cooperation

[9] http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/good_for_business/?doc=124793

[10] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-plans-to-join-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank

[11] http://www.aiib.org/html/aboutus/introduction/Membership/?show=0

[12] Author’s conversations with the Swedish Finance department re: AIIB further confirms this position.

[13] Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Subscriptions and Voting Power of Member Countries, 22 September 2016.

[14] IBID.

[15] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1011813.shtml

[16] http://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/the-rise-and-role-of-the-renminbi-as-an-international-reserve-currency

[17] http://www.frbsf.org/banking/asia-program/pacific-exchange-blog/banking-on-china-renminbi-currency-swap-agreements/

[18] http://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-get-real-about-gold-its-a-pet-rock-1437174733

[19] J. P. Morgan’s testimony, The justification of Wall Street. 18th December 1912

[20] Graphics: www.tradingeconomics.com

[21] https://www.bullionstar.com/

[22] http://seekingalpha.com/article/4028130-gold-price-discovery-shifting-physical-shanghai-gold-exchange-prices-diverge-vs-lbma

[23] IMF Annual report 2016, P15.

[24] https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx

[25] http://www.g20.org/English/Dynamic/201609/t20160906_3396.html

[26] https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2016/080916.pdf

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s Challenge to the World Economic Order

Canadian Aid to Africa under Justin Trudeau

January 17th, 2017 by Toby Leon Moorsom

The Canadian government under Justin Trudeau is attempting to alter the narratives about our country’s relationship with the African continent.

Be aware the initiative is largely ideological chimera void of concrete action, but even worse, it is blatant hypocrisy.

Canadian Imperial Aid to Africa

The purported “new agenda” for Africa began with a trip to Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia by Foreign Affairs minister, Stéphane Dion in November of 2016.

The following month, in conjunction with a visit by Prime Minister Trudeau to Liberia and Madagascar, the government officially declared that “Canada is Back,” supposedly reviving global relationships that had been ignored or soured under the previous government.

Thus, some have suggested the time is ripe for a renewal of Canada’s foreign policy with the African continent in a manner that could allow us to reset the agenda of Canadian aid to the continent.

It is, however, ridiculous to suggest Canada was somehow absent throughout the Harper years. Canadian public institutions have facilitated and guaranteed foreign investments through a variety of channels, including the recent signing of 10 new Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements across the continent.

As far as foreign investment is concerned, Canada has never been more involved in Africa, with Canadian mining investments increasing more than 100 fold in a 20 year period. Even when we look at ‘official’ Canadian involvement on the continent we can see that Canada played a central role in the Libyan intervention-turned-invasion. It also supported French operations in Mali, and had military roles in the Congo, Darfur, South Sudan and Nigeria.

Yet, as Dalhousie University Professor, David Black notes, our developmental impact on the continent is marginal, with assistance amounting to a mere 0.28 per cent of GDP (far short of the average among donor countries and way below the UN set benchmark of 0.7 per cent).

Black also suggests there has been little coherence to Canadian policy in Africa in the Harper years. I disagree. The formula was that Canada would provide just enough ‘aid’ to get social license for its corporate engagement, while doing everything it could to protect Canadian investments. Ottawa University Professor, Stephen Brown has described this as the “instrumentalization” of Canadian aid, which was re-directed to serve Canadian business interests, rather than the supposed recipients.

I do not accept the claim that Canada is somehow ‘back’, supporting the idea that Trudeau is supposedly the last “progressive” liberal internationalist standing. Yet I agree it is an important moment to reconsider our relationships with the African continent. Evidence suggests three key ways the Liberal government could significantly help Africa in the coming decade, and two do not even relate to the issue of aid funding.

Honour the Paris Agreement

The greatest contribution we could make to Africa is to meet our Paris Agreement commitments. A 2015 Report by the Africa Progress Panel (APP), led by Former UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, makes it clear Africa will suffer the most from climate change and singled out Canada as one of the countries (along with Australia and Japan) most obstructing progress on carbon reduction. Not surprisingly, African countries are disproportionately among those most at risk of loan defaults as a result (convenient that Canada has given “$50-million to the G7 Initiative on Climate Risk Insurance”). In fact, the consequences of climate change are already seeing the rapid escalation of internal displacement on the continent.

A recent report by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center claims that 1.1 million were forced from their homes as a result of environmental calamity in 2015, while environmental displacement impacted 14 million between 2009 and 2015. People are also being displaced as a result of wars and development and business projects. As I’ve noted before, these trends follow on 30 years of neoliberal economic policies that have devastated agricultural systems and increased pressures around water sources as commercialization leads to an increasing enclosure of “common pool” resources.

The APP report cited above suggests that for Africa

“To avoid catastrophic climate change, two-thirds of existing [oil] reserves have to be left in the ground, begging the question of why taxpayers’ money is being used to discover new reserves of ‘unburnable’ hydrocarbons.”

Yet, with the Liberal Government approvals of Kinder Morgan and Energy East pipelines, Canada is set to unleash ‘a Carbon Tsunami’, making the chances of meeting our Paris commitments substantially less than zero. At the same time, the country still subsidizes fossil fuel companies to the tune of $3.3-billion this year – far more than the $2.3-billion budgeted to African foreign aid in 2015.

A spousal abuser does not get exonerated of their crime because they bring roses in the morning. When our government allows those pipelines to go through they are not only reneging on their treaty obligations and permanently altering ecosystems First Nations peoples depend upon, they are doing the same thing to millions of Africans. No amount of ‘Aid’ is going to correct this.

Regulate Canadian Mining Companies

Canada could also aid Africans by reigning in the mineral extraction companies that are displacing and fleecing local populations while leaving irreparable ecological damage. It is no secret Canadian mining companies are the worst, for environmental impacts and human rights violations. We also know they list on Canadian stock exchanges to take advantage of our low taxes and lax regulations, to shield themselves from legal accountability and to gain access to diplomatic services. We also know the “corporate social responsibility” strategy established by the previous government fails to improve the conduct of our mining companies. Two of the most disturbing aspects of our mining activity in Africa is that the bulk of it is within countries with the least institutional capacity to take advantage of investments, and it is specialized in gold extraction. The latter not only has enormous environmental consequences; it is largely going to end up in bank vaults of investors trying to protect themselves from the broader crisis of global surplus liquidity. In other words, the rich just have too much money and our government revenues are supporting their hoarding.

For these reasons, the Liberals should stop dillydallying and put in place a mining ombudsperson to investigate claims against Canadian companies abroad and ensure they have mechanisms at their disposal to punish offenders and make them accountable to Canadian courts.

Thirdly, Canada could stop supporting the failed neoliberal model of promoting Public Private Partnerships (P3s) in Africa. This is especially so when one considers its application in “building value chains” in the agricultural sector as a means of purportedly supporting climate change mitigation. A recent study by the Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape examined the impact of such policy orientation in Southern Africa. What they found is that these policies end up subsidizing the wealthiest farmers and agri-business companies. The intention of such programs is to support the development of hybridized seeds specifically bred for local conditions and to increase yields. Yet the results of such programs have seen the grabbing of genetic resources by international seed companies, while local populations are increasingly deprived of common pool resources, see a reduction in the diversity of their diets and see greater class differentiation, with the wealthiest farmers excelling while the smaller are sent into greater poverty. This is largely consistent with the findings of a new study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. The evidence strongly suggests that such programs speed up processes of displacement and urbanization and do not promote food security, but contribute to the maintenance of the most unequalsocieties in the world. These are the conditions that lead to militarization and war.

Rather than more Public Private Partnerships, what Africans need more than anything else is serious public investment in social infrastructure; water treatment plants and sewer systems, electrification, public transportation, schools, and hospitals. Canadian companies could theoretically play a role in supporting such infrastructure development, but it should not be designed to channel public funds toward the service of Bay Street investors. The P3 Model has been a failure in every Canadian context and should stop being pushed on African countries (John Loxley of the University of Manitoba describes them as “Ideology Trumping Economic Reality”). Instead, African countries are going to have to rely a lot more on taxing their own populations and the mineral extraction companies that in some instances are getting away with ridiculously low tax rates, especially given the enormous consequences of their activities.

They will of course not accept any of these recommendations without significant social pressure being placed on them. So let’s get too it.

Toby Leon Moorsom, Ph.D., teaches at Carleton University in the Institute of African Studies and is an editor of the Nokoko Journal of African Studies. He currently lives in Accra, Ghana.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Aid to Africa under Justin Trudeau

The preceding three parts of this series analyzed the mechanisms that drive great powers. The most in-depth understanding of the issues concerned the determination of the objectives and logic that accompany the expansion of an empire. Geopolitical theories, the concrete application of foreign-policy doctrines, and concrete actions that the United States employed to aspire to global dominance were examined.

In this fourth and final analysis I will focus on a possible strategic shift in the approach to foreign policy from Washington. The most likely hypothesis suggests that Trump intends to attempt to prevent the ongoing integration between Russia, China and Iran.

The failed foreign-policy strategy of the neoconservatives and neoliberals has served to dramatically reduce Washington’s role and influence in the world. Important alliances are being forged without seeking the assent of the United States, and the world model envisioned in the early 1990s – from Bush to Kagan and all the signatories of the PNAC founding statement of principles – is increasingly coming undone. Donald Trump’s victory represents, in all likelihood, the last decisive blow to a series of foreign-policy strategies that in the end undermined the much-prized leadership of the United States. The ceasefire in Syria, reached thanks to an agreement between Turkey and Russia, notably excluded the United States.

The military, media, financial and cultural assault successfully prosecuted over decades by Washington finally seems to have met its Waterloo at the hands of the axis represented by Iran, Russia and China. The recent media successes (RT, Press TV and many alternative media), political resistance (Assad is still president of Syria), diplomatic struggles (negotiations in Syria without Washington as an intermediary) and military planning (Liberation of Aleppo from terrorists) are a result of the efforts of Iran, Russia and China. Their success in all these fields of operations are having direct consequences and implications for the internal affairs of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States.

The relentless efforts by the majority of Western political representatives for a successful model of globalization has created a parasitic system of turbo capitalism that entails a complete loss of sovereignty by America’s allies. Brexit and Trump have served as an expression of ordinary people’s rejection of these economic and political regimes under which they live.

In Syria, Washington and its puppet allies have almost exited the scene without achieving their strategic goal of removing Assad from power. Within the American political system, the establishment, spanning from Clinton to Obama, was swept away for their economic and political failures. The mainstream media, spewing an endless stream of propaganda aimed at sustaining the political elite, completely lost their battle to appear credible, reaching unprecedented peaks of partisanship and immorality.

Donald Trump has emerged with a new approach to foreign policy affairs, shaped by various political thinkers of the realist mould, such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. First on the to-do list is doing away with all the recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (Responsibility to Protect – R2P) and soft-power campaigns in favor of human rights. And there will be no more UN resolutions deviously employed as cover to bomb nations back into the stone age (Libya). Trump does not believe in the central role of the UN in international affairs, reaffirming this repeatedly during his campaign.

The Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in the internal affairs of foreign governments, Arab Springs, and color revolutions. Such efforts, they argue, are ultimately ineffective anyway and are too costly in terms of political credibility. In Ukraine the Americans have allied themselves with supporters of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, and in the Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra Front. These tactics, infamously branded as ‘leading from behind’, never achieved their desired results. The Middle East is in chaos, with a Moscow-Tehran axis emerging and going from strength to strength. In Ukraine, the government in Kiev not only seems incapable of complying with the Minsk agreements but also of prosecuting a new military campaign with no guarantees from their European and American partners.

There is a wild card that Trump hopes to play in the first months of his presidency. The strategy will focus on the inherited chaotic situation in the Middle East and Ukraine. Obama will be blamed for the previous chaos, it will be argued that sanctions against the Russian Federation should be removed, and Moscow will be given a free hand in the Middle East. In one fell swoop, the future president may decide not to decide directly on the Middle East or on Ukraine, avoiding any further involvement and instead finally making a decision in the national interest of his country.

A sustainable strategy may finally be attained by remaining passive towards the developments in the Middle East, especially on the Syrian front, leaving it firmly in Russian hands, while emphasizing at the same time the effort against Daesh in cooperation with Moscow. Another wise choice would see Kiev falling by the wayside, trashing Ukrainian ambitions to regain the Donbass and recover Crimea. Finally, removing sanctions would allow the next president to strengthen the alliance with European partners (a diplomatic necessity that Trump must make as the new president). Over two years the EU has suffered from economic suicide in the name of a failed policy strategy imposed by Washington. The Trump presidency will seek to normalize relations between Moscow and Washington as well as with European allies more willing to actively collaborate with the Trump administration.

The Middle East will accordingly see a decline in violence, increasing the chances of seeing an end to the conflict in Syria. This plan for the initial phase of the Trump presidency has been widely announced during the months leading up to his election, both by himself or by members of his staff.

The implicit message is to seek dialogue and cooperation with all nations. Probably what lies behind these overtures is actually an explicit willingness to try to break the cooperation between Russia, Iran and China. The motivations for this action stem from the implications for the United States if a full military, cultural and economic alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Tehran is formed. It would almost ultimately consign the United States to irrelevance on the grand chessboard of international relations.

More realistically, Trump aims to shift the focus of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where the largest US commercial interests will reside in the future; a shift of focus from the Middle East to the South and East China Seas. The geopolitical reasons behind this decision, and the guiding theories behind it, were addressed particularly in the first article of this series. In summary, Trump intends to accelerate Obama’s Asian pivot, bringing about profound changes to US foreign policy. Smoking the peace pipe with Russia will free up resources (to “build up our military” in naval terms) to be focused in the Pacific. He intends to emphasize the importance of bilateral relations between allies (“free riders” Japan and South Korea) to focus on containing China.

The wildcard that Trump hopes to play in breaking the alliance is called Russia. Thanks to previous peace talks developed with Moscow, Trump hopes for a reprise of Kissinger’s strategy with China in 1979, with the addition of a promise of non-interference in the Middle East against Iran and Syria by the United States. In an exchange unlikely to happen, the American administration is hoping to convince the Kremlin that no action will be taken in the Middle East against Moscow and its allies, including Iran, in exchange for help in containing the Republic of China.

With this in mind, Trump’s choice of a very questionable personality to liaise between Washington and Tel Aviv, combined with the strong rhetoric of Trump against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the equally harsh responses from Tehran to the threats of the future president, seem to satisfy the roles and rhetoric of all parties involved. No actions, only rhetoric. For Tehran and Tel Aviv it is easier to argue that to sign an agreement. The Iranian nuclear deal will, for this reason, continue to be a major point of tension, but also the guarantor of unlikely military action.

The real problem for the future administration in this strategy is offering a consistent plan of non-interference in the Middle East. Putin is well aware, in any case, that Washington is not able to intervene and change the fate of the balance of power that is forming in the Middle East. Trump’s indirect offer not to take action in the Middle East is at best a bluff that will not last long. Trump ignores (or, being a good negotiator, pretends not to want to see) that very few cards in his deck can be attractive to Moscow. The alliance between Moscow, Beijing and Tehran is firm and certified by strategic exchanges in many fields, a trend promising tremendous growth. The war in Syria has shown the results of effective coordination between the three nations. The addition of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) will further strengthen security ties, without forgetting that the north-south corridor between Russia and Iran also ensures stability in an area of the globe where the danger of subversive terrorism is very high..

During the period of sanctions, Russia and China signed the most important and immense trade agreement in history, sealing Moscow’s turn toward the east. Such a move involves a level of strategic planning that goes well beyond the four years of a presidential term. If Trump hopes to achieve cooperation of some kind with Putin to further his grand strategy, he is deluding himself. However, he must out of necessity cooperate against terrorism in the Middle East with Russia and moderate Washington’s allies in the region who support terrorist. He will be forced to remove sanctions and reset the international relationship between Washington and Moscow, freeing the EU from a counterproductive situation in opposing the Russian Federation. He will probably then decide to ignore permanently the matter of Ukraine and Crimea, burying one of the tactics and strategies that was the cornerstone of the neoconservatives, namely an attempt to prepare the Ukrainian army to face the Russian Federation militarily, then drawing in NATO into an all-out war.

Trump knows he is in an inferior negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow and Beijing. He is well aware that effecting a rupture of relations between China, Russia and Iran is almost impossible. The only advantage, from his point of view, is having more room to negotiate with Moscow, given the abysmal levels of relations between Putin and Obama.

Naturally, if Trump should really embark on such a mission of dividing the Eurasian continent, he is likely to expect very specific guarantees about the future attitude of Moscow towards Beijing. Putin will have very few problems in playing him to his advantage. Moscow has everything to gain from this situation. Trump hopes to have on his side the Russian Federation, then proceed to convince countries like Japan, the Philippines and South Korea that containing China is the only viable strategy for limiting China’s influence and future domination over Asia. These actions will provoke the opposite effects to those intended, thereby promoting further integration of Eurasia (AIIB and Silk Road 2.0), as shown by Obama’s Asian pivot. Any attempt to impose a new Asian pivot will end up in flames, as has been the case with the commercial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

In the meantime, with the removal of sanctions, many EU countries will finally be able to resume their energy and technology integration with the Eurasian continent, especially with Russia. Japan will in all likelihood be able to sign a peace treaty with Russia without violating its obligations to Washington.

In general, the removal of sanctions on Russia will accelerate many projects placed on hold by tensions between Washington and Moscow. Trump’s attitude, if he decides to have an aggressive posture towards Beijing, will force the Chinese elite to see what lies in store for it. Washington does not intend to have joint relations with Beijing. Trump has repeatedly reiterated the thoughts of Mearsheimer, a prominent contemporary geopolitical theorist, who states that in less than a decade China’s growth will likely pose a threat to the United States as a superpower. Mearsheimer argues that within a few years, thanks to the growth of nominal GDP and demographic increase, the Republic of China will be the first military power in the world to dominate Asia. Trump intends to concentrate all his efforts, in terms of foreign policy, on this factor. To succeed, he understands that he needs to have on his side several regional players (Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, the Philippines), especially the Russian Federation, as well as oversee a sea change that will transfer the attention in Washington from the Atlantic to the Pacific .

This period of time will represent for Moscow, Beijing and Tehran a time to make definitive choices, a season in which the national policy-makers of these nations will have to understand what road to embark on. For Tehran, the cards are dealt face up, with a predetermined role as regional power. For Moscow and Beijing the issue is far more complicated. Much will depend on how Beijing intends to oppose openly any hostile action of Trump. Moscow has for many years openly questioned the world order led by Washington.

Beijing understandably seems reluctant to engage in direct confrontation. In all likelihood, Trump and his realist foreign-policy attitude will lead the Chinese elite to understand that Washington considers itself to be the only one entitled to grant world order. The Chinese elites need to understand that the only sustainable path for the future is the construction, with all actors, of a multipolar world that includes Washington, New Delhi, Moscow, Tehran, London and Brussels. Realistically, it is hard to think that the new administration would alter the strategic partnership formed between China, Iran and Russia. After all, Trump would retrace the same steps of his predecessors, simply by changing the angle of approach and trying to further shuffle the cards of international relations. The decision to improve the world through cooperation and mutual respect does not exactly match the aspirations of the American deep state that seeks war, chaos and conflicts.

The big difference we will see with a candidate like Trump is easy. Once all diplomatic efforts have failed against Beijing, instead of doubling down with military or terrorist efforts, the strategy will be abandoned in silence. The strong expressions against Beijing, the feared increase in military spending for the Pacific (to satisfy the industrial-military apparatus), and the rhetoric against Iran (to appease the Israel lobby), will be used to moderate the deep state’s intentions, while Trump will try to focus on economics and security (counter-terrorism) and much less on foreign policy.

Series Conclusion.

This series has sought to invite readers to reflect on the epochal events that are occurring. The global hegemonic project that was supposed to be realized with a Clinton presidency has been stopped. The inevitable military confrontation with Russia, Iran and China has been averted thanks to the preventive actions of these countries together with the defeat of the Democratic candidate. A huge blow has been delivered to the establishment, with its impulse toward globalism and US imperialism.

The emergence of a multipolar world order has altered the way nations interact with each other in the field of international relations. Washington is no longer the only referent, and it is this that represents a pivotal transition from a unipolar world dominated by Washington. The mechanisms that regulate the great powers have varied in form and content, leading to an almost unprecedented international situation. The future multipolar world order, historically unstable, will in fact hold the promise of stability thanks to the actions of opposing nations to the American superpower. United they will stabilize the world.

The key to a sustainable future world order is the synergy between the newly formed Beijing, Moscow and Tehran axis as an economic, military and cultural counterweight to the US. The union and the alliance of these three nations has created a new super-pole, able to balance effectively the often destructive actions of Washington. Rather than a multipolar world order, we are actually faced with a situation of two superpowers, one of which is based on the integration between dozens of nations on more than two continents. It is a new era that will accompany us over the coming decades. The unipolar world is over – forever!

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Delusion: Halting Eurasian Integration and Saving ‘US World Order’

 Ain’t going to let no ego maniac turn me around, turn me around, keep on walking, keep on talking going to build ourselves a brand-new world. Joan Baez, San Francisco, Jan 15, 2016

The City Hall gleamed in the crisp air of an unusually wintry day in San Francisco, where gatherings ahead of the inauguration of the US president are going to take place.  Few from this part of the US intend visiting Washington to grace its presence and acknowledge the President elect, Donald J. Trump.  Those in California are hunkering down for the equivalent of bureaucratic street fights, threatening to keep administrations at the local, state and federal level busy for years.

The atmosphere was captured in by the San Francisco Chronicle (Jan 15), its cover featuring the state’s enraged bear readying for action.  “California,” it went with threatening promise, “prepares to roar on many fronts in effort to preserve billions in federal dollars.”  Never mind that lions tend to roar.

The Chronicle, in a note on the combative spirit seething in California, also informs readers that the Californian legislature has found a legal brief in battling the incoming Trump administration: a Washington, D.C. law firm run by former US Attorney-General Eric Holder.

These protests supposedly touch the tip of a gargantuan iceberg – or so is promised by some media outlets.  There is the now promised Women’s March on Washington.  Punters suggest a quarter of a million to turn up in female-inspired outrage against the Misogynist-in-Chief.  The Untied We Dream group has already been busy with its We Are Here to Stay campaign focusing on immigrant and refugee rights.On January 15, the focus of those gathered before the SF City Hall and some forty other cities was on the American Affordable Health Care Act.  Senator Bernie Sanders had been stringing together some inspiration for its defence, and a few Democrats put aside their beef with him to gather in some discordantly looking act of solidarity.

Illness, fear, bodily pathologies feed into the language of the protest; placards waved with a stunned air of foreboding anticipating the assault on the Obama administration’s healthcare efforts: “Repeal Trump”; “Fix it, don’t nix it”.  To tamper with health care is to inflict death on the US citizen.   House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi turned out to the protest in SF, insisting that she, alongside SF Mayor Ed Lee, Supervisors Malia Cohen and Norman Yee and Senator Scott Wiener, were there to not only defend the Affordable Care Act but to remember Martin Luther King’s pointed reference that poor health remains one of the more shocking forms of injustice. But this was the old, defeated guard, and the sense of witnessing political cadavers come to life was hard to dispel.

Mayor Lee revealed those concerns that show the complex business notion that has never been extracted from the USmedical health system. In a world of social goods, the idea of health being a profit making measure filled with insurance providers would be obscene.  The sense from Lee, then, was that repealing Obama Care would “start us down the path on the road to chaos in the insurance market and declines in coverage.” Not exactly the spirit of MLK Jr, but the market’s representatives tend to talk, even in these debates.

Most appropriately and insightfully, one protester walked around as a reminder that Trump did have one potential use to the withering fabric of the Republic: “Restoring to the US the right to civic protest.”  Others were quintessentially odd, idiosyncratically delightful. The compound Shaman, a picture of straggly, knotted hair, a hat tall and jauntily placed, and a disproportionately large placard, was the poster boy.

Sad reminders were also present, a form of failed revolutionary sighs. Sanders supporters, kitted out with the material featuring their preferred presidential candidate whom Hillary Clinton railroaded, were noisily entertaining in their desperation.  Their presence lent an air of the inauthentic to proceedings.  The times ahead were serious, but the crushed Sanders camp were still giving a sense that something could be done.

The entire fury and desperation can provide the nutrients for a civic revolution in the United States, though much of the anti-Trump protest movement sporadically moves into the dark, visceral matter he is accused of generating.Hot-headed extremism, not debate, flickers before a single administrative act has taken place. A few protesters did not shy away from hoping that Trump would literally be “erased” prior to the Inauguration, obliterated before raising his pen to sign a single decree.  Trump remains the necessary demon, part of the bogeyman motif so indispensable to the functioning of US politics.

To work, a genuine reformist drive can hardly be one that will leave the traditional Democrat-Republican axis in tact.  The point is to make constructive use of the fury, the indignation, and, importantly, the supposed deplorables.  They, it must be said, will not be going quietly, while those protesters gathered outside City Hall speak to the status quo. With the anger still tingling in the air, the protesters took their banners and anti-Trump paraphernalia and headed through the farmer’s market.  The juxtaposition is worth noting: organic food stalls with fruit and vegetable produce mix in with health concerns and the future of the United States. The stall keepers were making a killing.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pathological Terror? Engineered Protests and “Health Fears” Ahead of Trump’s Inauguration

Carrarmati Usa schierati in Polonia

January 17th, 2017 by Manlio Dinucci

Il 12 gennaio, due giorni dopo il suo discorso di addio, il presidente Obama ha dato il via al più grande schieramento di forze terrestri nell’Europa orientale dalla fine della guerra fredda: un lungo convoglio di carrarmati e altri veicoli corazzati statunitensi, proveniente dalla Germania, è entrato in Polonia. È la 3a Brigata corazzata, trasferita in Europa da Fort Carson in Colorado: composta da circa 4000 uomini, 87 carrarmati, 18 obici semoventi, 144 veicoli da combattimento Bradley e centinaia di Humvees. L’intero armamento viene trasportato in Polonia sia su strada, sia con 900 carri ferroviari.

Alla cerimonia di benvenuto svoltasi nella città polacca di Zagan, l’ambasciatore Usa Jones ha detto che «man mano che cresce la minaccia, cresce lo spiegamento militare Usa in Europa». Quale sia la «minaccia» lo ha chiarito il generale Curtis Scaparrotti, capo del Comando europeo degli Stati uniti e allo stesso tempo Comandante supremo alleato in Europa: «Le nostre forze sono pronte e posizionate nel caso ce ne fosse bisogno per contrastare l’aggressione russa». La 3a Brigata corazzata resterà in una base presso Zagan per nove mesi, fino a quando sarà rimpiazzata da un’altra unità trasferita dagli Usa.

Attraverso tale rotazione, forze corazzate statunitensi saranno permanentemente dislocate in territorio polacco. Da qui, loro reparti saranno trasferiti, per addestramento ed esercitazioni, in altri paesi dell’Est, soprattutto Estonia, Lettonia, Lituania, Bulgaria, Romania e probabilmente anche Ucraina, ossia saranno continuamente dislocati a ridosso della Russia.

Un secondo contingente Usa sarà posizionato il prossimo aprile nella Polonia orientale, nel cosiddetto «Suwalki Gap», un tratto di terreno piatto lungo un centinaio di chilometri che, avverte la Nato, «sarebbe un varco perfetto per i carrarmati russi».

Viene così riesumato l’armamentario propagandistico Usa/Nato della vecchia guerra fredda: quello dei carrarmati russi pronti a invadere l’Europa. Agitando lo spettro di una inesistente minaccia da Est, in Europa arrivano invece i carrarmati statunitensi. La 3a Brigata corazzata si aggiunge alle forze aeree e navali già schierate dagli Usa in Europa  nell’operazione «Atlantic Resolve», per «rassicurare gli alleati Nato e i partner di fronte all’aggressione russa». Operazione che Washington ha lanciato nel 2014, dopo aver volutamente provocato col putsch di Piazza Maidan un nuovo confronto con la Russia. Strategia di cui Hillary Clinton è stata principale artefice nell’amministrazione Obama, mirante a spezzare i rapporti economici e politici della Russia con l’Unione europea dannosi per gli interessi statunitensi.

Nella escalation anti-Russia, la Polonia svolge un ruolo centrale. Per questo essa riceverà tra breve dagli Usa missili da crociera a lungo raggio, con capacità penetranti anti-bunker, armabili anche di testate nucleari.. Ed è già in costruzione in Polonia una installazione terrestre del sistema missilistico Aegis degli Stati uniti, analoga a quella già entrata in funzione a Deveselu in Romania. Anch’essa dotata del sistema Mk 41 della Lockheed Martin, in grado di lanciare non solo missili anti-missile, ma anche missili da crociera armabili con testate nucleari.

A Varsavia  e nelle altre capitali dell’Est – scrive il New York Times – vi è però «forte preoccupazione» circa un possibile accordo del repubblicano Trump con Mosca che «minerebbe l’intero sforzo».

Un incubo tormenta i governanti dell’Est che basano le loro fortune sull’ostilità alla Russia: quello che se ne tornino a casa i carrarmati inviati dal democratico Obama.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Carrarmati Usa schierati in Polonia

The current efforts to elect a new Chair of the AU Commission have been caught in the crosswinds of the impact of illicit capital outflows, the question of reseating Morocco in the AU and the challenges that Africa will face during a period of the ascendancy of the ideas of Donald Trump and Marie Le Pen. The AU will survive this turbulence. But the rise of the Pan African Movement will likely sweep away the present crop of leaders.

Introduction: Three crossing points

In all countries of Africa, from Egypt to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and beyond there are stirrings of the people who want to assert themselves politically in the context of realizing the pan African project of building a peaceful, integrated and prosperous Africa. These stirrings have created massive political tensions and are nowhere more evident than at the seat of the African Union where the poor and oppressed of Ethiopia have demanded a new democratic dispensation that provides real resources to the majority of the people.  Despite the glowing figures of economic growth, averaging 10.8% per year in 2003/04 – 2014/15, exploited Ethiopians have taken to the streets and internationalized their protests at the recent Olympics in Rio.  At state of emergency in Ethiopia confronts the AU about its future in a society of contested politics.

The peoples of Africa are responding every day to the global capitalist crisis by stating that the goals of Agenda 2063 cannot be achieved with the crop of current leaders. Genocidal economic relations in the South Sudan, dictators for life, idle threats to withdraw en masse from the International Criminal Court (ICC), war as a business in the so called War against Terror and the illicit capital flight from Africa preserved the interests of a class in Africa that opposed real African Unity. This is one of the top contradictions facing Africa at the crossroad between self-financing and illicit financial flows out of Africa.

In response to critical opposition to the stagnation at the AU Commission, the current leaders promised to ‘reform’ the African Union and to work harder to realize the aspirations of Agenda 2063. The goal of the ‘reform process’ is to transform the AU into a more effective and self-reliant institution. It will be the argument of this short intervention that the African Union is now facing turbulent headwinds.  The current efforts to appoint a new AU Commissioner has been caught in the cross winds of the impact of illicit capital outflows, the question of the reseating of Morocco in the AU and the challenges that Africa will face during a period of the ascendancy of the ideas of Donald Trump and Marie Le Pen. The conclusion will suggest that the Pan African movement will rise to the challenges posed by the current moment and the real push for reconstruction and transformation in Africa will accelerate in this period.

African Union and capital flight

Most of the countries of Africa are now deeply integrated into the international illicit economy that is embedded in looted minerals, bunkering of hydrocarbons, money laundering, illicit funds from fraudulent activities and nonpayment of taxes. In my most recent contribution to Pambazuka, I had outlined in great detail the way in which Kenya is one of the principal beach heads for this global illicit economy. http://www.pambazuka.org/pan-africanism/can-kenya-lead-african-union

Of any major country, Nigeria has probably had the highest percentage of its gross domestic product stolen— largely by corrupt officials—and deposited externally. Since the 1960s, up to $400 billion has been lost because of primitive accumulation, with $100 billion shifted out of the country. In October 2016, the government filed 15 separate suits against 15 oil companies at the Federal High Court in Lagos to recover billions of dollars that have been illegally siphoned from the country. As reported by Sahara News, “the Nigerian government used the consortium of experts for the intelligence-based tracking of the global movements of the country’s hydrocarbons, including crude oil and gas, with the main purpose of identifying the companies engaged in the practices that had led to missing revenues from crude oil and gas exports sales to different parts of the world.”  http://saharareporters.com/2016/10/04/nigeria-sues-shell-companies-407m-…

Future researchers on the state visit of President Buhari to Washington in July 2015 will be able to analyze the call from Buhari for assistance in identifying the more than US$150 billion that has been illegally taken from Nigeria and what Obama informed Buhari of where to look for the money. Such researchers will then be able to connect the travels of President Buhari to Kenya, London and Dubai in search of these funds and how these centers of money laundering rebuffed the Nigerian effort to recover stolen assets. The legal action that has now been taken in Nigeria followed the earlier fine against that of telecommunication firm MTN for nonpayment of taxes is one indication that at the highest political levels in Nigeria there is a commitment to curtail money laundering.  A study by UNCTAD found out that between 1996 and 2014, “under invoicing of oil exports from Nigeria to the United States was worth $69.8 billion, or 24.9% of all oil exports to the US.”

With the release of the Panama Papers in 2016 there is now more evidence of the volume of ‘illicit financial flows’ and the amount of wealth funneled out of Africa every year by capitalists. Reports in the media that the world’s super-rich have taken advantage of lax tax rules to siphon off at least $21 trillion, and possibly as much as $32tn, from their home countries and hide it abroad – a sum larger than the entire American economy – were circulated in early 2016. In these reports, Nigeria, Cote D Ivorie and Angola were at the top of the list of African states with high net worth individuals holding hundreds of billions outside their country.

One major area of future research by progressive pan African intellectuals at home and abroad will be to assess the linkages between political leaders and the opaque world of finance capital to unearth the infrastructures that have been put in place to ensure illicit financial flows from Africa. Discussions on the nonpayment of dues to the AU by member states have been another example of the failure of intellectual and political leadership at the top Commissions of the AU.

The fact that over 70% of the AU Commission is funded by imperialist states (called donors ) is itself one indication of the infrastructure of capital flight. These ‘donors’ actually have the intelligence on how much money is being shipped abroad by African leaders, hence they seek to keep up the fiction of providing ‘aid’ to Africa. One good example of this duplicity was the case of the stolen funds from Zimbabwe. A few weeks after stepping down as Chair of the AU in January 2016, in an interview on March 3, 2016, President Mugabe made the announcement that US$15 billion had been stolen from Zimbabwe over the past 7 years under his watch. Yet, there has been very little exposure of how the Mugabe regime destroyed the economy while his cronies robbed the diamond mines and exported billions. In order to facilitate their export of capital they resorted to using the US dollar as the currency of the society while printing worthless bonds for the people to use as a medium of exchange in Zimbabwe.

Why didn’t Madame Zuma act on the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial flows out of Africa?

British corporations are the most experienced in the business of stealing and looting minerals from Africa. A recent report by the non-governmental organization, War on Want, documents how 101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) — most of them British — have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries. They collectively control over $1 trillion worth of Africa’s most valuable resources.

http://media.waronwant.org/sites/default/files/TheNewColonialism.pdf?_ga=1.3253744.1389028767.1479741089

The details that are presented in this report are the kind of facts that should be studied in every major university and policy think tank in Africa. While this author takes issue with their designation of Sub Saharan Africa, we have witnessed the downgrading of African universities so that NGO’s can produce facts on ‘conflict gold’  but there is no serious research being carried out because the same ‘donors’ starve African researchers of real resources.

The most recent information by UNCTAD on the misinvoicing of minerals in Africa has exposed the fact that the question of gold exports from South Africa involved the pure smuggling of gold, “The most striking feature of the gold sector in South Africa is the huge discrepancy between the amounts recorded in that country’s official trade statistics and those reported in its trading partners’ records. According to South Africa’s data, the country’s cumulative gold exports were $34.5 billion from 2000 to 2014, whereas according to trading partner data for that period they were more than three times higher, at $116.2 billion. This is indicative of massive export underinvoicing.” In fact, the study reports, the physical volume of exports (using the data from SA’s partners) and export underinvoicing are in “perfect correlation”. “This suggests that export underinvoicing is not due to underreporting of the true value of gold exports, but rather to pure smuggling of gold out of the country. Total misinvoicing of gold exports to South Africa’s leading trading partners was $113.6 billion over the 15-year period. At an average exchange rate of R9 per dollar, this corresponds to over R1 trillion.”

What is true of misinvoicining in South Africa is true for every conceivable commodity exported from Africa. One of the failures of Madame Zuma in her role as Chairperson was to fail to aggressively place the resources of the AU in the area of combatting illicit financial flows and following the recommendations of the Thabo Mbeki high level panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa.  http://hdl.handle.net/10855/22695

Was it an accident that the press conference announcing the findings of this high level panel took place in Abuja where former President Mbeki announced that said African countries lose between $50 billion and $60 billion annually through illicit financial flow, IFF? . “Monies for infrastructure and social amenities for the poor African population are being transferred to other countries via illicit financial flows,” said Mbeki at his report on the findings of the panel.This report by the High Level Panel reinforced the research that has been done over the years and reproduced by the UNECA to bring home the reality that Africa lose between $50 billion and $60 billion annually through illicit financial flows. [1]

Capital flight and insecurity in Africa

There is competition between Britain, France, and the United States to decide on which country can produce the most corrupt officials in suborning African bureaucrats into the world of primitive accumulation of capital. The US uses the institutions of the Washington Consensus and the US Africa Command for their corruption, the British seek to be sophisticated and hide behind  the mineral houses and London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) while the French are the most obscene in their corrupt and manipulative politics in Africa. Eva Joly has exposed the role of the French intelligence services and oil companies in those countries that are still dominated by France.

The scandalous relations between France and the puppets in many former colonies are well known and it is these puppets who compete to protect France in the corridors of the African Union. Before its name was changed, the French Elf state oil company, France’s largest enterprise with a turnover of 232.6 billion francs in 1996, had been robbed of over 2 billion francs—305 million euros—by its top executives, largely during the second seven-year term of ‘socialist’ president François Mitterrand (1988-1995).  Serious law schools in Africa need to get a hold of the judgement relating to the criminal activities of Elf. In their 1,045-page indictment and a further 44,000 pages of documents, the investigating magistrates described in detail “a large number of operations carried out on the margins of normal functioning of the group’s structures, and destined… to collect assets off the books”.“

Annual cash transfers totalling about £10m were made to Omar Bongo, Gabon’s president, while other huge sums were paid to leaders in Angola, Cameroon and Congo-Brazzaville. The multi-million dollar payments were partly aimed at guaranteeing that it was Elf and not US or British firms that pumped the oil, but also to ensure the African leaders’ continued allegiance to France. In Gabon, Elf was a veritable state within a state. France accounts for three-quarters of foreign investment in Gabon, and Gabon sometimes provided 75% of Elf’s profits. In return for protection and sweeteners from Elf’s coffers, France used the state as a base for military and espionage activities in west Africa.”[2]

As reported at the time of the trial, ELF had been set up as a  state enterprise by General de Gaulle in 1963 “to ensure France’s independence in oil and which lived, grew and prospered in a special and incestuous relationship with Africa” (Le Monde, November 12, 2003). As Loïk Le Floch-Prigent put it: “In 1962, [Pierre Guillaumat] convinced [General de Gaulle] to set up a parallel structure of real oil technicians. [By creating Elf alongside Total] the Gaullists wanted a real secular arm of the state in Africa…a sort of permanent ministry of oil…a sort of intelligence office in the oil-producing countries.”

Loïk Le Floch-Prigent, CEO of Elf from 1989 to 1993, received a jail sentence of five years and a fine of 375,000 euros. Alfred Sirven, former general affairs executive, also got five years and a 1 million euro fine. André Tarallo, 76, former number-two in the hierarchy and known as “Mr. Africa,” was given four years and a 2 million euro fine. Alain Gillon, former refinery executive, received a three-year jail sentence and a 2 million pound fine. However, their counterparts and underlings have intensified their work in Africa and France has been the most active within the ranks of her colonies and within the Peace and Security Council of the African Union.

The name of the company Elf Aquitaine International may have changed (now Total) but the continuity in practices of theft and bribery are so clear that these elements from France and the EU cannot afford real democratic change in African societies such as Gabon. The corruption of the French capitalists has been well documented by Eva Joly and more needs to be done in relation to the role of France in financing and supporting insurgents in places such as Mali and Central African Republic and then turning around to the Security Council of the UN to lead the fight against terror in Mali and Central African Republic. The Peace and Security Council of the AU has permitted the European Union to set the agenda of what defines terror and terrorism in Africa. Both China and Russia as members of the Security Council of the United Nations have been complicit in giving a pass to France for her activities in Africa. In the case of former President Sarkozy, he particularly worked hard to get the Chinese to be allies in their corrupt practices.

When the funds and minerals are fraudulently taken from African economies, then the foreign banks establish special desks to ensure that the illicit funds flow to offshore bank accounts. None of the reports on illicit flows out of Africa made the connections to the questions of militarism, insecurity, the so called war on terror and the role of international military operators, especially private military contractors. Cameroonian intellectuals who are researching on the expansion of Boko Haram beyond Nigeria are slowly documenting the duplicitous role of France in the enlargement of terror in Central and West Africa.

There has been talk of the reform of the African Union and the leadership of this reform process has been placed in the hands of President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. A visit to the largest gold refinery in the Gulf of Arabia will widen the discussion of reform in the AU to implicate the looting of resources from the DRC and to place the mandate of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union in the elaboration of identifying the looters and their chief beneficiaries. How can Kagame lead a ‘reform process’ in the AU when his regime violates the basic human rights of members of the opposition to the point of killings on foreign soil?

At the Kigali summit of the African Union in 2016,  the President of Rwanda announced an impressive team to spearhead the reforms at the African Union so that this Pan African body can be more self-reliant. It was proclaimed that member states will be expected to contribute 0.2 per cent of proceeds from levy on eligible imports to fund operations of the organisation. What remains striking in the proclamation  is the fact that these schemes seem to deflect attention from the ways in which African economies are integrated into the present global economy and that there can be no self reliance until there are serious efforts to control the wealth of Africa. Any study of the looting of the DRC by Uganda and Rwanda will expose their complicity in ensuring that Africa simply digs out minerals and all of the added value is accrued to other countries.

During the Kigali summit, a new funding model was adopted to make AU operations exclusively funded by subventions from member states. A few years earlier, a previous high-level panel chaired by former Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, had been appointed to look at alternative sources of financing for the AU. Then, there was the recommendation that member states raise revenue by imposing a $10 airfare levy on each international flight leaving or entering Africa and a $2 levy per hotel stay in Africa. This levy remained just another proposal with no real effort towards implementation.

Now, Paul Kagame as the lead person for the ‘reform process’ has designated nine prominent to oversee the reform efforts of the African Union. Of these nine, many are aware of the drain of resources because of the absence of processing facilities in Africa. Others have participated in the detailed studies of illicit financial flows out of Africa. It will remain to be seen whether the Chairperson of the Reform process, (Dr Donald Kaberuka, the former president of the African Development Bank (AfDB) and Finance minister of Rwanda) will raise the question of African resources in the global value chain as part of the agenda of how to increase revenues for African peoples, and ultimately for the African Union.

Europe is afraid of the full unification of Africa

The question of the AU budget as discussed in the deliberations about ‘reform’ had steered clear of the questions of capital flight and definitive benchmarks of the African Monetary Co-operation Programme (AMCP) of the Association of African Central Banks. [2] Patriotic Pan African bankers who understood the full impact of external currency domination of Africa had been keen to develop the African Currency Unit as far back as 2002. At the 1963 meeting of the OAU, Kwame Nkrumah had admonished the African leaders that ‘Africa must unite or perish.’  For fifty years the Pan African project was pushed forward by the Lagos Plan of Action and the Abuja Treaty of 1991 establishing the African Economic Community. The former President of Libya had gone ahead with precise plans for the gold reserves of Libya to be used to anchor the African currency. After the NATO intervention in Libya it emerged that the primary motivation for the launch of the war was to halt the process of realizing the Pan African project of a common currency in Africa. Revelations from the correspondence between the Secretary of State of the United States, Hilary Clinton and Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France in March 2011 revealed that the plans for the NATO intervention were dictated by the following issues:

A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

Increase French influence in North Africa,

Improve his internal political situation in France,

Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/12/what-hillary-knew-about-libya/

Many of the leaders who had retreated from supporting the African Monetary Cooperation Programme are being made aware of the real role of international finance as the more literate follow the rulings of the British court in relation to the resources of the Libyan Investment Authority that had been purloined by Goldman Sachs. The ruling of the High Court in London in favor of Goldman Sachs against the Libyan Investment Authority is only serving to increase the literacy of Africans on the workings of the international financial oligarchy. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/lia-v-goldman.pdf

Recently President Museveni gave notice that the African Union will be working more aggressively to end foreign domination in Libya. Museveni stated that,

We recently had a meeting in Addis Ababa and told all and sundry that AU intends to rescue Libya and we also made it clear that future attacks on African soil without coordinating with AU are not acceptable, to put it mildly. Can Africa defend African soil?  Very much so.

This kind of bravado statement of Yoweri Museveni after the AU High Level committee meeting on 8 November 2016 belied the reality that at least three members of the AU committee, Chad, Egypt and the Sudan are partners of NATO in the current destruction of Libya. http://www.peaceau.org/uploads/auhlp-meeting-on-libya-8-nov-2016-en-.doc

In the book, Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya, this author brought out the graphic historical lessons from the destruction of Libya and what lessons that will be learnt when comparing the invasion of Libya to the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935. The PanAfrican movement of that period accelerated the end of colonial domination in Africa.

Lessons from the Italian invasion of Abyssinia

Between 1935 and 1946 the global mobilization against fascism built new alliances internationally and quickened the pace of decolonization in all parts of the world. That anti-fascist internationalism deepened with mass resistance inside of Africa and linked the pan African movement to the Bandung process to cement the South Project. From that moment until now, the Pan African movement has been a central anchor of the South Project, that is the project of creating a new international economic order. Africans are being called upon to rebuild and strengthen this project with calls from the belly of empire to defend black lives. The present generation of youths is being mobilized through new means of communication to realize the goals of real Pan African solidarity from Burkina Faso in West Africa to Bahia in Brazil.

European project shatters in the face of solidarity in the South

The question of the rejoining of the AU by the present Moroccan leadership forms the next major challenge for the future of the African Union.  Since 1984, the political leadership of Morocco had placed its aspirations on the future of the European project, but with the implosion of the European ideal as manifest with Brexit, the Moroccan leadership has decided to rejoin the African Union. In the process, the Moroccan leadership seeks to strengthen the neo-liberal pressures of global capital inside the AU to challenge the anti-colonial stance of the African Union on Western Sahara and all outstanding colonial territories (Puerto Rico, Cayenne, Martinique, Guadeloupe Mayotte, etc).

Progressive Africans have been tracking the economic diplomacy of Morocco in the rest of Africa. As one commentator outlined,

Morocco is currently courting a number of African countries relentlessly, including Madagascar, Tanzania, Rwanda, and others. Morocco has signed 19 economic agreements with Rwanda and 22 with Tanzania—two countries that traditionally backed the Western Sahara’s quest for decolonization. Nigeria Morocco have signed a total of 21 bilateral agreements, a joint venture to construct a gas pipeline that will connect the two nations as well as some other African countries to Europe. It is easily transparent that the economic agreements with these countries imply ulterior motives for increasing Morocco’s leverage in its campaign to return to the AU and deal a blow to Western Sahara’s aspirations for self-determination. Morocco is waging a similar campaign internationally and in the halls of the U.S. congress by hiring expensive lobbyists and sleazy public relations firms. [3]

It is in the push by Morocco to play a leading role in the AU that is helping to define the future of the AU in world politics. The political leadership of Morocco has been working through states such as Cote d Ivorie, Gabon and Senegal to promote the interests of the Moroccan leadership but the limits of this alliance with Senegal and Cote D Ivorie were exposed at the heads of state meeting of the 4th African-Arab summit in Equatorial Guinea

The Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), declared by the Polisario Front in 1976,  is a member of the African Union At the Malabo Summit of African and Arab leaders in  November 2016, Morocco found out the limits of its influence when it tried to force the question of removing the representatives of the SADR from the meeting. When Morocco walked out of the meeting, only the most conservative monarchies of the Gulf – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman – pulled out of the summit over the participation of the Polisario Front delegation. Many governments such as Egypt and Kuwait who in the past would have been supportive of Morocco decided to stay in the meeting, exposing the diplomatic isolation of Morocco.

This push by the Moroccans is also caught up in the struggles for a new chairperson of the AU Commission. My most recent article on whether Kenya can lead the African Union offered some reasons why the interpenetration of western financial and security interests in East Africa disqualifies Kenya from taking a leadership role.

It is the contention of this intervention that at this historical moment the ideas of the Moroccan leadership confront the aspirations of the Moroccan peoples and thus the question to be posed is not whether Morocco will be part of the AU, but what kind of politics will emerge in Morocco out of the present stirrings of the oppressed citizens of Morocco. The death of a fishmonger in the northern town of Al-Hoceima who was crushed to death (inside a garbage truck as he tried to retrieve fish confiscated by police) exposed another reality of thousands of outraged Moroccans.  The present leadership of Morocco has a shortsighted understanding of world politics and have not yet grasped the seismic shift that has taken place since the imperial interventions in Libya and the war in Syria. Hence, they could not understand why Egypt is not under the thumb of Saudi Arabia as in the past. The turbulence in the revolutionary politics that had been initiated in the streets of Cairo and Tunis may seem to have subsided, but the youths of Africa are assessing the new forms of organizing for the next round so that the decisive blow against neo-liberalism in the next round of revolutionary struggles will sweep away leaders who seek to reverse the gains of popular rebellions.

Reparations and African Descendants.

The third major contradiction for the AU will be how it confronts the growing threat of fascism. The election of Donald Trump in the United States and the rise of the ideas of Marie Le Pen in Europe have brought back the questions of racism and xenophobia to the center of world politics. Repairing humanity from the scourge of racist and genocidal violence has been at the center of Pan African political activity since the days of enslavement. In the last years of the OAU the Reparations question had been high of the agenda with positive interactions between the Global African family in all parts of the planet. The present leaders of the AU who have been silent on the question of the black lives at home and abroad are now faced with a vibrant #Black lives matter social movement that is spreading in all parts of the globe. When Haiti attempted to join the AU in 2016, this African society was rebuffed by a leadership that does not understand the history of Pan Africanism and the centrality of Haiti in the History of Pan African Revolts. Leaders who understand the so called ‘diaspora’ only in terms of remittances are being exposed for their silence on what is happening to Africans on a day to day basis in the face of police killings. The demands for reparations and for respecting Black Lives in the era of Donald Trump will sharpen the contradictions between the EU brand of Pan African partnership and that which comes from ordinary Africans.

There is little reference at the official level of how Agenda 2063 would affect the more than two hundred and fifty million Africans of the Global African Family living outside the geographical boundaries of Africa. At the bidding of their ‘global partners’ that seek to set the tone for research and the agenda in Africa there is emphasis on the SDG goals instead of deepening the understanding of reparations and reparative justice. Slowly, the EU-Pan African partnership is downplaying the aspirations of Agenda 2063 and in its place organizing meetings all over Africa on ‘good governance’ and ‘security sector reform ‘instead on the role of financial houses in money laundering.

On the whole, the present leaders had a different project from the producing classes who believed that the idea of Africa for the Africans at home and abroad should not be a slogan. African intellectuals are torn between these two visions of social and economic change, with a small minority carrying forward the Nkrumahist vision that had inspired the call for full unity. The political upheavals of the current currency wars and the wars on terror will have impacts on the entire process of African unity and one of the challenges for the progressive forces will be how to engage with the popular producing forces to seize on moments to push harder for a common currency and to make legal the idea of the free movement of the people of Africa.

When the AU Constitutive Act was being drafted, it was the conscious effort of the progressive Pan Africanists that the AU would be qualitatively different from the OAU. The Secretary General of the OAU had worked from a Secretariat. The AU has a Commissioner whose powers to intervene are clearly stated in the Constitutive Act. Current leaders such as Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame may grandstand on reforms and the capabilities of the African Union but the seriousness with which they will be taken will be determined by the levels of transparency and democratic participation in their societies.  Nonpayment of dues by member states of the AU is itself a statement about where their loyalties are. They have kept foreign banks alive while their people go without basic necessities. It is in Nigeria where there is the largest section of the African working class where one will have to grasp the joint struggles against capital flight and Boko Haram. Two Nigerian leaders were killed when they took assertive action against empire. The psychological warfare against Nigeria is most intense in order to detract from the calls to bring to justice the fraudulent leaders. Both Murtala Mohammed and Chief M.K.O Abiola were eliminated when they decided to stand up for Africa. The late Tajudeen Abdul Raheem had worked hard for the building of Pan African Unity and he had admonished the youth to organize.

Conclusion

This call for organizing is now clearer as the liberal ideas of the West has been shattered with the coming to power of the alt right in Europe and North America. These neo fascist forces have made it clear that there will be no grey areas on the question of racism. It is this same racism that entreats the leadership of Europe and North America to seek the recovery of capitalism on the backs and bodies of the African at home and abroad. The current rebellions in Ethiopia and South Africa demand new engagement with new ideas about transcending neo-liberal capitalism. The same foundations that have supported the leaders in the DRC, Ethiopia, South Africa and the Sudan are busy  organizing meetings to ensure that the rebellions now underway does not really disrupt the looting of African resources.

Kenya remains the model for western foundations of spending peanuts on studies on ‘democratic reforms’ while international capital support a Kenyan ruling class that divides the working peoples on the basis of religion and “tribe”. The corruption of the Kenyan military led to their catastrophic defeat in Somalia in January at the el Ade (comfort base). Somali insurgents fighting against external military presence in Somalia killed 180 Kenyans in January at a camp in el Ade. Eleven months after the killings, the Kenyan military refuse to provide figures as to the numbers killed. Instead, the Kenyan military is promoting their book, Operation Linda Nchi: Kenya’s military experience in Somalia. [4]

Faced with the fact that Kenyans want real information on the deaths in Somalia, the government of Kenya has refused to provide information as to how many were killed. Given the revolutionary potential of the Ethiopian workers and small farmers, the President of the USA has used his authority to enlarge the operations of the US Africa Command in Somalia. On November 27, President  Obama acted to give the legal authority for the expanding war in Somalia using the U.S. Special Ops, AFRICOM, private contractors, and the CIA with the 9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq.  US military personnel in Somalia can easily be redeployed to Ethiopia when the current revolutionary upheaval matures.

Member states of the African Union have been silent on this expansion of the war when for two decades it was stated in the corridors of power in Washington that it was the presence of US military personnel in Africa that acts as a magnet for misguided youths who are financed by the Wahabists.

At the time of submitting this article, the peoples of Africa were confronted with the clowning refusal of Gambian President Yahya Jammeh to accept the results of the elections of December 1, 2016 when he lost  to the leader of the combined opposition led by Adama Barrow. While the diplomatic dance of the AU and ECOWAS is underway, serious Africans need to engage with the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative that had been launched in 2007 by the United Nations Office on Drugs. Such engagement will shift the discussions on the question of where to get the resources to fund the work of the African Union.

The renewed confidence of Africans is emerging in the midst of an economic depression in Europe and at a moment when Africans are stating clearly that there must be new values for African unity, for healing ourselves and the world (Maathai 2010). Wangaari Maathai as a feminist and environmentalist in the Pan African Movement had brought the questions of environmental repair to the forefront of the discussions on Pan Africanism. This new brand of Pan Africanism that respects life, health, peace and environmental reconstruction is slowly asserting itself in all parts of the Pan African world. The AU will survive the turbulent headwinds. It is not clear whether most of the current leadership will survive. The three crosscurrents promise to blow many away.

Horace G Campbell is the Kwame Nkrumah Chair at the Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana at Legon.

Notes

[1] Ajayi and L. Ndikumana (eds.), Capital Flight from Africa: Causes, Effects and Policy Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015

[2] Jon Henley, “Gigantic sleaze scandal winds up as former Elf oil chiefs are jailed,”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/nov/13/france.oilandpetrol

[3] Yohannes Woldemariam, Behind Morocco’s New Tango with the African Union, https://www.ghanastar.com/africa-news/behind-moroccos-new-tango-with-the…

[4] Official KDF Account, Operation Linda Nchi: Kenya’s Military Experience in Somalia,  Ministry of Defence, Kenya 2014

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pan-Africanism and the Global Economic Crisis: African Union Faces Turbulent Headwinds