On November 15, U.S News and World Report released an article by Rachel Dicker providing a list of “fake sites” to “avoid at all costs.” On the list, Activist Post was prominently noted as being “fake” or, more accurately to the point of the article, a “propaganda” site.

This article comes shortly after an announcement by Google that it would be prohibiting “fake” and “misrepresentative” sites from using its “Adsense” program. The company stated to Reuters that,

“Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property. This policy includes fake news sites, the spokesperson confirmed. Google already prevents its AdSense program from being used by sites that promote violent videos and imagery, pornography, and hate speech.

And, of course, the definition of the Orwellian-named “hate speech,” violence, misrepresentation and “fake news” is all going to be determined by Facebook and Google. War, for instance, is extremely violent but there is a necessity to cover it and even produce images from the battlefield in the process. Police shootings and other forms of violence against citizens is also violent but a necessary issue to cover. “Hate speech” is incredibly subjective and, in 2016, speech has come to be labeled as “hate” even when it merely respectfully disagreed with a protected identity group.

But the new Google policy and the intent to remove what is for many websites a main source of revenue has obvious political implications and is about much more than a desire to prevent unpleasant images, violence, and hate from being shown to Americans. That is, it is obvious that the intention of Google is to starve out the source of revenue for the alternative media, thereby crashing the alternative media as a competitor for mainstream outlets and eliminating any sources of critical thought and competing narratives.

The mainstream media is a dying institution. This much is clear. Fewer and fewer people are paying attention to CNN, FOX, U.S. News and World Report, and the rest of the corporate press, while more and more people are tuning in to independent and alternative broadcasts and visiting alternative media websites. This is posing a major threat not only to the very survival of the corporate news but also to the narratives being peddled by the U.S. State Department, Wall Street, and Corporate America via their media mouthpieces. The cat is coming out of the bag for the U.S. oligarchy and the only way to put it back is to ensure that the alternative media goes away and that the American people will only be able to consume the shit shoveled out by major corporations from here on out.

But back to Dicker’s article. We should note that the categorization of the flagged sites is interesting indeed. The “fake news” sites are listed into three groups – satire, hoax, and propaganda. As Activist Post has pointed out, satire is a legitimate form of literature. Perhaps the writers and editors of stuffy and irrelevant media organizations like U.S. News and World Report are unaware of the art of sarcasm or irony, which is apparent by the fact that U.S. News and World Report has the audacity to call another outlet a “propaganda site.”

Dicker also mentions hoax websites. I must confess much irritation over constantly seeing actual fake news websites often even listed as satire but which are, in reality, hoaxes, floating around the internet and social media and being shared by well-meaning people who cannot take the time to investigate their own source of information. Sites with headlines like “Hillary Clinton Shoots Puppy After Election Loss” or “Donald Trump Vomits Demon On Israeli Prime Minister” are unfortunately clogging up the works for legitimate news organizations (and by that I mean many alternative outlets) but such is the risk in a free society where people are free to choose what they read and think.

That being said, I wonder how many lives would have been lost as a result of a number of Americans believing that Hillary Clinton shot a puppy or Donald Trump is possessed versus believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? I guess we will never know the stats for the former, but perhaps we should ask the editors of the “trusted” New York Times, CNN, CBS, and their ilk for the numbers on the latter.

Indeed, for U.S. News and World Report to label Activist Post as propaganda whilst disseminating unproven allegations and obvious pro-war propaganda is hypocritical to say the least.

Remember, it was U.S. News and World Report that published “The Liberal Case For Intervention In Syria,” which was a pathetic attempt to justify yet another American war of aggression against a country that did nothing to the U.S. nor posed any threat to it.

The author, Eric Schnurer, attempted to make the case that invading Syria and slaughtering civilians directly (as opposed to the proxy method being used currently) was actually the moral thing to do. Or perhaps we should mention the countless interviews with military-industrial complex “Think Tanks” and “foreign-relations strategy firms” that are consistently promoted by US News And World Report (USNAWR) in order to add to the massive circle jerk of pro-war/anti-Russia commentators designed to create a false-consensus, i.e. that the “experts” all agree that Assad is a “brutal dictator killing his own people” and that Putin “wants to control the world.” We must also mention the constant braying over “chemical weapons” being used in Syria, being blamed on Assad, all the while these news organizations are aware that there is virtually no evidence to back up their claims.

USNAWR even saw fit to post an editorial by an individual claiming that WMDs were found in Iraq and that “Bush was right” all along, a separation from reality if ever there was one.

The saddest part about the journalistic quality of USNAWR is that, bad as their articles often are, the really bad ones are actually the most interesting. Looking at USNAWR’s website, the corporation seems to be nothing more than a bigger version of those “ranking” sites advertised under so many news articles. You know the ones I’m talking about with headlines like “10 Hottest Athletes” and “30 Actors That Are Actually Gay.” The difference, however, is that USNAWR throws in several articles to give their readers the false impression that visiting the site is not an incredible waste of time.

Rachel Dickers’ articles themselves are evidence of the irrelevance of USNAWR. Take a look at her history and you will see articles full of incredible journalistic sleuthing – a Golden Pheasant that looks like Donald Trump, what’s trending on Chinese social media, a letter written by a creator of a television show, and, of course, a musical performance by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Riveting stuff.

Interestingly enough, Dickers did not mention the New York Times and their coverage of the non-existent WMDs in Iraq. Shouldn’t that organization be labeled propaganda? Not only that, NYT’s information managed to kill a million Iraqis and over 3,000 American soldiers. Not even an honorable mention?

There was also no mention of CNN for its infamous “Syria Danny” fiasco where the corporation was caught red-handed staging a propaganda video against the Syrian government and ultimately to draw Americans in to having pro-war sentiment despite the weariness of foreign adventures enabled by “real” news organizations like the New York Times and CNN. This outright lie was exposed by the alternative media, highlighting the reason why corporate news organizations, Wall Street, and the military industrial complex want the alternative media silent.

Likewise, Dickers did not mention NPR and its “Gay Girl In Damascus” ordeal where the organization promoted a storyline designed to demonize the Syrian government despite the fact that the “Gay Girl In Damascus” was neither gay, nor a girl, nor even in Damascus.

Indeed, we can make many lists of many different things when discussing the mainstream and alternative media but I suggest we begin by making lists of the actual consequences of their work. Perhaps a list of the dead civilians who were killed as a result of the malfeasance and deception of the corporate media would be a place to start. Perhaps a list of dead military personnel would also make for an interesting list. But while CNN concerns itself with Beyonce and U.S. News And World Report must first report on birds that look like Trump, the alternative media will continue to cover real news which, of course, includes the epic fails of the corporate press.

While Zuckerberg and Schmidt attempt to deal a lethal blow to the alternative press, rest assured that adsense will not be the end of alternative media. America’s favorite dorks may deliver a decent punch to many outlets but, in the end, the alternative media and the “propaganda” sites Dickers is so worried about will have the opportunity of watching the corporate press decay and disappear into the dustbin of history.”

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

The “liberation” of Mosul has been ongoing for nearly one month. Within this period, the International Coalition’s actions resulted in hundreds of casualties among civilians: some got killed by bombardments, others by inaccurate artillery strikes or because of the ground forces’ unsuccessful operations.

Besides, Iraqi civilians fall victims to ISIS terrorists who keep holding Mosul. Our media center reported that hundreds of local citizens for violating the ban on using mobile phones, simply for an attempt to leave the city without the required fee or permit or alleged assistance to the coalition forces.

Meanwhile, not only civilian casualties tie the US-led Coalition and ISIS. Today, Turkish news site Haber7 published some documents in which Abu Muawia, terrorists’ leader in the city of Bakhdida, not to shoot down any aircraft in the region.

The text of the decree reads:

“It is strictly forbidden to shoot down, using any weapons whatsoever, any aircraft that is in the air, no matter what height they are flying at, even if the aircraft lands on the rooftop of houses.”

It should be stressed that only coalition aircraft operate by Bakhdida city situated 32 km of Mosul. Actually, the terrorists have been ordered not to shoot down “friendly” AF.

Taking into consideration how actively Western donors support the Islamic State, such decrees seem quite reasonable. Obviously, Washington’s ultimate goal is not Mosul’s liberation or fighting ISIS but pushing the group towards Syria to counter Bashar al-Assad’s successes.

Yesterday the Tax Justice Network was in the UK Parliament to launch a report it had co-produced with the Public and Commercial Services Union. The report, entitled “HMRC, Building an Uncertain Future” is a study of HMRC’s (the UK tax authority) reform plans which it is calling “Building our Future”.

The report published yesterday analysed the proposed reforms at HMRC by looking at the history of the department’s reform programmes and using a survey of 2000 HMRC staff who are members of the PCS Union. Although the report only deals with the UK tax authority, the findings may seem familiar to many tax authorities around the world who have faced austerity drives in recent years. In this article report author George Turner sets out some the issues.

Reform at HMRC

Since the HMRC was formed in 2006 as a merger between the Inland Revenue and HM Customs, the department has been subject to a series of internal reorganisations and change programmes. The current proposals formulated by HMRC management, Building our Future (BoF), are the most radical and far reaching changes proposed so far.

The department says that BoF is part of a drive to become the most ‘digitally advanced’ revenue service in the world. In the ‘vision’ of HMRC management this digital new world will almost entirely eliminate phone and postal enquiries from members of the public and small businesses. There will be much less need for staff to process forms or speak to taxpayers, who will be delighted to interact solely with a computer. As a result staff will be freed up to work on more complex issues. This will mean staff being moved away from boring administrative jobs and retrained to tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

The plans are nothing new. Since 2006 HMRC have spent billions in an effort to move tax payers to automated, digital services. At the same time they slashed staff numbers arguing that an increase in the uptake of digital services would lead to fewer demands on staff time.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, the department got their forecasts wrong. The public kept calling and mailing kept arriving. The reductions in staff numbers meant that the department became overwhelmed and standards of service to taxpayers collapsed.

Management failure piles pressure on staff

To compensate for these failures management responded by heaping yet more pressure on staff, introducing a system of staff appraisals called performance management review.

This system, which pitted staff against each other in an attempt to drive up performance, was developed by the private sector in the 1970s. It had already been abandoned by most companies that had adopted it by the time HMRC implemented it due to being ineffective. This and other management initiatives have simply led to more time lost to form filling and administration, further damaging the departments capacity to tackle tax evasion.

To make matters worse, promised increases in staff numbers in the compliance department have not materialised. As a result, the department fell drastically short in their efforts to combat offshore tax evasion though several high profile disclosure schemes run by the department.

The staff that have remained at HMRC are poorly paid and under trained. According to research carried out for our report, most people working at HMRC are paid less than the UK average wage and less than half the salary of an employee of a big four accountancy firm. The department also spends far less per employee on training than the big four.

Today, the department is at breaking point. A decade of reforms that have failed to deliver, coupled with a series of further failures in the management of contracts and staff have wrecked confidence in management. Staff are hugely demoralised,25% want to leave the department immediately or within a year and the department scores below average in almost all of the measures on the Civil Service’s annual staff survey. The public image of HMRC has been severely damaged by a string of highly critical reports from one of the few bodies that provides any oversight to the department, Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.

Cutting costs and corners

How did this department, which is so essential to the functioning of government, manage to get itself in such a position?

One answer is that improvements in service quality have never been at the heart of HMRC’s many change programmes. Instead, cuts in the HMRC budget have been the primary driver of change, and the promise that change could still deliver the service required on a lower budget have simply been a useful (if inaccurate) justification for those cuts.

Long before the period of austerity started in 2010 HMRC was facing real terms cuts to its budget. Today, the budget in cash terms is the same as was available to the two pre-merger departments in the year 2000. That is before we take into account the substantial cost of inflation (around 40%). As a direct result of these cuts, the numbers of staff employed by HMRC has fallen drastically and is scheduled to fall further to fewer than 50,000 under BoF; less than half the department’s size at the time of the merger.

But rather than fighting to make sure that that the department is adequately resourced to do the job required, management have sought to demonstrate to government how they are doing a great job on fewer resources. Our report found mismatches in the way that the department collected statistics on enforcement and tax collections which appeared to show that management were cherry picking facts and figures to make sure that the department is presented in the most favourable light to the government.

An essential government service at risk

HMRC is unique among government departments in that its function is to raise the revenue which is used to support public spending; on schools, hospitals and other vital public services. Our report shows that in the judgement of many experienced tax inspectors and customs officials, the Building our Future plans pose a serious risk to tax collection in the UK, and with it, our public services.

The closure of so many offices will mean that large parts of the country, including major cities and ports, will be left without any visible HMRC presence. In Scotland there will be no HMRC presence North of Glasgow. In England there will be no office East of London, South of London or West of Bristol. The whole of Wales will have one office in Cardiff. Northern Ireland will have one office in Belfast.

This will create significant difficulties for HMRC staff, who are often required to visit businesses and ports to carry out their work. In addition, by abandoning so many parts of the country the department risks losing huge numbers of experienced staff.

Time to act

At a time of government imposed austerity, when the public have a vanishing tolerance for tax evasion and tax avoidance, Ministers can no longer ignore the ongoing crisis at HMRC. It is now time for the government to stop the HMRC Commissioners’ from putting our tax collection system at risk though Building our Future, and to engage seriously with the staff on building a properly resourced tax collection system, able to take on the many challenges posed by tax havens, secrecy and international tax avoidance and evasion in the 21st Century.

Download the full report from the PCS website here.

Sit down. This is going to shock you. (Not). We reported yesterday on the telephone call between US president-elect Trump and Russian president Putin, where the current and future presidents discussed the need to set aside differences and look to more constructive future relations. With serious observers of this past year’s increasing tensions between US and Russia openly worrying about a nuclear war breaking out, with some 300,000 NATO troops placed on Russia’s border, with sanctions hurting average businesspersons on both sides, a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ.

In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin.

Any claim by Putin that he wants to improve relations with the US must be vigorously opposed, writes McCain. He explains:

We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies, and attempted to undermine America’s elections.

Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary’s claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie.

Why is Putin not to be trusted, according to McCain?

Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs. Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.

What McCain doesn’t say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years.

Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria?

As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast…

Director-General of the Syria Coroner’s Office Hossein Noufel disclosed that the body organs of thousands of Syrian civilians have been sold in the international black markets over the past six years.

“We have accurate information that over 25,000 surgical operations have been conducted in the refugee camps of the neighboring countries and in the terrorist-controlled areas in Syria since 2011 to take out the body organs of 15,000 Syrians and sell them in the international black markets,” Dr. Noufel said.

He pointed to the high prices of human body organs in the black markets, and said, “A kidney is sold $10,000 in Turkey while the same kidney is sold for $1,000 in Iraq, but in Lebanon and Syria the price of each kidney is $3,000.”

Dr. Noufel said that other human body organs such as spleen and cornea are also sold in the black markets.

According to latest reports, the children who have been rescued from the camps of Abdullah Muhammad al-Muhaysini, a senior al Qaeda-linked cleric and the religious leader of Jeish al-Fatah terrorist group, are now threatened with the danger of trafficking their body organs by the terrorists.

Local sources in Idlib province told al-Akhbar newspaper that during the past two weeks, 15 people have been kidnapped from different districts, most of them children.

Also, social media activists have released tens of messages and warned the Idlib residents of the possibility of abduction of their children and trafficking of their body organs by the terrorist groups, saying that most of the kidnapped children have been transferred to Turkey.

Local sources in several districts of Idlib have reported that over 10 children have been abducted in different parts of the province, including Kafarouma, Jidar Bekalfoun, Atma, Jisr al-Shaqour and al-Fayqa by the militants.

Also, a local source in Sarmada town North of Idlib said that “a number of militants driving a white van abducted a 10-year-old child but they faced the residents’ resistance and were arrested but sources said that they were freed from Fatah al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra) prison the same day”.

According to reports, the exacerbation of security situation in Idlib has forced the residents to flee to Hama province in fear of their children’s lives.

Meantime, a media source said on Wednesday that the ISIL has set up a market in Turkey which sells human body organs stolen from the mutilated bodies of the Iraqi people who have been kidnapped by the terrorist groups.

A media source said that the ISIL transfers the frozen body organs from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Tal Afar in Nineveh and then to Raqqa in Syria. The cargo then is sold to the Turkish mafia.

According to the source, all types of body organ that could be transplanted are sold in the market, specially kidney and heart.

Based on the report, kidney is sold at a price of 5,000 Iraqi dinars (4,000 US dollars) while a heart is worth 6,000 dollars in the Turkish market.

Reports said earlier this month that the ISIL is mutilating and selling the body organs of Iraqi children to compensate for its financial loss and shortages.

Local sources reported that after starting the academic year in Iraq, 11 children were kidnapped in different parts of al-Qae’m town in the Western parts of al-Anbar province and their families then found their mutilated bodies with no heart, kidneys, eyes and other transplantable organs.

The sources added that none of the parents of these children dare to file a lawsuit against the ISIL or report the abduction of their child for the fear of the terrorist group’s retaliatory measures.

Media reports also said in March that the ISIL terrorist group is using organ harvesting as a way to finance its operations and save the lives of injured members.

The Spanish daily El Mondo reported that facing the increased number of wounded members in the Syrian army and popular forces’ attacks, the ISIL is using the body organs of its captives for transplantation.

According to the report, the ISIL also forces the prisoners in Mosul jails to donate blood and postpones the execution of those sentenced to death to use their blood as much as possible.

The ISIL doesn’t merely use the organs of its captives and prisoners’ bodies for transplantation to its members but it sells them to other countries as a lucrative business, it added.

Medical sources told El Mondo that the personnel in one of hospitals in Mosul have seen corpses of at least 183 people whose organs had been taken out of their bodies.

According to the report, the ISIL has set up a medical team in Mosul headed by a German physician which exports the body organs to Syria and the Iraqi Kurdistan region for transplantation to its members or selling.

Iraqi Ambassador to the United Nations Mohamed Alhakim had made the same revelations last year, saying that the ISIL is trafficking human organs and has executed a dozen doctors for failing to go along with the program.

Alhakim based his claim on the discovery of dozens of bodies left in shallow mass graves near the city of Mosul, currently an ISIL stronghold. Surgical incisions, along with missing kidneys and other body parts lead to an inescapable conclusion. “We have bodies. Come and examine them. It is clear they are missing certain parts,” Alhakim revealed. He further described the carnage:

“When we discover mass graves, we look at the bodies. Some of those bodies are killed by bullets, some of them by knives. But when you find pieces of the back is missing and the kidneys is missing, you will wonder what it is.”

In a stunning move, President Obama has announced he won’t allow any oil and gas leases on land deemed sacred by the Blackfeet Tribe.

After the announcement, Devon Energy, which was hoping to drill on 130,000 acres in Montana — some of which housed Glacier National Park and Blackfeet land — will have all of its oil and gas leases cancelled on the disputed land. The Bureau of Land Management had previously granted 15 leases to Devon Energy in the northwestern part of the Big Sky State.

“We are proud to have worked alongside the Blackfeet Nation, U.S. Forest Service and Devon Energy to achieve this important milestone, rolling back decades-old leases and reinforcing the importance of developing resources in the right ways and the right places,” said Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell in a public statement.

National Parks Conservation Association official Michael Jamison told the Washington Post that the cancellation of the leases is an important milestone for the preservation of various protected species like wolf, bear, and elk.

“There aren’t many places like this left in the lower 48,” Jamison said.

The move is particularly significant in the context of the ongoing protests at the construction site of the Dakota Access Pipeline, where hundreds of indigenous tribes have gathered with the Standing Rock Sioux to prevent the pipeline from being built. Protesters say the pipeline, which would run underneath the Missouri River, would endanger a crucial drinking water supply for millions of people in several states.

For its part, Devon will receive a little over $200,000 for the cancellation of the leases, which were issued in the 1980s with no drilling occurring since the leases were granted.

Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact him via email at [email protected], or friend him on Facebook. 

First published on September 8, 2016, this article evaluated the consequences of the first year of the Saudi-US war on Yemen.

Is your money that good? Will it buy you forgiveness? Do you think that it could?” (Bob Dylan, b 1941, Masters of War.)

On Tuesday 6^th of September, twenty-four hour monitoring by Yemen’s Legal Centre for Rights and Development (LCRD) recorded the bombings by the Saudi led “coalition”, armed by the US and UK and advised by their military specialists, thus collusion and co-operation of both countries render them equally culpable for the carnage.

Yemen has a population of just 24.41 million (2013 figure) and according to the Rural Poverty Portal:

“ … is one of the driest, poorest and least developed countries in the world. It ranks 140 out of 182 countries on the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index (2009). An estimated 42 percent of the people are poor, and one Yemeni in five is malnourished. Poverty is endemic, particularly in more remote and less accessible areas.”

In the one day and night period covered here, attacked were the capital Sana’a and Sa’dah, Marib, AlJawf, Hajjah, Hodeidah.

CLICK BANNER ABOVE TO ACCESS LCRD FACEBOOK PAGE:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=683855828431452&id=551288185021551

Hajjah province: Seven raids targeted Midi District. 

Hodeidah Province: One air raid led to a death in the area Alhemah District, al Khokhah Directorate.

Al-Jawf province: Eight strikes with a woman injured, the targeting of a house resulted in the destruction and damage to fifteen nearby houses in Al Ghayl District.

·    Twelve mercenaries loyal to Saudi Coalition were killed and nine injured by Saudi air raid targeting a house in Al Ghayl District.

·    Three air strikes destroyed a house and damaged eighteen adjacent houses also in Al Ghayl District.

·    Three air strikes further targeted three farms in Al Ghayl District.

Marib province: Two air raids targeting Sirwah District and an air strike on Hylan Mountain in Sirwah District.

This heartbreak, fear and destruction has been rained down in commensurate devastation near every twenty four hours since March 2015, Saudi Arabia is the lead culprit, but in the “coalition” are also Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait.

Ironic to remember Kuwait’s “victim” status in 1990, when Iraq was threatened with being “reduced to a pre-industrial age” for taking revenge for Kuwait’s slant drilling theft oil from Iraq’s Rumaila oil fields. Now Kuwait, population just 3.369 million (2013) is now in the gang of murderous bullies decimating a poverty stricken country – no doubt as a thank you to Saudi Arabia for extending hospitality to their ruling family when they fled ahead of the Iraq troops, leaving their subjects to face the onslaught which their theft had generated.

Those who unleashed near Armageddon on Iraq over an oil dispute are either silent on or participating in Yemen’s nightmare – and as ever money is talking and the US and Britain are selling the arms and the ‘planes in billions of $s.

[the above data in the chart pertains to a single year, IT IS NOT UPDATED]

Further ironically is that in September 2015, Faisal bin Hassan Trad, Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, was elected Chair of a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) panel. At the time UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said: “It is scandalous that the UN chose a country that has beheaded more people this year than ISIS to be head of a key human rights panel. Petro-dollars and politics have trumped human rights.”

In June this year Amnesty International called for Saudi to be stripped of its place on the UNHRC with Richard Bennett, heading Amnesty’s UN Office saying:

“The credibility of the UN Human Rights Council is at stake. Since joining the Council, Saudi Arabia’s dire human rights record at home has continued to deteriorate and the coalition it leads has unlawfully killed and injured thousands of civilians in the conflict in Yemen. To allow it to remain an active member of the Council, where it has used this position to shield itself from accountability for possible war crimes, smacks of deep hypocrisy. It would bring the world’s top human rights body into disrepute.”

He continued:

“The strong evidence of the commission of war crimes by the Saudi Arabian-led coalition in Yemen should have been investigated by the Human Rights Council. Instead, Saudi Arabia cynically used its membership of the Council to derail a resolution to establish an international investigation … As a member of the Human Rights Council Saudi Arabia is required to uphold the highest standards of human rights. In reality, it has led a military coalition (carrying out) unlawful and deadly airstrikes on markets, hospitals and schools in Yemen. The coalition has also repeatedly used internationally banned weapons in civilian areas…” (Emphasis added.)

The double standards of the “international community” and its UN “umbrella” is ever breathtaking.

Equally breathtaking is that in July, the UK refused to rule out electing Saudi to its place in the UNHRC for a second time, in spite of Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, having stated that “carnage” caused by some Saudi coalition airstrikes appear to be war crimes.

But then, according to The Independent (1) official figures in January this year showed sales of British bombs and missiles to Saudi: “ increased 100 times in the three-month period since the start of the attacks on Yemen. The sales jumped from £9 million in the previous three months to £1 billion.”

Arms sales above flesh and blood, terror, heartbreak and humanity, every time.

Note 

1.    http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/uk/politics/saudi-arabia- human-rights-un-united- nations-uk-british-elected- behead-a7140501.html

The author is indebted to the LCRD for the documentation of the attacks and for the careful translation by Ameen Alharazi.

O Euro está literalmente a assassinar as nações e as economias da UE. Desde que a moeda única entrou em vigor, substituindo as moedas nacionais nas transações em 2002, o regime de taxas de câmbio fixas devastou a indústria nos Estados periféricos dos 19 países membros do Euro, dando ao mesmo tempo vantagens desproporcionadas à Alemanha. O resultado foi uma contração industrial pouco notada e a falta de instrumentos para lidar com as crises bancárias daí decorrentes. O Euro é um desastre monetário e a dissolução da UE está agora pré-programada, em consequência.

Aqueles que conhecem o meu pensamento sobre a economia saberão que eu considero que o conceito amplo de globalização, um termo popularizado sob a presidência de Bill Clinton para tornar mais sedutora a agenda corporativista que acabava de surgir com a criação da Organização Mundial do Comércio em 1994, é fundamentalmente um jogo destrutivo e manipulado por umas poucas centenas de “jogadores globais gigantes”. A globalização destrói as nações para fazer avançar a agenda de algumas centenas de multinacionais gigantes e não regulamentadas. Baseia-se numa teoria refutada, apresentada no século 18 pelo defensor do livre-comércio, o inglês David Ricardo, conhecida como Teoria das Vantagens Comparativas, usada por Washington para justificar a remoção de todo e qualquer protecionismo comercial nacional para beneficiar os mais poderosos “Jogadores Globais”, normalmente corporações americanas.

O hesitante projeto dos EUA, conhecido como Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership ou Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, é pouco mais do que Mussolini em esteroides. As centenas de corporações mais poderosas ficarão formalmente acima da lei nacional se formos estúpidos o suficiente para eleger políticos corruptos que aprovem tal disparate. No entanto, poucos analisaram com rigor o efeito que está a ter a cedência da soberania monetária sob o regime do Euro.

Colapso da indústria

As nações que integram atualmente aquilo que é enganosamente conhecido como a União Europeia seguem um tratado ratificado por um número então-muito menor de membros da Europa – doze contra 28 estados hoje – daquilo que foi a Comunidade Económica Europeia (CEE). Uma espécie de giganto-mania que apareceu durante a presidência da Comissão Europeia do político globalista francês Jacques Delors quando foi assinado aquilo que ficou conhecido por Ato Único Europeu, em fevereiro de 1986.

Delors derrubou o princípio estabelecido pelo francês Charles de Gaulle, princípio que De Gaulle designava por  “Europa das Pátrias”. A visão de De Gaulle da Comunidade Económica Européia – então seis nações, incluindo a França, a Alemanha, a Itália e o Benelux – era que haveria reuniões periódicas dos primeiros-ministros das seis nações do Mercado Comum. Nessas reuniões, entre chefes de Estado eleitos, as políticas seriam formuladas e as decisões tomadas. Uma assembleia eleita por membros de parlamentos nacionais reveria as ações dos ministros. De Gaulle considerava a burocracia de Bruxelas como um órgão administrativo puramente técnico, subordinado aos governos nacionais. A cooperação devia basear-se na “realidade” da soberania do Estado. A aquisição supranacional de poder sobre nações individuais da CEE era anátema para De Gaulle, e com razão. Se o é para os indivíduos, assim também o é para as nações – a autonomia é básica e as fronteiras importam.

O Ato Único de Delors pretendeu derrubar a Europa das Pátrias através de reformas radicais na CEE com base na ideia destrutiva de que as diversas nações, com diversas histórias, culturas e diversas línguas, poderiam eliminar fronteiras e tornar-se uma espécie de ersatz, Estados Unidos da Europa, conduzidos do topo por burocratas não eleitos em Bruxelas. Trata-se essencialmente de uma visão corporativista, ou fascista do estilo Mussolini, de uma burocracia europeia não-democrática e não responsável que controla as populações arbitrariamente, respondendo apenas à influência corporativa, à pressão, à corrupção.

Foi uma agenda desenvolvida pelas maiores multinacionais da Europa, cuja organização de lobby era o European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT), o influente grupo de lobby das grandes multinacionais europeias (onde se entra apenas por convite pessoal), como a suíça Nestle, a Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Vodafone, BASF, Deutsche Telekom, ThyssenKrupp, Siemens e outras gigantes multinacionais européias. O ERT, sem surpresa, é o principal lobby que em Bruxelas promove a assinatura do tratado comercial, TTIP, com Washington.

O ERT foi o grande mentor das propostas do Ato Único de Delors que em 1986 levou ao monstro de Frankenstein chamado União Europeia. A ideia da UE é a criação de uma autoridade política central, não-eleita, de cima para baixo, que decidirá o futuro da Europa sem controlos e contrapesos democráticos, no fundo uma noção verdadeiramente feudal.

O conceito de um único Estados Unidos da Europa, dissolvendo identidades nacionais que existiam há mais de mil anos ou mesmo mais, remonta à década de 1950, quando no reunião do Grupo de Bilderberg de 1955 em Garmisch-Partenkirchen, na Alemanha Ocidental, se discutiu a criação, a partir das seis nações integrantes da Comunidade Europeia do Carvão e do Aço, de “uma moeda comum, e … isso implicava necessariamente a criação de uma autoridade política central”. De Gaulle não estava presente.

O tratado de criação de uma união monetária foi assinado numa conferência da CEE de 1992 em Maastricht, na Holanda, após a unificação da Alemanha. A França e a Itália, apoiadas pela Grã-Bretanha de Margaret Thatcher, forçaram a sua assinatura, ultrapassando as dúvidas alemãs, para “conter o poder de uma Alemanha unificada”. A imprensa britânica conservadora censurava a Alemanha por ser um potencial “Quarto Reich” emergente conquistando a Europa economicamente, ainda que não militarmente. Ironicamente, isso é o que, de facto, emergiu das estruturas do Euro hoje. Devido ao Euro, a Alemanha domina economicamente os 19 países da zona do Euro.

O problema com a criação da União Monetária Europeia (UEM) de acordo com o Tratado de Maastricht é que a moeda única e o Banco Central Europeu “independente” foram lançados sem estarem ligados a uma única entidade jurídica política, um verdadeiro Estados Unidos da Europa. O Euro e o Banco Central Europeu são uma criação supranacional de que ninguém é responsável. Foi criado sem que existisse uma união política orgânica genuína tal como a que existia quando 13 estados, com a língua inglesa comum e na sequência da luta numa guerra comum pela independência face à Grâ Bretanha, criaram e adotaram a constituição dos Estados Unidos de América. Em 1788, os delegados dos 13 estados concordaram em estabelecer uma forma republicana de governo baseada na representação do povo nos estados, com a separação de poderes entre os poderes legislativo, judicial e executivo. Não é assim a UEM.

Os burocratas da UE têm um nome bonito para este desfasamento entre os funcionários não eleitos do BCE que controlam o destino económico dos 19 estados membros com 340 milhões de cidadãos da chamada Zona Euro. Designam-no por “déficit democrático”. Esse déficit cresceu de forma gigantesca desde a crise financeira e bancária global de 2008 e aumento de importância do não-soberano Banco Central Europeu.

Colapso da indústria

A criação da moeda única em 1992 colocou os Estados-Membros do Euro numa camisa-de-forças económica. O valor da moeda não pode ser alterado para impulsionar as exportações nacionais durante os períodos de recessão económica como os registados desde 2008. O resultado foi que a maior potência industrial da Zona Euro, a Alemanha, beneficiou do Euro estável, enquanto as economias mais fracas na periferia da UE, e até mesmo a França, suportaram conseqüências catastróficas devido à rigidez da taxa de câmbio do Euro.

Num relatório recente, o grupo de reflexão holandês, Fundação Gefira, observa que a indústria francesa se está contrair desde a adoção do Euro. “Não foi capaz de recuperar depois das crises de 2001 ou 2008 porque o Euro, uma moeda mais forte do que o franco francês, se tornou um fardo para a economia da França. A taxa de câmbio flutuante funciona como um indicador da força da economia e como um estabilizador automático. Uma moeda mais fraca ajuda a recuperar a competitividade durante uma crise, enquanto uma moeda mais forte impulsiona o consumo de bens estrangeiros “.

O estudo observa que, devido a essa camisa-de-forças, a política do BCE criou um Euro muito alto em relação a outras moedas importantes para permitir que a França mantenha as exportações desde a crise econômica de 2001. O Euro levou ao aumento das importações para a França e como a França não pode beneficiar da flexibilidade de taxa de câmbio, a sua indústria “nunca pôde recuperar a competitividade internacional no mercado mundial depois da crise de 2001, de modo que sua indústria está morrendo lentamente desde então”. Foi perdida a ferramenta de estabilização económica que decorre da existência de uma taxa de câmbio flutuante.

Actualmente, de acordo com o Eurostat, a indústria representa 14,1% do valor acrescentado bruto total francês. Em 1995, era de 19,2%. Na Alemanha é de 25,9%. O mais impressionante foi o colapso da indústria automobilística francesa, outrora vibrante. Apesar de a produção mundial de automóveis ter quase duplicado de 1997 para 2015 de 53 milhões para 90 milhões de veículos por ano, enquanto a Alemanha aumentou a sua produção automóvel em 20% de 5 para 6 milhões, desde a entrada da França no Euro em 2002, a produção automóvel francesa caíu quase metade, de quase 4 milhões para menos de 2 milhões.

As leis do resgate, bail-in, no Euro

A mesma camisa-de-forças do Euro está a impedir uma reorganização séria dos bancos com problemas em toda a Zona Euro desde a crise de 2008. A criação do Banco Central Europeu supra-nacional e não soberano tornou impossível aos países membros da zona do euro resolverem os seus problemas bancários criados durante os excessos do período anterior a 2008. O exemplo da Itália com seu pedido para fazer um resgate de Estado do seu terceiro maior banco, o Monte dei Paschi, é exemplar. Apesar dos despedimentos draconianos de pessoal e dos encerramentos de agências terem aliviado o pânico, Bruxelas recusou-se a permitir uma recapitalização estatal do banco italiano de 5 mil milhões de dólares, exigindo que o banco seja intervencionado de acordo com uma nova lei bancária chamada “Bail in”. Embora ainda não tenha havido coragem para Implementar o bail-in na Itália, tal decorre da legislação atual da UE e certamente será o instrumento de escolha do Eurogrupo, não eleito, quando a próxima crise bancária chegar.

O bail-in, apesar de parecer melhor do que resgate pago pelos contribuintes, na verdade, exige que os depositantes de um banco sejam expoliados dos seus depósitos para “resgatar” um banco falido, se Bruxelas ou o não eleito Eurogrupo determinarem tal apropriação dos depósitos, a qual é necessária se os detentores de acções e obrigações do banco e outros credores não foram capazes de fazer face às perdas. Este confisco foi aplicado nos bancos do Chipre em 2013 pela UE. Os depositantes com mais de € 100.000 perderam 40% de seu dinheiro.

Se você é um depositante, digamos, do Deutsche Bank, estando em queda as ações deste, como têm estado, além dos problemas legais que ameaçam a sua existência, recusando-se o governo alemão a ouvir falar de resgate e deixando o banco numa situação de bail-in potencial, você pode ter certeza que cada depositante com uma conta acima de € 100.000 vai levantar o seu dinheiro e transferi-lo para outros bancos, agravando a crise do Deutsche Bank. Em consequência, todos os restantes depositantes ficam vulneráveis a um bail-in como o que foi aplicado pelo Eurogrupo aos bancos do Chipre.

A cedência da soberania monetária

Sob o Euro e as regras do Eurogrupo e do BCE, as decisões deixam de ser soberanas, mas centrais, tomadas por burocratas sem rosto, sem democracia, como o Ministro das Finanças da Holanda, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Presidente do Eurogrupo. Durante a crise bancária no Chipre, Dijsselbloem propôs confiscar todo o dinheiro dos depositantes, grandes ou pequenos, para recapitalizar os bancos. Foi forçado a recuar no último minuto, mas fica claro o que é possível ocorrer na próxima crise bancária da UE que está pré-programada devido às deficiências da instituição Euro e de um BCE fatalmente imperfeito.

De acordo com as actuais regras da Zona Euro, em vigor a partir de Janeiro de 2016, os governos nacionais da UE estão proibidos de resgatar os seus bancos impondo percas aos contribuintes, o que impede uma resolução ordenada dos problemas de liquidez bancária até demasiado tarde. A Alemanha adoptou essa legislação bancária, tal como outros governos da UE. As novas regras de bail-in são o resultado de uma directiva burocrática dos burocratas não eleitos, sem rosto, da Comissão da UE conhecida como a Directiva de Recuperação e Resolução dos Bancos da UE (BRRD).

Em 1992, quando os bancos suecos entraram em insolvência devido a uma bolha do imobiliário que rebentou, o Estado entrou em cena criando o Securum, um banco de resgate mau/bom. Os bancos falidos foram temporariamente nacionalizados. Empréstimos imobiliários tóxicos no valor de milhares de milhões foram colocados na empresa estatal, Securum, o banco dito mau. Os diretores dos bancos viciados em aplicações financeiras de alto risco foram demitidos. Os bancos nacionalizados, sem o fardo dos empréstimos ruins, foram autorizados, sob administração estatal, a retomar os empréstimos e regressaram aos lucros antes de serem reprivatizados à medida que a economia melhorava. O imobiliário improdutivo tornou-se novamente rentável à medida que economia foi recuperando ao longo de vários anos, e após cinco anos, o Estado pôde vender os ativos obtendo um lucro líquido e desativando a Securum. Os contribuintes não foram sobrecarregados.

O BCE impede as resoluções bancárias

Agora, à medida que a UE enfrenta uma nova ameaça de crises de solvência bancária com bancos como o Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank e grandes bancos da Zona Euro enfrentando novas crises de capital, porque a UE não tem um poder de tributação central, nem os resgates suportados pelos contribuintes nem as nacionalizações de bancos são mais possíveis. Resoluções de bancos nacionais ajustadas às circunstâncias locais também não são possíveis. Medidas para dar tempo aos bancos com problemas, tais como permitir uma moratória temporária das execuções de hipotecas de casas se as pessoas se atrasarem nos seus pagamentos, permissão para o recurso a outsourcing nos sistemas de pagamento eletrónico dos bancos comerciais, também não são possíveis.

A Zona Euro não tem autoridade orçamental central, pelo que essas soluções não podem ser implementadas. Os problemas do sistema bancário estão apenas a ser resolvidos pelas autoridades monetárias, através da política insana do BCE de taxas de juro negativas, o chamado Quantitative Easing, em que o BCE compra milhares de milhões de euros de dívida corporativa e de dívida desonesta sem fim à vista e, em consequência das baixas taxas de juro, tornando as seguradoras e os fundos de pensões insolventes.

A resposta não é certamente a que propôs o cleptocrático George Soros e outros, ou seja, dar ao super-estado não eleito de Bruxelas o poder fiscal central para emitir Eurobonds. A única solução possível, longe de destruir as economias de toda a Zona Euro na próxima crise de solvência bancária europeia, é desmantelar o Monstro Frankenstein chamado União Monetária Europeia com o seu BCE e a moeda comum.

O conjunto dos países da Zona do Euro a 19 não formam aquilo que os economistas chamam “zona monetária ótima”, nunca o foi. Os problemas económicos da Grécia, da Itália ou mesmo da França são muito diferentes dos da Alemanha, de Portugal ou da Espanha.

Em 1997, antes de sua morte, um dos economistas que menos admiro, Milton Friedman, declarou:

“A Europa é o exemplo acabado de uma situação desfavorável à introdução de uma moeda comum. É composta por nações distintas, que falam línguas diferentes, com costumes diferentes, e onde os cidadãos sentem muito mais lealdade e apego ao seu próprio país do que a um mercado comum ou à idéia de Europa”.

E sobre isso, só posso dizer que ele estava certo. E hoje, a asserção ainda é mais verdadeira. O Euro e o Banco Central Europeu estão a assassinar a Europa tão eficazmente como a Segunda Guerra Mundial, sem bombas e sem escombros.

 F. William Engdahl

 

Artigo em inglês :

The Euro and the European Central Bank (ECB) Are “Murdering Europe”. How Globalization Destroys Nations

Tradução : Júlio Manuel Dias Gomes (Docente na Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal, atualmente reformado.) 

A derrota de Hillary é em primeiro lugar a derrota de Obama que, com o campo tomado em seus flancos, vê rejeitada a própria presidência. Conquistada, na campanha eleitoral de 2008, com a promessa que tinha sido apoiada não só por Wall Street mas também por “Main Street”, ou seja, o cidadão médio.

Desde então, a classe média viu piorar sua própria condição, a taxa de pobreza aumentou, enquanto os ricos se tornaram cada vez mais ricos. Agora, apresentando-se como paladino da classe média, conquista a presidência Donald Trump, o outsider bilionário.

O que muda na política externa dos Estados Unidos com a troca de guarda na Casa Branca? Certamente, não o objetivo estratégico fundamental de se manter como a potência global dominante, posição que vacila cada vez mais. Os Estados Unidos perdem terreno no plano econômico e no político e também com relação à China, à Rússia e outros “países emergentes”. Por isso, jogam a espada na balança. Daí a série de guerras em que Hillary Clinton desempenhou um papel de protagonista.

Como resulta da sua biografia autorizada, foi ela que na condição de primeira dama convenceu o esposo presidente a destruir a Iugoslávia com a guerra, iniciando a série das “intervenções humanitárias” contra “ditadores” acusados de “genocídio”. Como resulta dos seus e-mails, foi ela que na condição de secretária de Estado convenceu o presidente Obama a destruir a Líbia com a guerra e a iniciar a mesma operação contra a Síria. Foi ela que promoveu a desestabilização da Venezuela e do Brasil e o “Pivô para a Ásia” estadunidense com objetivos contrários à China. Foi ainda ela, por meio da Fundação Clinton, que preparou na Ucrânia o terreno para o golpe da Praça Maidan que abriu caminho à escalada dos EUA/Otan contra a Rússia.

Dado que tudo isso não impediu o relativo declínio da potência estadunidense, cabe agora à administração Trump corrigir o alvo, visando ao mesmo objetivo. É irrealista a hipótese de que ele vá abandonar o sistema de alianças centrado na Otan sob o comando dos EUA: seguramente, porém, baterá a mão na mesa para obter dos aliados um maior empenho, sobretudo em termos de despesas militares.

Trump poderia buscar um acordo com a Rússia, inclusive com o intento de separá-la da China, em relação à qual ele anuncia medidas econômicas, acompanhadas de um ulterior fortalecimento da presença militar estadunidense na região da Ásia-Pacífico.

Tais decisões, que levam seguramente a outras guerras, não dependem do temperamento belicoso de Donald Trump, mas dos centros de poder onde se encontra o quadro do comando de que depende a própria Casa Branca. São os colossais grupos financeiros que dominam a economia (somente o valor acionário das empresas de Wall Street supera o de toda a receita nacional dos Estados Unidos). São as multinacionais, cujas dimensões econômicas superam as de estados inteiros, que deslocam a produção aos países que oferecem força de trabalho a baixo custo, provocando internamente o fechamento de fábricas e desemprego (daí a piora das condições da classe média estadunidense). São os gigantes da indústria bélica que ganham com a guerra.

É o capitalismo do século 21, do qual os EUA são a máxima expressão, que cria uma crescente polarização entre riqueza e pobreza. O setor que representa 1% da população mundial possui mais do que os restantes 99%.

À classe dos super-ricos pertence o neopresidente Trump, ao qual o premiê italiano Renzi, como um Arlequim servidor de dois patrões, já jurou fidelidade depois de tê-la jurado ao presidente Obama.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo em italiano : Il Manifesto

L’alternanza del Potere imperiale

Tradução da redação de Resistência

RT has asked the US State Department for specific information concerning allegations that Russia is targeting hospitals in Syria. The response was a reiteration of those allegations and a refusal to treat RT in the same way as other media outlets.

The fine was levied on National Oilwell Varco, and its subsidiaries Dreco Energy Ser­vices and NOV Elmar, by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, as part of U.S. government efforts to enforce the blockade

U.S.-based multinational National Oilwell Varco is the latest in a long list of companies to be fined.
Photo: NOV Photo: Granma

According to the OFAC’s enforcement report, “Between 2007 and 2009 Dreco engaged in 45 transactions totaling $1,707,964 involving the sale of goods to Cuba,” while “Between 2007 and 2008, Elmar engaged in two transactions totaling $103,119 involving the sale of goods or services to Cuba.”

This is the fourth fine imposed by the OFAC this year, in application of blockade regulations against Cuba.

Despite measures taken by the administration of Barack Obama to modify the application of certain aspects of the blockade, as well as calls made to Congress to definitively lift the policy; bodies responsible for implementing this policy of economic harassment continue to impose million dollar fines.

The fine only serves to generate concern among economic entities interested in engaging with Cuba, and clearly demonstrates that the blockade continues to harm the Cuban economy.

I’ve Got the Power: Mapping Connections between Lebanon’s Banking Sector and the Ruling Class

This paper explores the extent to which local commercial banks in Lebanon are linked to the country’s political class, and how this impacts their efficiency and sovereign risk exposure.

By compiling detailed ownership and political affiliation data on the major 20 commercial banks in 2014, the paper shows that as much as 18 out of the 20 banks have major shareholders linked to political elites, and 43% of assets in the sector could be attributed to political control. “Crony capital” within the banking sector is also shown to impact the quality of banks’ loans, and their exposure to public debt.

Download full paper here.

Below is a table extracted from the paper, showing the key political families that control more than 7 billion US$ equity in the banking sector:

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an order on Russia’s refusal to take part in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to a document published on the Russian government’s official portal for legal information.

Putin instructed Russia’s Foreign Ministry to send a relevant notification to the UN secretary-general.

“The International Criminal Court has not justified hopes placed upon it and did not become a truly independent and authoritative judicial body,” a statement published on Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s website said.

“Russia consistently advocates that people guilty of grave offences must be held accountable, the document points out. Russia was at the origins of creation of Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, took part in developing of the basic laws against such grave international crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is the reason why Russia voted in favor of adopting Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on September 13, 2000,” the statement pointed out.

It was further noted in the statement that Russia is concerned with the ICC’s attitude toward the events of August 2008: “The attack carried out by Saakashvili’s regime on peaceful Tskhinvali, the murder of Russian peacemakers brought accusations from the ICC addressed to South Ossetian fighters and Russian military personnel. The eventual investigation of Georgian administrative officials’ actions and orders was purposefully left to Georgia’s jurisdiction and remains out of the ICC’s attention focus.”

“Such an about turn speaks for itself. In these circumstances, it is hardly possible to talk about trusting the ICC,” the statement said.

The statement explained that Russia’s decision not to become a member of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, or, formulated differently, to withdraw its signature from the document, implies legal consequences introduced in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

The Rome Statute, which took effect in 2002, is the basis for the International Criminal Court‘s activity. Russia signed the international treaty in 2000 but has not ratified it so far.

The Syrian army, Hezbollah and other pro-government groups have entered the area of Aqrab in western Aleppo. November 16 morning, the government forces launched a preemptive shelling of Jaish al-Fatah militants in Aqrab and then attacked their positions.

Following a series of clashes, the army and its allies boke the militnats’ defenses to seize the area. Most of militants withdrew from Aqrab to al-Rashidin 4. However, some firefights was ongoing in the area.

If the government forces fully secure Aqrab, they will reverse all gains achieved by Jaish al-Fatah in western Aleppo during its major offensive in the area.

Moscow called for a special meeting of the Security Council on 28 October 2016, to debate the cooperation between the UNO and certain regional organisations. Ambassador Vladimir Churkin, who was then presiding the Council, invited the representative of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Russian Sergey Ivanov, CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (Russian General Nikolai Bordyuzha, CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (Tajik Rashid Alimov, SCO).

The three General Secretaries presented the work of their organisations – cooperation between the states of the ex-Soviet Union for the CIS, a military alliance for the CSTO, and a regional cooperation to stabilise central Asia for the SCO. They stressed their contribution to the UNO concerning the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism – two subjects which are unanimously approved by the international community, although everyone knows that these plagues are created and controlled by the United States.

Although everything started well, and the different ambassadors who are members of the Security Council were congratulatng one another on this breath of fresh air, the meeting took a turn for the worse after the presentations by the ambassadors of Ukraine and the United States. Concerned about preventing these three organisations from troubling the monopoly of NATO and the European Union, they accused Russia of all sorts of crimes, and denounced these organisations as covers intended to mask Russian expansionism. The US ambassador concluded that, in these conditions, it was not possible to envisage any form of cooperation of the UNO with these organisations, including the SCO, in other words, also with China.

We find here the position held by various participants during Geneva Conference 2 – while everyone is in theory united against terrorism, Washington does not see this problem as being a priority, but puts the demands of its own imperialism first. Except that this time, it has not attacked Syria, but offended both Russia and China.

The world is therefore paying for the fog that has surrounded the fight against terrorism since 2001. Let us remember that terrorism is not an enemy in itself, but a method of combat used by enemies.

Washington has thus closed the only exit that was open to it. The Obama administration refuses to recognise the development of Russia, the world’s major conventional military power, and of China, the world’s major economic power. It refuses to let go of the unipolar organisation of the world which was set up after «Desert Storm», in 1991, and pursues its wars in the Levant and in Ukraine with the unique aim of cutting the two land supply routes from China to Western Europe.

Given that its position is untenable in the short term, and that it does not want a World War, Washington is preparing to separate the world in two. This does not mean a replay of the Cold War, where the world was one, even if it was administered by two powers, but a new structure – on one side a unipolar world governed by the United States alone, and on the other a number of independent and refractory states cooperating together around Russia and China, and with the fewest possible number of bridges between these two worlds. This implies the end of world free trade, the organisation of world commerce, and economic globalisation, and thus constitutes a gigantic step backwards.

If Washington persists in this direction, it will have to withdraw militarily from Syria and allow peace to return – except on the Iraqi border, where it will maintain its interdiction of the Silk Road. Because of the United States this time, an impenetrable barrier will circle the globe and divide Humanity, just as the Berlin Wall separated the population of the ex-capital of Germany, dividing its families for almost half a century. It will therefore become very difficult for the Syrians, who fled to foreign lands to escape the jihadists, to return home and join with their families again. And it will become impossible for a Westerner to spend his holidays in Moscow or buy Chinese computers.

No, It’s Not Too Early to Grade the President Elect

I knew that Obama was a sell-out long before he was even sworn in, even though the Americans who voted for Obama thought they were going to get real change.

How?

Simple … I looked at his appointments.  For example, in November 2008, I noted:

Many people argue that it is unfair to criticize Obama because he hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

[But] the elites are successfully pressuring Obama to appoint insiders like Summers, Geithner, Clinton, and Gates – who will ensure that nothing really changes – because the American people are idly sitting by taking a wait-and-see approach.

Hindsight confirms that Obama’s appointments revealed that he would be a sell-out to the powers-that-be.

Indeed, leaked emails show that Citibank dictated most of Obama’s most important appointments … before the election had even occurred.

Trump’s Appointments

Bolton or Giuliani As SecState

Similarly, Trump’s purported appointments already show that he’ll be a lackey for the oligarchs. (Caveat: None of the appointments have officially been announced. So the rumors may be wrong).

For example, Trump is rumored to be leaning towards appointing John Bolton as his Secretary of State.

Who’s Bolton?

He’s one of the key architects of the Iraq war, who  previously admitted that the Iraq war was about oil, not protecting the United States from weapons of mass destruction. And see this.

He has also openly called for partition of Iraq and Syria into a number of different countries … as Bolton’s beloved Neocons have been planning for over 20 years.

If Bolton is named SecState, then diplomacy will go out the window, and aggressiveness and military response will come to the fore.

The other leading candidate for SecState is Rudy Giuliani.  Rand Paul says he’s almost as bad as Bolton:

Paul said it would be “a stiff, uphill climb” for him to vote for confirmation of [Giuliani], citing his approval of the Iraq War and his ties to foreign governments. He said it was “worrisome” because “that was a big complaint of ours with Hillary Clinton.”

“And the thing Donald Trump said over and over again was that he was opposed to the Iraq War, and he learned that lesson that regime change in the Middle East was not a good idea,” Paul said. “And yet I don’t see Giuliani coming out with statements like that. I certainly don’t see John Bolton — I think both of them have been big cheerleaders for the Iraq War and for more intervention in the Middle East, so I hope Donald Trump will pick somebody consistent with what he said on the campaign trail: The Iraq War was a mistake. Regime change in the Middle East was a mistake.”

“Giuliani and Bolton are very similar,” Paul said. “Bolton just has a more extensive cheerleading background with regard to war in the Middle East.”

Indeed, Giuliani has supported terror groups in Iran.

And Giuliani is pushing a huge build-up of troops to confront China:

“We (will) take our military up to 550,000 troops (instead of) going to 420,000,” he said in Washington.

We (will) take our navy up to 350 ships, (instead of) going to 247.

Mr Giuliani said China couldn’t match a 350 ship US Navy while at 247 vessels, the US couldn’t fight a war in two oceans.

We need less foreign entanglements, not more.

Mnuchin As SecTreas

Trump’s top pick for Secretary of Treasury is reportedly Steven Mnuchin.

Who’s Mnuchin?

He’s a Wall Street hedge fund and banking mogul.

He spent 17 years at Government Sachs as a prominent banker.

Salon notes:

In 2009, Mnuchin got into further trouble when he purchased the California bank IndyMac, which had been closed by federal regulators in 2008, for $1.5 billion with George Soros and John Paulson. After renaming it OneWest Bank, Mnuchin engaged in practices that the Office of Thrift Supervision denounced in 2011 as “unsafe” and “unsound.” As a result, Mnuchin was forced to enter a consent decree to address the fact that the bank had “failed to devote sufficient financial, staffing and managerial resources to ensure proper administration of its foreclosure processes; failed to devote to its foreclosure processes adequate oversight, internal controls, policies, and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training; and failed sufficiently to oversee outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services.”

Despite this, OneWest Bank’s habit of foreclosing on the homes of low-income customers prompted 100 anti-foreclosure activists to protest at Mnuchin’s $26 million Bel Air mansion in Los Angeles in October 2011. Signs read, “Steve Mnuchin OneWest Bank stop taking our homes.”

If Trump names these ultimate insiders – who have helped cause the mess we’re in today – then, instead of bringing change, he will be the same-ole-same-ole.

We hope that Trump goes with better nominees … it’s not too late for him to do so. As Scott Adams points out, Trump is big on “A B Testing” … i.e. floating positions and then changing them if he doesn’t receive a positive reaction.  So we’re hoping that Trump ends up picking better cabinet members.

Postscript: We’re focusing only on cabinet-level nominees, not positions like chief of staff such as Priebus or Bannon.   

Amidst growing protests of young people against the election of Donald Trump, including high school walkouts throughout the country, leading Democrats are doubling down on their pledge to work closely with the president-elect once he assumes office in January.

On Wednesday, Vice President Joseph Biden gave incoming vice-president elect Mike Pence a tour of what will be Pence’s new home in Washington, DC. The cordial meeting concluded with a brief statement from Biden that he was confident that the office would be in “good hands” from “Day One” of the new Trump administration.

Pence responded with equal praise: “We’re just very grateful for the hospitality today from the vice president and the second lady,” referring to Biden’s wife.

Asked if he was concerned about the policies of a future Trump White House, Biden replied, “Look, they ran on a platform they are trying to move. I think there are a lot of things that can be done where we can reach some accommodation.”

Biden added that he would be “available to [Pence] 24/7” to assist and act as a “senior staff” to the new vice president. The two joked about a debate over whether the Pence family would have a dog in their new residence.

Biden’s meeting with Pence exposes the indifference of the Democratic Party even in relation to issues that have long been its focus. Pence, an “evangelical Catholic,” is in particular known for his deep opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage, as well as the viciously anti-working class policy he has pursued as Governor of Indiana.

Also on Wednesday, Senate Democrats chose their new minority leader, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, an individual with long-standing and deep ties to Wall Street, as well as a personal relationship with Trump. Trump has also previously donated to Schumer’s election campaigns.

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Schumer helped oversee the bailout of the banks following the 2008 crash, while protecting Wall Street from any government oversight and regulation. He has also played a critical role in funneling Wall Street contributions into Democratic Party coffers.

Following Trump’s election, Schumer issued a statement declaring that it “is time for the country to come together and heal the bitter wounds from the campaign.”

Schumer told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday, “When we can agree on issues, then we’re going to work with him.” He added that Democrats would wage a “strong, tough fight” on areas of disagreement.

Schumer also announced that the Senate Democrats were expanding their leadership council to include 10 members. The most significant addition was that of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who returned to his status as a nominal independent following his defeat in the Democratic Party presidential primaries earlier this year.

The elevation of Sanders to a leading role is aimed at giving the Democratic Party a “left” cover even as it shifts further to the right in the aftermath of the elections. Sanders will have the role of “Chairman of Outreach” in the Democratic Senate Caucus. There are also discussions over the possibility that Democrats will appoint a Sanders supporter, Representative Keith Ellison, as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Remarking on the appointment of Schumer, the New York Times published an article Wednesday under the headline, “Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align with Trump.” Noting that “Democrats are looking for ways to work with Mr. Trump,” the Times sought to present this strategy as a “populist” alliance between Democrats and Trump against Republicans in Congress.

In fact, the areas of possible agreement between the Democrats and Trump underscore the right-wing character of the burgeoning political alliance.

Among the principle policies discussed is a combined measure that would slash corporate taxes to fund infrastructure proposals.

Last year, Schumer supported a bipartisan proposal in Congress that would have allowed foreign companies to bring back profits oversees, to be taxed at a far lower level than the nominal 35 percent corporate tax rate. The proposal also would guarantee that any future profits made by US companies abroad would not be taxed at all if brought back into the US, with corporations only paying local taxes where the profits were made.

As one report describing the proposal explained, “Multinational corporations would end up paying little to no US taxes on future foreign profits.”

The proposal backed by Schumer would use the one-time levy on profits that have already been accrued to fund limited highway infrastructure spending.

Commenting on the possibility of collaborating on an infrastructure bill, Senator Amy Klobuchar explained to the Huffington Post, “It stands out because Senator Schumer has always been interested in tying it with international tax reform.”

Another possible area of agreement cited by Democrats is measures to restrict foreign trade and implement a more nationalist economic policy, particularly in relation to China. Schumer has long backed legislation to brand China a “currency manipulator,” criticizing the Obama administration for failing to act aggressively enough.

The statements from leading Democrats follow Obama’s press conference on Monday, when the outgoing president praised his “cordial” relationship with Trump and insisted that Americans must “reconcile themselves” to a Trump presidency. Obama also declined to comment on the appointment of Stephen Bannon, the racist and white supremacist head of Breitbart News, as his chief strategist.

Beyond the specific areas of agreement between Democrats and Republicans under Trump, both parties, whatever their tactical differences, are committed to a bipartisan policy of war, attacks on the working class and the destruction of democratic rights. It is for this reason that the Democrats are desperately seeking to cover up the extremely right-wing character of the incoming administration.

Introduction

Four decades of rapid economic growth in China has come at a huge price to the environment, from smog-ridden skies to contaminated rivers, toxic soils and “cancer villages”.

These increasingly intolerable costs have emerged as a major source of social unrest in recent years. Premier Li Keqiang acknowledged this in his opening address to the National People’s Congress (NPC) on 5 March 2015: “China’s growing pollution problems are a blight on people’s quality of life and a trouble that weighs on their hearts”.

A still from the documentary Under the Dome with Chai Jing in the foreground. Photo: cq.house.qq.com

Six days before Li’s opening address, on 28 February, the former investigative journalist Chai Jing柴静released her documentary Under the Dome穹顶之下on the Chinese Internet. Under the Dome vividly conveyed the nature of this “blight” and clearly struck a chord: its mainland Chinese audience exceeded 200 million people. Yet within two weeks of its release, it was no longer possible to download the film in China, and official directives prohibited the Chinese media from any further reporting on the film. It is still available on YouTube but, of course, this is also blocked in China.

Clearly, the detailed, inconvenient truths laid bare in Under the Dome were too much for the Chinese leadership to handle. And it wasn’t hard to see why. The film implicated party-state officials at every level in its highly critical assessment of the “growth at all costs” industrialisation strategy of the last four decades. Its overarching message was loud and clear: that the central government was primarily to blame for blatantly failing to enforce its own environmental laws and regulations and call polluters to account. Whether either Premier Li or President Xi Jinping had seen the documentary, they seem to have gotten the message. Xi declared in his own address at the NPC meeting on 6 March that, “We are going to punish, with an iron hand, any violators who destroy the ecology or the environment, with no exceptions”.

The Plan: Green from the Top Down 

Fortunately, this is not Xi Jinping’s government’s only strategy for addressing China’s environmental crisis. The central government has produced an abundance of plans to tackle China’s environmental problems during the period covered by its 12^th Five-Year Plan (2011-15), and ramped up its efforts following Premier Li’s declaration of a ‘war on pollution’ in 2014. In November 2014, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) 国家发展和改革委员会 released the National Plan for Responding to Climate Change (2014) 国家应对气候变化规划. This plan outlines strategies including strengthening laws and regulations on climate change and limiting large-scale industrialisation and urbanisation. It also proposes defining “ecological red lines” (a baseline level of ecological health that must be maintained) for key areas including the headwaters of the Yangtze and Yellow rivers. Other strategies include limiting total coal consumption, and proactively promoting cleaner energies. The language of strengthening, limiting, defining, controlling and promoting is indicative of the central government’s intention to drive China’s climate change agenda from the top down.

In February 2015, the NDRC published its roadmap for a nationwide emissions trading scheme (ETS). This will build on the seven pilot programs that have been implemented since 2013 in Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Shenzhen and Tianjin as well as Guangdong and Hubei provinces. Together they comprise the second largest ETS in the world after that of the European Union. The national scheme, to be launched in 2017, will create the world’s largest carbon market, and by a big margin.

In his March 2015 report to the NPC, Premier Li committed the government to a wide range of specific energy conservation and emission reduction measures as well as environmental improvement plans and projects. These support China’s official quest for “green, low-carbon and recycled development” 绿色低碳循环发展, the catch-phrase for its environmentally-friendly growth strategy. They include an action plan for preventing and controlling air pollution, upgrading coal-burning power plants to achieve “ultra-low” emissions similar to those produced by gas, promoting clean-energy vehicles, and improving fuel quality to meets the new National V standard by which the sulphur content in fuel must be less than ten parts per million. There are also ambitious plans to develop renewable energies including wind power, photovoltaic power, biomass energy and hydropower, as well as safe nuclear power. Li also announced that the energy conservation and environmental protection industry would become a “new pillar of the economy” 经济新支柱 and that “green consumption” 绿色消费would become the path to stimulating the domestic consumer economy.

The following month, the Chinese government committed to establishing a “green financial system” 绿色金融体系. A report produced by experts from the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Finance, other Chinese banks, the Chinese Academy of Social Science, universities, think tanks and more laid out the blueprints for this system. In his foreword to the report, Pan Gongsheng潘功胜Deputy Governor of the PBoC refers to the “opportunity” he had to watch Under the Dome, an interesting choice of words. In a key passage, he reinforces the message that in China, change must come from the top down: “For policymakers, these worsening environmental problems require the further enhancement of top-level design and the improvement of market mechanisms and policy support systems, so as to provide the conditions necessary for various stakeholders to participate in environmental management and protection”.

China also introduced countless plans to tackle climate change on a global level in 2015 in the period leading up to COP21 – the Conference of Parties meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – in Paris in December. In June, China submitted its “Enhanced actions and measures on climate change” to the UNFCCC Secretariat. These provided the basis for the country’s “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDC) to the negotiations. They set out the target of reaching peak CO₂ emissions around 2030. By that time carbon intensity (CO₂ emissions per unit of GDP) would be reduced by sixty to sixty-five percent from 2005 levels and the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption increased to around twenty percent from the current level of 11.2 percent.

The 13^th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020) – the first one produced under the leadership of Xi Jinping – will solidify these plans and more when it is formally adopted in March 2016. The draft proposal, released in November 2015, names the environment one of five key points of the economy. It stresses green and sustainable development and the Party’s intention to promote a low-carbon energy system. It is possible that a cap on coal use or a ban on new coal-fired power plants will become part of China’s long-term development strategy. Given its global economic clout, a greener China could become a catalyst for worldwide change.

The Reality: smog from the bottom up

As Under the Dome made abundantly clear, rules, regulations and plans have so far failed to green China. The documentary exposed both industry and local governments’ notoriously low compliance with central government regulations, pointing to problems at every level. These include coordinating action among ministries with conflicting interests; the blind pursuit of rapid economic growth by provincial governments; the vested interests of powerful, corrupt and monopolistic state-owned energy and power companies; and the self interests of tens of millions of new car owners, many of whom run their vehicles on low-standard fuel that fails to reach national standards. As Chai succinctly sums it up: “no regulations, no authority, no law enforcement – the conundrum of environmental protection right there”.

One of many damning examples Chai Jing uses to illustrate her point begins with a visit to a truck tolling station, where trucks are checked to see if they are complying with emission standards. Many of the truck drivers fail the test. In one case witnessed by Chai, the official in charge does not impose the requisite on-the-spot fine because he notes that the truck is carrying food that is part of the city’s supply system – and local regulations stipulate that such transport cannot be disrupted.

Chai Jing then reveals a thriving industry for “fake cars”, vehicles manufactured without the required emission controls devices in the first place, and which produce emissions that are 500 times the national standard. In theory, the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act 大气污染防治法 of 2002 could be used to shut down the manufacture of such cars, but Chai discovers that no government department has been charged with enforcing the act. She records an official at the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) saying, “As far as we know, it’s not us”. One from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology tells her, “It’s definitely not us”. A third from the General Administration of Quality Supervision and Inspection insists, “It should be all three of us”. Finally, she calls an official at the National People’s Congress who tells her: “The issue of the execution of this law is indeed unclear”. He acknowledges that they’d made it that way on purpose because so many government departments opposed the act. The result puts manufacturers in a corner. As one of the factory owners explains: “If we build real trucks and others build fake trucks, we would be bankrupt tomorrow”. An MEP official admits, “Not enforcing the law forces people to cheat”.

According to Under the Dome, Beijing’s daily PM2.5 level is five times that of China’s average. Photo: fotomen.cn

Chai then turns to the issue of why Chinese fuel standards are set so low compared to those elsewhere. She asks why fuel required to reach the then-highest National Standard 4 was still in such low supply, accounting for just three percent of all available fuels. Yue Xin 岳欣, a Director at the Chinese Research Academy of Social Sciences informs her that representatives of China’s oil industry dominate the standards committee. Neither the MEP nor the National Development and Reform Commissions (NDRC) have the power to enforce higher standards. Baffled, Chai Jing questions Cao Xianghong 曹湘洪, Head of the National Fuel Standards Committee and former Chief Engineer at the state-owned China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec). Cao defends the role of the oil industry in setting fuel standards because, he tells her, he doesn’t believe that people from the MEP understand the oil refining business

As if that unblushing insult to the state ministry tasked with China’s environmental protection weren’t enough, Cao then addresses the question of whether Sinopec, the second largest company on the Fortune Global list in 2014 and described by Fortune as the “king of China’s state-owned hierarchy”, should have to take greater responsibility for its impact on the environment. As he puts it: “Sinopec is huge, like a person, very big, but it’s all fat and no muscle”, clearly implying a lack of capacity and willingness to tackle China’s pollution problems.

Chai Jing then addresses the issue of corruption in the energy industry’s relations with the party-state. Citing the views of an official convicted for corruption, she describes the links forged in recent years between people in the National Energy Administration, Sinopec, electricity distribution firms and the coal and mining industries. The film raises serious questions about Sinopec’s involvement in setting the standards for fuel that it both produces and sells in a highly concentrated, state-dominated market.

Other stories told in Under the Dome illustrate the connection between industrial emissions and the “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and unsustainable” development model of the past. The film also highlights the urgent need for China to rebalance its economy away from energy-intensive production, as well as to price energy according to market principles, eliminate subsidies for ‘dirty’ industries, and tackle powerful SOEs (like Sinopec) whose vested interests are at odds with the central government’s green growth agenda. While the plans for action announced in 2015 are encouraging, clearly far more remains to be done.

A Case of Consumption

Within days of the release of Under the Dome, the newly appointed Minister for Environmental Protection, Chen Jining, praised its “important role in promoting public awareness of environmental health issues”. He saw it as encouraging individuals to play their part in improving China’s air quality. In fact, very little of the film focuses on the responsibility of individual citizens, until the concluding ten minutes when Chai Jing notes that “Even the most powerful government in the world can’t control pollution by itself”. Turning her attention to the choices made by “ordinary people, like you and me”, she urges her viewers to take public transport, walk, ride bikes, and avoid burning low-quality coal, as well as to report polluters and boycott the goods of listed polluting manufacturers. According to Chai Jing, with collective action, and “a little thought and care, the smog will start to clear”.

If only it were that simple. China’s plan to rebalance the economy towards domestic consumption is coupled with its National New-Type Urbanisation Plan (2014-2020) 国家新型城镇化规划, which aims to raise the urban proportion of the population from fifty-three percent in 2013 to sixty percent in 2020. If successful, this will create a middle class the size of which the world has never seen before. The global environmental consequences of hundreds of millions of new urban consumers will be unavoidable and immense – whether their rising demand is satisfied by China’s domestic production or elsewhere.

The number of cars in China has increased by around one hundred million in the last decade. In cities including Beijing and Hangzhou, car emissions are now the primary source of PM2.5. The Development Research Centre of the State Council predicts that there will be 400 million private vehicles in China in fifteen years time. Car owners don’t only consume energy directly in the form of petroleum at the pumps. The production of cars requires energy as an input, and other inputs that use energy as an input (most obviously steel), and so on down the chain.

Individuals consume energy directly in the form of coal, natural gas, petroleum and electricity and indirectly through the many goods and services that require energy. Indirect energy consumption – and associated emissions – is likely to grow substantially in China in the years ahead.

Meng Xin and I calculated the direct and indirect energy use and subsequent emissions per capita of 33,000 urban Chinese households. The figure below illustrates the results, plotted across income percentiles (ranging from the poorest to the richest one percent of the sample population). As seen, total energy consumption, and therefore emissions, increases as income rises. This may be an obvious point: richer people have more to spend, so they tend to consume more of just about everything. But people can only consume so much energy directly, no matter how rich they are. More importantly, we show that indirect emissions rise even more when income increases. At higher levels of income, indirect emissions are an even greater problem than direct emissions.

On the other hand, consumer choices can change, and production technologies and environmental policies can make the production of all goods and services greener over time. Given its population size, and its global emissions ranking, no country has a greater incentive than China to turn this potential into reality. Yet it needs to make serious efforts to address fundamental issues like the legal ambiguity, bureaucratic buck-passing and corporate bullying described above. Otherwise it is highly unlikely that a program of promoting a “green, low-carbon, healthy and civilised way of life and consumption patterns” together with the kind of personal activism advocated by Chai Jing will be enough to tackle the country’s complex environmental crisis.

Figure 1. Household per capita emissions by income percentile

Under which dome?

Chai Jing borrowed the name Under the Dome from a US television series about a small town upon which a dome descended out of nowhere, cutting it off from the rest of the world, providing no way out. Yet this is not a perfect metaphor for China’s reality. In an increasingly integrated global economy – in which China is both the largest exporter and one of the largest overseas investors, we are all effectively living under the same dome.

The Chinese government played a critical role at the COP21 meeting that, as the official agreement states, marked “a change in direction, towards a new world”. The Paris agreement confirms the target of keeping the rise in global temperature below 2°C, and ideally 1.5°C, with 186 countries publishing action plans for achieving targeted reductions in green house gas emissions. The agreement asks all countries to review these plans every five years beginning in 2020, not to lower their targets where possible, to reach peak emissions “as soon as possible” and to “achieve carbon neutrality in the second half of the century”.

November 2015: As world leaders converged on Paris for the World Climate Change Conference 2015, residents of Beijing and other cities in eastern China faced the most severe air pollution the nation saw that year. Photo: earthobservatory.nasa.gov

The impetus for finding a global solution to what is clearly a global problem gathered momentum in Paris. Yet the challenges of implementation remain huge, for at least two reasons.

First, in all of its policy documents, China stresses its status as a developing country and the principles of “equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. These principles were a dominant theme at the 20^th BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change in June 2015. The ministers collectively called on developed countries to take the lead in emission reductions and provide financial support to developing countries for green technology and capacity building, as well as mitigating against and adapting to climate change. COP21 confirmed that developed countries remain committed to raising US$100 billion per year by 2020 from public and private sources to address the needs of developing countries. Yet developed countries have collectively failed to provide this funding since 2010 when the commitment was first made – falling short, according to World Bank estimates, by about US$70 billion per year.

Second is what is known among economists as the “pollution haven hypothesis”. This suggests that foreign investors will be drawn to countries where environmental regulations are weak and production costs relatively low. As China tightens up on its own environmental regulations, its ‘dirty’ industries are likely to try and relocate offshore. There’s no reason to think that the Chinese multinationals will be any better than Western ones at resisting the option of looking for ‘pollution havens’. These are most likely to be found in other developing countries, where the urge for stronger environmental regulation often loses out to the pressing need for economic growth.

This hypothesis will be tested as China rolls out its Silk Road Economic Belt and 21^st Century Maritime Silk Road 丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路, abbreviated in English as OBOR. OBOR aims to enhance China’s connection and cooperation with other parts of Asia, Europe and Africa through increased regional trade as well as cultural exchange. It requires the construction of an infrastructure network, including new ports, railways, roads and so on throughout the region, as well as improvements to existing infrastructure. This will by its very nature be energy intensive, just as China’s internal infrastructure expansion has been in the past. While official policy documents stress that the initiative will “promote green and low-carbon infrastructure”, it will take concerted bilateral and multilateral efforts to turn these ambitions into reality.

The problem of “pollution havens” extends beyond developing countries. In 2014, then Australian prime minister Tony Abbott publicly stated that coal is “good for humanity”, and the “foundation of prosperity for now and the foreseeable future”. This was the opposite view to that of the United Nation’s top climate official, Christiana Figueres, who warned that most of the world’s coal must be left in the ground if we are to prevent catastrophic global warming. Abbott’s pronouncement, and his climate change policies generally, received much criticism both within Australia and overseas, including from China. Yet even Abbott’s successor as Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who once supported the introduction of an ETS, now appears to shares his predecessor’s aversion to “green tape” (environmental-based regulations). The Turnbull government has given conditional approval to the Chinese state-owned company Shenhua Watermark to open a highly controversial coalmine in the fertile Liverpool Plains area of New South Wales. Shenhua, which is the world’s largest coal supplier, plans to invest A$1.2 billion in the mine, from which it intends to extract ten million tonnes of coal per year for thirty years. Unless there is an unexpected change in policy direction, Australia could soon find itself home to some of China’s dirtier industries.

On 8 December, as 2015 was drawing to a close, the Beijing authorities issued the first “red alert” for air pollution since the introduction of an emergency response system in late 2013. A red alert – declared if Air Quality Index readings of PM2.5 exceed 200 milligrams per cubic metre or more for at least three days in a row – places temporary restrictions on the city’s cars, factories and construction sites and shuts down schools. Critics accused the city’s environment bureau of taking too long to issue the alert, given that in the week preceding it PM2.5 levels had been close to 1000, 40 times the World Health Organisation’s guideline for “maximum health exposure” of 25. But its ultimate decision signalled that it was capable of choosing the environment over the economy, at least in desperate circumstances.

The rhetoric of the highest levels of government, including its threat of “iron-handed punishment” for environmental lawbreakers, signals a sincere interest in tackling China’s environmental problems. Yet without a more systemic program of environmental management within China, similarly strong commitments by all the nations of the world and substantial personal efforts on the part of the world’s 7.3 billion individuals (especially the billion or so richest ones) it is hard to imagine how we will ever escape from “under the dome”.

December 2015: Chinese authorities issue their first ever ‘red alert’ for Beijing as acrid smog enveloped the capital. Photo: bj.jjj.qq.com

Postscript: 28 October 2016.

While there was plenty to feel negative about in 2015, and particularly following the damning evidence presented in Under the Dome, 2016 has delivered many positive environmental outcomes for China, and the world as well. In early September, China announced its ratification of the Paris climate change agreement, which needed to be ratified by 55 countries, representing 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions, for it to come into effect. This goal was reached on 3 October 2016, with China’s decision clearly encouraging a large number of countries to follow suit – as of 5 October 2016, 81 countries had ratified the convention. On 4 November 2016, thirty days after the country target was reached, the Paris Agreement entered into force. While the naysayers will criticise the Agreement for its lack of binding targets, this is surely a step in the right direction for global environmental change.

Domestically, the release of the 13^th Five-Year Plan in March 2016, as noted above, strengthened China’s commitment to developing a low-carbon green economy, and there is ample evidence to suggest that this commitment is real. A Greenpeace article in May 2016 declared that “China’s 13^th Five-Year Plan is quite possibly the most important document in the world in setting the pace of acting on climate change”, noting that “2020 energy targets that would have seemed quite meaningful or even ambitious a few years ago have now become redundant”. Of the many figures they provide to support this claim, the share of coal in the total energy mix is expected to fall below 63% in 2016, a one percentage point annual drop since 2010, and only one percentage point above the target of 62% for 2020.

The greatest signal for hope lies in China’s advances in renewable energy, or in what John Mathews described in a recent Asia-Pacific Journal article as “China’s continuing renewable energy revolution”. Building on his previous work with Hao Tan, in which they argued that China has “overwhelming economic and energy security reasons for opting in favour of renewables, in addition to the obvious environmental benefits”, Mathews shows that through 2015, China’s electric power system was still “greening faster than it is becoming black”, in terms of electric power generation, new generating capacity and investment. If current trends continue, he argues that China “would be the world’s undisputed renewables superpower – and one that is well on the way to becoming the world’s first country to become a terawatt renewables powerhouse – by the early 2020s”. The numbers he provides to back up this claim are truly impressive. If – and it’s a large if – China can export these trends to its OBOR partners and beyond, the international benefits could be tremendous.

China’s reform and development experience in the past four decades has been far from perfect. Many people remain highly critical of the government’s “growth at all costs” approach during that time and will continue to argue that recent developments are too little too late. However, it could be argued that the Chinese government’s commitments on paper, combined with mounting evidence that positive change is happening on the ground, demonstrate a capacity to drive the greening of the economy to an extent that green supporters in advanced democratic countries (and I have Australia primarily in mind) can only dream about. It may be a long shot, but as of October 2016 I’d still place my money on the Chinese government to play a positive role in “lifting the dome” in the decade ahead, both domestically and internationally as well. Given an increasingly environmentally aware public, whose demand for greener living will only increase with time, the preservation of Party power is at stake: and that’s the best incentive of all.

Will Beijing escape from underneath its “smog dome”? Photo: Ernie/Flickr

An earlier version of this article was published in the China Story Yearbook 2015, an annual publication produced by the Australian Centre on China in the World at The Australian National University in Canberra. The 2015 volume is titled Pollution, expressed with the Chinese character 染 ran, and explored the broader ramifications of ‘pollution’ (in its various guises) in the People’s Republic for culture, society, law and social activism, as well as the Internet, language, thought and the economy. My chapter, named after the phenomenally successful documentary Under the Dome, explores the multi-layered environmental challenges facing the world’s largest population under the control of the most powerful one-party state, presenting many reasons for despair but also a glimmer of hope.

Related articles 

• John A. Mathews, China’s Continuing Renewable Energy Revolution – latest trends in electric power generation

• Nathan Nankivell, China’s Pollution and the Threat to Domestic and Regional Stability

• Yokemoto Masafumi, Hayashi Kiminori and Oshima Ken’ichi, Overcoming American Military Base Pollution in Asia: Japan, Okinawa, Philippines

On November 14, 2016, Georgetown’s Foreign Service School, its Center for Contemporary Arab Studies (CCAS), and its Middle East-North Africa (MENA) Forum showed the Netflix propaganda film “The White Helmets”.  Following the film (which the Helmets had shot), there was an extremely biased  panel discussion about current Syrian events. 

The motion picture, well-received by the audience, offered a carefully-edited account of the White Helmets, an alleged civil defense and rescue group. No member had any kind of background involving rescue work.  Indeed, they all seemed to be either butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers.  One alleged he had been a terrorist but had reformed and now wanted to help his fellow countrymen.  The film depicted the White Helmets rescuing infants at great risk while under fire from the Syrian government and Russia.  The only training they received was in Turkey, coming from classes and drills which the Anatolian government provided.

After the picture, the CCAS Director, Osama Abi-Mershed, praising the White Helmets’ work, introduced the following panel members:

• Marwa Daoudy.  Assistant Professor at CCAS and the School of Foreign Service.  Previously she had had ties to Harvard and Princeton Universities and the US government-connected Middle East Institute.  She is deeply involved in work on national security and Middle East politics.
• Rafif Jouejati.  A “management consultant”, she joined the “Syrian revolution for democracy, dignity, and freedom in March 2011”.  Jouejati had been a spokesman for the formal Syrian opposition coalition during the 2014 Geneva peace talks.  She is also a director of FREE-Syria.
• Kenan Rahmani.  Policy Advisor at the Syria Campaign.  A Syrian-American activist, he spends time in  north Syria working with civil society groups, including the White Helmets.
• Raed al-Saleh.  Head of the Syria Civil Defense (i.e., White Helmets).  The claim is that its 3,000 volunteers have saved over 72,000 lives. They were nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize and have received the Atlantic Council’s Freedom Award as well as the Middle East Institute’s Visionary Award.  (N.B., the Atlantic Council’s chairman is a former governor of Utah and past ambassador.  Zalmay Khalilzad, one-time ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the UN, is a director.  The Middle East Institute is loaded with former ambassadors and other US government officials.)

After the film, Raed al-Saleh,  refused entry to the US in April 2016, and Rafif Jouejati, expanded on the US government’s deceits about Syria’s legitimate government, Russia, and Iran. Ably assisted by Kenan Rahmani and Prof. Marwa Daoudy at CCAS, the group promoted the most outrageous falsehoods about US efforts to overthrow Syria’s regime.  They also refused to accept the results of November 8’s US general election and urged the students to protest a suddenly racist and hate-filled America.

Cheered on by at least 200 impressionable students, the group arrogantly and openly lied about events in Syria, asserting that that country’s government and Russia were bombing schools and hospitals.  The panel members claimed that Bashar al-Assad had used chlorine and other poisonous gases in attacks on Syrian “freedom fighters”.  Jouejati alleged that she and her groups believed in non-violence and that the Syrian government had forced the closure of most of their offices.  She insisted their members had been targeted for retaliation, while Rahmani said that the Syrians themselves should decide their own future.  Daoudy asserted that the US election had shocked the Syrians   Rahmani, in a remarkable statement, charged that Islamists were happy the US elected Trump, thus proving democracy doesn’t work.

He also declared that the Russians, Trump’s allies, have killed more civilians than ISIS.  Continuing, he averred that Trump opposed all people of color, Jews, essentially, anyone different from him.  Jouejati went on to say that Assad must go and that the choice is not him or the extremists.  Al-Saleh not only attacked Russia and Assad but also Hezbollah and Iran for helping prop up the Syrian government.  He avowed that Idlib, where he was from, was a multi-religious, multi-ethnic community.

In response to the author’s one question about the White Helmets’ questionable connections:  to British intelligence, to NATO, to the US Agency for International Development, and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Saleh launched an ad hominem attack.  Ignoring the author’s references to Vanessa Beeley’s and Max Blumenthal’s analyses,  al-Saleh denied his removal from the US, his group’s cache of weapons, and his ties to terrorism.  The audience cheered.

The author had no chance to respond.

CCAS allowed only two other, extremely mundane questions.  They included praise for the “heroic” White Helmets.

In keeping with the propaganda aspect of the operation, a woman came up to the author afterwards with a remarkable story.  In it, she noted that she had been blocked from distributing a flyer referring to the White Helmets’ questionable nature.  Her offense?  The paper listed titles and authors of news articles about the Helmets’ hoax.  One described the White Helmets as “al-Qaeda with a face-lift”.

Certainly, throughout the two and one half hours, no one said a word about al-Saleh’s support for a “no-fly zone” over Syria.  (Max Blumenthal had termed this concept a prelude to “regime change”.)  The White Helmets have other problems which Georgetown University never addressed.  As Christina Lin wrote in the Asia Times, there are photos and videos of “White Helmet members carrying weapons, celebrating with Al Qaeda when they defeat the Syrian army in battles, and standing by to watch as rebel jihadists conduct executions and then immediately rushing forward to place the body in body bags.”

An RT interview with journalist Vanessa Beeley noted that ” They provide medical care for the terrorists, they funnel equipment in from Turkey into the terrorist areas (…) They’ve been filmed participating and facilitating an execution of a civilian in Aleppo [Halab]. They post celebratory videos to their social media pages of the execution of civilian Arab soldiers.  From the testimony from the real Syria Civil Defense across Syria they have also been involved in the taking over of the real Syria Civil Defense units, the stealing of their equipment and the eventual massacres and kidnapping of real Syria Civil Defense crews.”

Oh, yes, to facilitate the White Helmets “helping the Syrians”, they receive millions of dollars in government funding.  It comes from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and France.  The White Helmets operate only in areas controlled by terrorist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra.

Naturally, not one word came from the panel about the White Helmets’ origins.  Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector in Iraq, did shine some light on their murky beginnings.  He said:  “The organizational underpinnings of the White Helmets can be sourced to a March 2013 meeting in Istanbul between a retired British military officer, James Le Mesurier—who had experience in the murky world of private security companies and the shadowy confluence between national security and intelligence operations and international organizations—and representatives of the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the Qatari Red Crescent Society.”  Le Mesurier had also operated in Iraq and Yugoslavia.

A Yugoslav source suggested that Syria’s White Helmet concept may have grown out of NATO’s destruction of her country. Then, the EU had provided civilian “white helmets” to help monitor the situation there.  They were supposedly professionals needed as a standby force in post-conflict situations.  As set forth in a South African publication, ACCORD, “They [the helmets] would mobilise in the field of emergency humanitarian assistance and the gradual transition from relief to rehabilitation, reconstruction and development.”

Furthermore, our source noted that while she was in the country, the Yugoslav white helmets always seemed to be tied to CIA operational areas.  They also stirred up conflicts in locations supposedly being pacified, she said.  Calling them “very empowered criminals”, our contact added that they always enjoyed a rank far above the UN officials and other aid workers.

CONCLUSION:

It’s one thing for Georgetown University officials to foist this off on their students as Syrian current events.  It’s another for the students to sit there and swallow it.  A former professor at Georgetown clarifies this.  Nicholas Greenwood Onuf once said that Georgetown. a Catholic Cow College [down-market school], has students that can’t or won’t think.

Seven Russian S-300 air defense systems have been deployed in Syria, Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday. Russia deployed Bastion coastal systems, which are able to destroy both sea and ground targets at a distance of 350 kilometers of the sea and almost 450 kilometers of land, which virtually cover the entire Syrian coast, according to Shoigu. Pantsir systems have been also supplied to defend Russian bases from low-flying targets.

On the same day, the Russian state-of-the-art frigate Admiral Grigorovich launched Kalibr cruise missiles and a Bastion coastal defence system launched Oniks cruise missiles, destroying warehouses with ammunition, terrorist gathering and training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction belonging to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and ISIS in the provinces of Homs and Idlib.

Sukhoi Su-33 fighter jets began conducting combat flights over Syria from the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser deck. Before this, jets from the Kuznetsov deck used to do only reconnaissance of targets.

Massive air strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces and the Syrian Air Force were reported by pro-militant media outlets in the Aleppo-Idlib countryside. The warplanes paid special attention to the Saraqib-Khan Tuman supply line used by militants to deliver supplies and reinforcements to the area of Aleppo from Idlib province.

At the same time up to 1,000 Syrian army soldiers allegedly arrived Aleppo city to participate in the long –awaited offensive in the militant-controlled areas of eastern Aleppo and in the city’s southern countryside that is expected to be led by the Syrian army’s Tiger Forces, the Desert Hawks Brigade and Hezbollah. The government forces have already launched a preemptive shelling if the Aqrab area in western Aleppo.

The major operation in Aleppo city is on the verge of its start.

On 8 July 2016 it was announced in Seoul that the US would, as had long been anticipated, deploy an initial unit of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea.¹ The announcement was made at a press conference hosted by the South Korean Deputy Minister of Defense Ryu Je-seung and the Chief of Staff of US Forces in Korea (USFK) who has the significant, if unfortunate, name of General Vandal. The decision did not attract much attention in the international media being overshadowed by the Brexit drama in Europe, shootings and electioneering in the US, and Obama’s last NATO summit in Warsaw.

General Thomas Vandal, the Chief of Staff for the US Forces in Korea and South Korea’s Deputy Minister Of Defense Ryu Je-seung announce the decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, at the Ministry of National Defense in Seoul, July 8. (Yonhap News)

The limited coverage however was definitely ‘on message’:

• US and South Korea agree THAAD missile defence deployment (BBC)²
• South Korea and US agree to deploy THAAD missile defence system (Guardian)³
• Pentagon to deploy anti-missile system in South Korea (Washington Post)⁴
• South Korea and US Agree to Deploy Missile Defense System (New York Times)⁵

It was Reuters which delivered the whole message in the headline:

South Korea, US Agree to Deploy THAAD Missile Defense to Counter North Korea Threat⁶

So, the message goes, we have two equal allies–South Korea and the US (and that is often the order in which they are given) –who after much deliberation are stationing this segment of Missile Defense precisely to defend South Korea against a belligerent North Korea. It must be admitted that China⁷ and Russia⁸ are making a bit of a fuss although it has been patiently explained many times that the sole purpose of THAAD was, as Minister Yoo reiterated at the press conference “to guarantee the security of [South Korea] and its people from the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles” and is “not aimed at a third country”⁹. Indeed, Jane Perlez suggested in the New York Times, China was peeved because the deployment show that despite its attempts to woo Seoul ‘Ms. Park’s government showed that it was embracing its alliance with Washington more than ever, and that it would rely less on China to keep North Korea and its nuclear arsenal at bay.’¹⁰

However, a little burrowing beneath the surface reveals that the reality is very different from the official US and South Korean government line so assiduously reported by the media.

There are, for a start, serious doubts amongst experts that THAAD would in fact be effective against North Korean missiles. Even those in the military-industrial-security complex such as Michael Elleman formerly of the US Department of Defense and now with the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) who is, by profession, ‘pro-THAAD’ cautions that it would not offer complete protection.

Adding THAAD to missile-defense deployments that already include Patriot systems would likely substantially enhance South Korea’s capacity to minimize the damage caused by a large North Korean missile attack. However, it is important to note that a layered defense will not be able to completely block such an attack. As a result, missiles armed with nuclear weapons could cause significant casualties as well as damage in the South.¹¹

A similar point is made by Garth McLennan, who refers to the technique of haystacking where a large number of missiles are fired, only a few of which have nuclear warheads (because they are in short supply). The nuclear component then becomes a needle in a haystack:

THAAD would not, however, serve as an effective tool in countering a North Korean nuclear strike if such an attack were haystacked among a barrage of conventional warheads.¹²

A more trenchant, and independent critic, is Theodore Postol, emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who is frequently cited by the liberal Seoul newspaper Hankyoreh.¹³ Postol argues that North Korea could make its missiles tumble or fragment in flight in order to confuse THAAD and hence penetrate defences.¹⁴

There appears to be a consensus amongst experts that despite claims by the South Korean Defense Minister a single THAAD unit would be ineffective against Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMS) because it only has a 120 degrees azimuth, or window, and since SLBMs can be launched from any direction it would be necessary to have at least three to cover the whole 360 degrees.¹⁵

THAAD on the Korean peninsula, used for detecting Chinese ICBM (hypothetical)16

Then there is the question of where the THAAD unit would be stationed. The right wing Chosun Ilbo has expressed concern that it would be positioned to protect US bases, rather than Seoul.¹⁷

Postol concludes, in a lengthy technical presentation given at Harvard, that “The claim that the US is aiming its missile defense at North Korea is simply nonsense.”¹⁸

If THAAD offers little or no protection against North Korea’s missiles, why the deployment? The answer lies in THAAD’s AN/TPY-2 radar system which can penetrate deep into China, and Russia.¹⁹ Postol explains:

The Chinese are concerned about the THAAD radar because it was designed from its beginning to provide cuing information to the US National Missile Defense. The placement of a THAAD radar in South Korea has the unambiguous technical appearance of placing the radar in a location where it can provide track information on Chinese ICBMs before they rise over the curved earth-horizon and can be seen by the main radars of the US National Missile Defense in Alaska…

South Korea will get no military benefit from the THAAD defense system, and China will consider the radar‘s deployment to South Korea as a hostile act by South Korea against China. It therefore has a significant negative impact on South Korean/Chinese relations, with essentially no real benefit to South Korea.²⁰

Russia has warned that it ‘could deploy missile bases to its Far East region that would be within reach of THAAD bases in South Korea’.²¹

China has gone further in an editorial in the authoritative Communist Party newspaper Global Times, which outlined a number of measures in response to the THAAD deployment:

We recommend China to take the following countermeasures.

• China should cut off economic ties with companies involved with the system and ban their products from entering the Chinese market.
• It could also implement sanctions on politicians who advocated the deployment, ban their entry into China as well as their family business.
• In addition, the Chinese military could come up with a solution that minimizes the threat posed by the system, such as technical disturbances and targeting missiles toward the THAAD system.
• Meanwhile, China should also re-evaluate the long-term impact in Northeast Asia of the sanctions on North Korea, concerning the link between the sanctions and the imbalance after the THAAD system is deployed.
• China can also consider the possibility of joint actions with Russia with countermeasures. ²²

The enormous implications of these measures are obvious. For one thing it seems likely that the deployment, combined with US containment of China in the South China Sea, will reinforce Chinese rethinking of its conciliatory policy over the Korean issue.

In South Korea there have been serious concerns raised about the commercial impact of the response from China, its major economic partner. The Korea Times, in an article entitled ‘Businesses fear backlash from China’ reported:

Company officials and analysts expressed concern that THAAD may stoke anti-Korean sentiment in the neighboring country.

They also said business ties with China could worsen, heightening uncertainties about the Korean economy.

“The THAAD issue is more about politics and diplomacy, but it could hurt Chinese consumer sentiment about Korean products,” Hyundai Securities analyst Kwak Byeong-yeol said.

Company officials expressed worries over retaliatory actions such as higher tariffs and stricter rules on some Korean products manufactured in China.²³

South Korean companies exporting to, or producing in China, would not be the only casualties. There is also tourism. The Hankyoreh noted that

What the South Korean government and business are most concerned about in connection with the THAAD debate are economic sanctions. China is by far South Korea’s number one export market, accounting for 26% of exports as of 2015 – a figure that rises to 31.8% if Hong Kong (5.8%) is included.

Last year, 45% (6 million) of foreign visitors to South Korea were Chinese, and they are lavish consumers, spending five times more than the average foreign tourist’s expenditures (US$400). Chinese investors hold 17.5 trillion won (US$15.22 billion, 18.1%) in government bonds and other publicly traded securities in South Korea, more than any other country. Furthermore, around 23,000 South Korean companies were doing business in China as of 2013. Sanctions from China would deliver a body blow to the South Korean economy.²⁴

So we have a situation where the South Korea government has, it claims, willingly agreed to the deployment of a weapon system which will afford it little or no protection against North Korea, but will exacerbate North-South tensions which are already at highest level in decades.²⁵ THAAD will inevitably increase the danger of South Korea being a target of Chinese and Russia counterattack in the case of war.²⁶ And in the meanwhile it is producing the likelihood of substantial damage to the South Korean economy as the relationship with China and Russia sours.²⁷

The United States is inflaming the situation on the Korean peninsula, and worldwide. THAAD is clearly one part of a larger pattern. Obama at the NATO summit in Warsaw 8 July confirmed ‘Russia as implacable enemy No. 1, while Defense Secretary Carter’s recent campaign to up the military ante in the western Pacific casts China as a close No. 2.’²⁸ At the same time Abe Shinzo, with another electoral victory under his belt continues his inexorable journey towards revision or ‘reinterpretation’ of the Japanese ‘peace constitution’ and the remilitarisation of Japan. ²⁹ How do we explain the hysteria and the war-mongering? And, in the case of South Korea, the self-harm?

Choi Sun-sil depicted as a Shaman

A framework for analysis with the US at its core

In order to make sense of this and, lay the foundation for activism, as appropriate, we must contextualise and establish a framework for analysis. The starting point for this framework is that we must look in the right direction. Most writing and discussion on Korean peninsula issues focuses almost exclusively on North Korea. We are told of the North Korea problem, the North Korea threat, how North Korea, or the Kim family, is mad, bad, unpredictable, and so forth. The clue is to look at phrases such as the “Vietnam War”, the “Korean War”, “invasion of Afghanistan”, “invasion of Iraq”, and work out what they have in common; or rather what is left out that they have in common. The answer of course is the United States. The US is the common denominator.

No doubt some wise person thousands of years ago pointed out that we will not see the mountain, however high it may be, if we are looking in the wrong direction. And the American mountain is very high indeed. The US is the global colossus. It is the world’s major economy (although now overtaken in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms by China) and one relevant consequence of that has been its fondness for economic warfare. Physical sanctions may devastate a target economy without impinging on the far larger American one. The US had an embargo against China for 25 years without American business protesting; mind you they didn’t realise what they were missing out on. Sanctions on North Korea have been in place for some 70 years, with no apparent protest from American business. The US dominance in the international business and banking architecture makes financial sanctions very appealing; again they cause great damage without much cost to the US. ³⁰American economic might means there is plenty of cash to buy friends and influence people. General David Petraeus claimed that ‘money is my most important ammunition in this [Iraq] war’ and this insight led to a US Army manual entitled Commander’s Guide to Money as a Weapons System.³¹ Vicky Nuland’s boast, in December 2013, just before the coup in the Ukraine, that they had ‘invested’ $5 billion in the Ukraine is one example; then there are all the stories of CIA operatives sashaying through Afghanistan and Iraq with dollars, not in fistfuls but in suitcases. ³²

The US is uniquely blessed by nature, with extensive agricultural and mineral resources meaning it cannot be blockaded into submission, however strong a future enemy might be. It is protected by vast oceans east and west and bordered by small, non-threatening countries north and south and surrounded by a huge network of overseas bases.³³ Despite this geographical invulnerability, the US spends on its military nearly as much as the rest of the world put together. If one adds to its military budget that of its ‘allies’ and compares that to the military wherewithal of potential adversaries the disproportion is staggering. At a rough calculation using data from the latest Military Balance assessment from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the military expenditure of US and its ‘allies’ is about $1 trillion a year. ³⁴They outspend China seven times, Russia 15 times and North Korea somewhere between 100 times and, if one accepts the estimate of Pyongyang’s military budget made by the director of the South Korean Defence Intelligence Agency back in 2013, 1000 times.³⁵

The United States also has immense Soft Power which includes diplomatic power and its domination of the global intellectual space which are linked together, the one feeding off the other.

The US has immense diplomatic power. Hence for instance all those dubious UN Security Council resolutions censuring North Korea, and violating the sovereignty of Libya, Yugoslavia, Iraq, or Iran.³⁶ The US is able to bully, cajole or perhaps just instruct permanent and non-permanent members of the UNSC to commit egregious violations of the UN Charter, damaging its enemies and protecting its friends, such as Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, and of course itself. Again its power is not absolute, but it is extraordinary.

The official US narrative not merely fashions Western media and academia but also much of that in Russia and China. If you look at Russian or Chinese media, in English at least, you will see that unless national interests are directly challenged – in Ukraine and Eastern Europe for the Russians and the South China Sea for the Chinese, the default position is to accept uncritically what the Western news agencies, and hence Western officials, portray. This, needless to say, only works one way. No Western newspaper would ever regurgitate a statement from Tass or Xinhua without inserting it in a political envelope telling the reader not to believe it.

As a result of this domination of the international intellectual space no one seems to blink when the US, with its thousand nuclear tests, fulminates against North Korea’s five, or with its myriad nuclear and conventional missiles, bombers, fighters, aircraft carriers, and submarines claims that it is being threatened by North Korea with its very limited and uncertain ability to project power far beyond its borders. This goes beyond hypocrisy and double standards into the construction of a special sort of unreality.

Of all countries in the world North Korea alone has been censured by the UNSC for launching satellites, and that on the strange ground that they utilised ballistic missile technology. Strange because not merely are all satellites launched by ballistic rockets, but ballistic missiles are not themselves illegal.³⁷ How could they be when the US has so many of them?

There are various bilateral and multilateral agreements by which the US attempts to fortify its hegemony by managing the utilisation of missiles by other countries – there is, for instance, the limitation it has imposed on South Korean missiles (they don’t want Seoul attacking China without permission) but missiles per se are not prohibited Similarly for nuclear tests and weapons. There are various ‘voluntary’ agreements – the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty – but these are different in nature from, for instance, the prohibition on invading other countries which is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.³⁸ In this regard the construction of North Korea as an international pariah is an expression of American power rather than, as is usually claimed, a result of the infringement of international law. In fact, the discriminatory charges against North Korea are themselves a violation of the norms of international law and the equal sovereignty of states.

American power means that nothing much happens in the world without the US being involved although that is frequently hidden. Sometimes it is the dominant actor, sometimes just an endorser, but the US is always there. This does not mean that the US is omnipotent. Indeed it is intriguing the way that clients sometimes have surprising leverage against the US One thinks of Syngman Rhee in South Korea the 1950s, or more recently Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. These are people who were installed by the US, had not much popular support and many domestic enemies, but nevertheless at times could disobey orders quite flagrantly. The client/master relationship is constantly being negotiated and is complex. However, if push comes to shove the master prevails, as Rhee found out in 1960.

Deciphering US global strategy

So, in analysing world affairs the starting point must be the US What does America want? That, needless to say, often bears little connection with what it proclaims as its objective. Analysis must be hard-nosed looking beyond the spin and rhetoric, focussing on actions and seeking real explanations. When we have some idea of America’s position we can start looking at the other players, in descending order of importance. For most countries, most of the time, the United States is their major strategic partner-cum-adversary. They tend to tailor their policy in relation to third countries in the light of their political relationship with the United States. However for many countries, and South Korea is by no means alone, there is the dilemma of reconciling the economic importance of China with the relationship with the US.³⁹ At the same time we must presume that Washington has a global grand strategy (however incoherent and subject to various factions that may be) and that this strategy prioritises and subordinates the part to the whole.

US Vice President Joe Biden clasps hands with President Park Geun-hye at the Blue House before Biden signs the visitor’s book, Dec. 6. (Blue House photo pool)40

The failure to put the US at the core of geopolitical analysis is a fundamental reason why so much writing on the Korean peninsula is usually off the mark. We have innumerable websites and NGOs, books and articles focusing on North Korea, often with little attention paid to the US, other than considering what effect North Korea, and often ‘the North Korean threat’ has on America. Looking in the wrong direction, asking the wrong questions, they get misleading or meaningless answers. Associated with this, and arguably a result of it, is the fact that virtually all the experts, all the pundits we hear from are, to use Perry Anderson’s term ‘state functionaries’. ⁴¹He was talking about American experts on China but the same term can be applied to American experts on Korea, and much the same holds for experts from Britain, Russia, and China. Most of these experts either currently work for the US government or have in the past – in the CIA, Defence, or State usually. If they are former employees they now work for think tanks or NGOs which are, to put it politely, state-aligned. Even academics are constrained by the desire for research funding. There are very few neutral, dispassionate, disinterested (in the proper meaning of the term) voices. One simpler indicator is that virtually all of them express horror at the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but few have any qualms about the US and its arsenal. They tend to view the prospect of the US attacking North Korea with moral equanimity. There are, of course, honourable exceptions. Donald Gregg, former CIA operative and George H. Bush’s ambassador to South Korea has become a leading advocate of engagement, as well as offering a critical perspective on US policy.⁴² James Hoare, the British diplomat (and Korean scholar) who opened the British mission in Pyongyang.⁴³ Robert Carlin, with a background in the CIA and State Department, who offers such interesting insights into US negotiations with North Korea.⁴⁴

The Korean peninsula in US strategy

Why is the US interested in the Korean peninsula? The answer is location. Korea is the most valuable piece of geopolitical real estate in the world. It is the nexus where most of the great powers meet and contend. China and Russia share a land border with Korea, Japan is separated by a small sea, and although the Pacific is a large ocean it is also ‘the American lake’. None of these powers want a unified Korea subservient to any of the others and since the US is by far the most powerful it has the most pro-active policy. The US is also different in that it alone, at the moment, has aspirations for global hegemony. This means keeping Japan subservient, and containing China and Russia with the longer term aim of fragmenting them so that they are no longer competitors. It is easy to see how Korea fits in with these strategic objectives. As a physical location it provides bases adjacent to China and Russia and whilst the number of troops permanently deployed in South Korea is small, one of the functions of the joint exercises with the ROK is to practice the rapid influx of massive reinforcements. Japan fulfils the same role.

As an aside it might be noted that Korea also provides a base for keeping an eye on Japan. Whilst the US has been an enthusiastic supporter of Japanese remilitarisation, thinking in terms of the containment of China, it is possible this may change. A remilitarised Japan (and it should be remembered that Japan has the expertise to rapidly develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems that might well be superior to China’s), made a ‘normal’ country again, may want to assert its independence from the US. As Palmerston remarked, back in the nineteenth century, countries don’t have perpetual friends and enemies, merely perpetual interests.⁴⁵

In the meantime Japan remains America’s main asset in East Asia and an important aspect of the US presence in the southern part of the Korean peninsula, dating from 1945, is its function as a bulwark protecting Japan from any military threat from the Asian mainland. In 1945 that meant the Soviet Union but as time passed China has been perceived as the bigger threat. However the military facet is less important than the political one. The US has to be concerned that Japan does not become too friendly with its Asian neighbours, South Korea and Taiwan being obvious, but ultimately perhaps partial, exceptions. This concern was well illustrated by the ‘Dulles Warning’ of 1956 when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, alarmed at peace treaty negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union, threatened that the US would not relinquish Okinawa if Japan went ahead by agreeing to a Soviet proposal for a compromise solution to the territorial dispute (Kurils/Northern Territories) between the two countries. Dulles was also worried that if Japan concluded a peace treaty with the Soviet Union this might lead to a normalisation of relations with China.⁴⁶ Dulles got his way and relations between Japan and Russia are still bedevilled by territorial disputes, as are Japan’s relations with China.⁴⁷ Fears that Prime Minister Koizumi’s visit to Pyongyang in 2002 might lead to a rapprochement with North Korea may have been the trigger that led to the Bush administration’s abrogation of the Agreed Framework.⁴⁸ Japan is the jewel in America’s East Asian crown, but the Korean peninsula has been regarded as essential to its protection.

The Korean peninsula not merely provides the US with physical bases for its military; it provides access to a huge reservoir of Korean military assets. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies( IISS) report, Military Balance 2016, South Korea has a total troop complement – that is the combination of service personnel and reserves – of about 5.1 million. For comparison this is 2.6 times as much as that of North Korea’s ostensible 2 million, considerably more than America’s 2.2 million and quite a bit more than China’s 3.5 million.⁴⁹ As an aside it might be noted that South Korean scholars using census data estimate the North Korean armed forces at about 700,000.⁵⁰ In addition, it is claimed that 400,000 are engaged full time in construction. ⁵¹ Which leaves about 300,000 for ordinary soldiering, rather less that the IISS estimate of 1.19 million.

Because of interoperability, these South Korean troops can fight alongside America, under American command, but probably can’t operate on their own in a major war. The Joint military exercises such as Key Resolve, Foal Eagle and Ssang Yong are described as defensive to deter North Korean aggression. Given North Korea’s incredible military inferiority against the US-led forces this is obviously a pretext. The exercises practise more than the invasion of the North. The Chosun Ilbo which, like Donald Trump sometimes blurts out an inconvenient truth, recently made this comment about the exercises:

The underlying aim is to bring South Korea, Australia, Japan and the US closer together to thwart China’s military expansion in the Pacific.⁵²

When the United States looks at Korea, it sees China.

The 20th CBRNE Command (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives) is participating in Exercise Ulchi Freedom Guardian in South Korea, Aug. 17 – 28. (Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Antwaun J. Parrish, 5th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment)53

So it is clear that for the Unites States the Korean peninsula is hugely important. This is partly in its own right – its 75 million people put it on a par with Germany or France. However its main significance to the US is that it is a strategic asset in its confrontation with China, and to a lesser extent, Russia. If the peninsula could be detached from the Asian mainland, towed down to the South Pacific and parked near New Zealand, then the US would be far less interested. We would not have had the division of Korea, the war, or the militarisation of the peninsula and of Japan.⁵⁴

All this means that the US’s North Korea policy, and hence its South Korea policy, must be seen within the context of its struggle with China, and Russia. In 1945 when the US had the peninsula divided its main concern was the Soviet Union. At that time the US ‘owned’ China, through Chiang Kai-shek. This changed over time and now China is the major component in its East Asia strategy. However Russia should not be overlooked. The US is a global power, and Russia straddles Europe and Asia, and although it is the European face of Russia which concerns the US, it is its Asian side which is most vulnerable.

To recap, the US’s Korea strategy is a component of its global strategy, and China is the major focus of that, with Russia coming in behind. North Korea is important because of the role it has in that strategy; it is not really important in itself. So, if for instance, the US decided that good relations with North Korea would better serve its containment of China than the present hostility – by no means a foolish idea – then its Korea policy would change, whatever the screams in Seoul.

US North Korea policy

What, then, is the US’s North Korea policy? Most people, left or right, find that easy to answer. It sees North Korea’s nuclear programme threatening and its focus is the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. The reality is not quite so straightforward. For one thing US hostility long preceded North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. More important and telling is the fact that there has never been a serious, bipartisan, and sustained attempt to negotiate with Pyongyang on the issue. There was, indeed, the Agreed Framework of 1994 but that was sabotaged by the Republicans while out of the White House, and torn up by them, by George W Bush, when they did hold the presidency. Bush did go through the motions of negotiating for some years, but despite North Korean gestures such as blowing up the cooling tower of its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in 2008, these came to naught. Obama, under the rubric of ‘strategic patience’ has refused to negotiate. To some extent this history can be ascribed to infighting within the power elite, and between government agencies; for instance Treasury’s actions against Banca Delta Asia which scuttled the negotiations for some time. American governments are also reluctant to negotiate with adversaries because negotiation implies compromise, thus exposing themselves to charges of being soft and unpatriotic by opponents – Trump, Cruz, Rubio, et al. However, underlying this is a fundamental strategic dilemma.

Some argue that the US could easily negotiate a deal by offering a grand bargain where it guaranteed North Korea’s security with perhaps the concession of allowing Pyongyang to retain its present, probably inoperable and certainly tiny, nuclear deterrent. Sig Hecker’s ‘The Three No’s’ is an example of this – ‘no new weapons, no better weapons, no transfer of nuclear technology.’ ⁵⁵ With Libya in mind, let alone the abrogation of the Agreed Framework, it is difficult to see how the US could offer credible guarantees, even if it wanted to. But it is scarcely likely that it wants to. North Korea’s major threat to the US is not its nuclear weapons but its proposal for a peace treaty. If North Korea, by developing a nuclear deterrent, by building a formidable, but primarily defensive, military, by refusing to buckle down under sanctions and having the temerity to launch satellites – if North Korea by doing all this is able to force the US into accepting peaceful coexistence then its example might be followed by others. The one thing empires detest above all else is independence; that and its brother, rebellion. It was for this crime that the Roman Empire reserved crucifixion. ⁵⁶North Korea’s success would also have implications for China and Russia in their struggle with the US

Having said that, the US would probably negotiate if it were genuinely concerned that North Korea’s nuclear weapons presented a serious threat. It seems that despite the posturing, they do not. Firstly it is a deterrent, not an offensive weapon, so if North Korea is not attacked then it does not come into play. Barring accidents, the initiative lies with Washington. Secondly, there is no evidence that North Korea can actually deliver a nuclear weapon, certainly not to substantial US territory. This may change; miniaturization may proceed beyond photo opportunities, and an ICBM may someday be tested. Thirdly, the US, bolstered by its allies, has overwhelming military superiority. For the moment there is no pressing need to negotiate.

This brings us back to China policy. If the US did negotiate a peace treaty, or if it were able to invade and conquer North Korea and extend Seoul’s administration up towards the Yalu (under an American general of course) without provoking a Chinese intervention, what would this do to its China policy? If China did intervene then we would have a second Sino-American war, with all that might entail. But leaving aside that possibility and just considering the implications of a peaceful Korean peninsula we immediately see problems in justifying the US military presence, and missile defences. How would the US keep South Korea cooperating with the containment of China at great cost to itself without a North Korean threat? ⁵⁷

It seems that the present situation of managed tension serves US policy towards China (and towards Russia) very well. Going to war to remove North Korea’s nuclear weapons would be perilous, negotiating them away by accepting peaceful coexistence might be even more problematic for US global interests should other small countries follow North Korea’s example.

China and Russia – shared predicaments, common strategies

There are considerable differences between China and Russia but the most relevant in this context is the huge economic interpenetration of the Chinese and US economies. The US, and in particular Hillary Clinton appear to contemplate the economic consequences of war with Russia with so little concern that it seems never to be mentioned.⁵⁸ China is different. It is plausibly argued that for various geo-economic and geopolitical reasons China would suffer much more than the US in the event of war. Much of US trade would be impervious to Chinese action while Chinese trade, especially imports of oil, are vulnerable to US interdiction.⁵⁹ These are the strategic reasons behind China’s drive to develop rail and road links across Eurasia; the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to provide a more secure gateway for Middle East Oil, and rail links to the European market.⁶⁰ They also underlay America’s interest in the South China Sea.⁶¹

Whilst economic considerations may be a restraint, especially in respect of China, it would be foolish to lay too much hope on economic rationality. Norma Angell famously argued in The Great Illusion that the consequences of ripping up the economic interdependence that by then existed between states made war obsolete. That book was published in 1910, on the eve of the Great War’.⁶²

Despite their differences what China and Russia have in common is more relevant in this context. Both are competitors to the Unites States and so both are targets of US global strategy. In addition, both are resurgent states. Russia is recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Yeltsin years, and China from the 19^th century meltdown of the Qing dynasty. Other things being equal, this means that both are getting stronger relative to the US, but both are currently very much weaker, Russia of course more than China.⁶³But the shift in relative power means that the US has an incentive to go to war earlier rather than later, while for China and Russia the longer they can delay any such clash the better. This in itself does not mean that the US will attack either of them, although there is plenty of conjecture from all quarters on that. However, current weakness combined with the likelihood of greater security in the future, as the balance of military power moves against the US does present both China and Russia with a shared predicament.⁶⁴ How do they cope with an America in relative decline, but which is still very strong, has a history of aggressiveness and, the current presidential campaign suggests, may be more adventurist in the future.⁶⁵

This surely is no easy matter. It requires cool and calm judgement in balancing the need to be firm on core issues while giving the United States neither cause nor pretext to attack on more peripheral ones. But what is core and what is peripheral? And where does Korea fit in?

It is often said that the Korean peninsula is the most likely place for conflict between the United States and China (though the Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea are also candidates). For Russia it is more likely to be Eastern Europe or Syria, but a war in Korea would involve Russia to some degree. It is also the place where Russia is most vulnerable. Whilst the US keeps a pretty firm grip on South Korea (it does have wartime control of its military for example⁶⁶) China has little leverage over North Korea and Russia even less. So while the US can ratchet tension up and down as it requires, neither China nor Russia have much control over Korean events; an unenviable strategic position to be in.⁶⁷

However, whilst recognising the dilemma they face it can be argued that they have erred on the side of timidity, even perhaps appeasement, especially in relation to the UN Security Council. They were both complicit in voting for UNSC resolutions censuring North Korea for actions which were quite legal such as attempting to launch a satellite.⁶⁸ They have done this on other occasions; Libya comes to mind, but they seem to have learnt a lesson from that and have stood firmer on the issue of Syria. UNSC resolutions against North Korea stretch back to 1950, when unfortunately the Soviet Union absented itself and was not in a position to utilise its veto to defeat the US’s resolution to go to war in Korea, but the modern series of resolutions date from an attempted satellite launch in 2006.⁶⁹Once having accepted that a satellite launch by North Korea was sui generis and uniquely a violation of the UN Charter they have been on a slippery slope with no way back.

The word ‘appeasement’ is often used loosely in order to condemn compromises which are the natural consequence of negotiations between adversaries of some degree of equality. Country A makes a demand of country B. If country B complies will that be the end of the matter; indeed will A reciprocate with a gesture of good faith? If so, well and good. However, if country A’s demands are really stepping stones on the way to an objective – perhaps the enfeeblement or destruction of B – then giving way only whets its appetite.

The problem for China is that America’s North Korea policy is really aimed at it itself. As Kim Ji-suk puts it ’Even when the US points at North Korea, we should understand that it is really aiming at China’.⁷⁰ This means that concession does not solve the problem, but probably exacerbates it. The same, with obvious differences, applies to Russia.

It might be argued that China, and Russia, have followed a strategy in the UNSC of conciliation rather than confrontation. Given that the present composition of the Council automatically favours the United States they would have either been defeated or forced to use the veto which both, though China more than Russia, have been loath to do. Instead they have negotiated a softening of the resolutions and then not implemented them vigorously. ⁷¹ This has not been a wise strategy because it means they are constantly on the defensive. North Korea will remain intransigent, because it has no choice, and the US will continue its pressure. Putin’s response to the US-assisted coup in Ukraine and the US-assisted crisis in Syria offers lessons. Nimble footwork and countermeasures, a judicious amount of military intervention, both in quantity and duration, while at the same time restraining criticism of America with plenty of face-saving gestures.⁷² Even so it is reported that he is coming under pressure to take a firmer stand against the US.⁷³

China, supported by Russia, calls for the resurrection of the Six Party Talks as a solution to the problem. ⁷⁴ However, the Six Party Talks are probably dead, partly because as explained above the US has little interest in negotiating with North Korea but also because the Obama administration concluded that Bush had made a strategic mistake in agreeing to them in the first place. Allowing China, your main competitor, to chair and host the major security forum in East Asia while you, and your allies Japan and South Korea, sit on the second tier with North Korea and Russia was not a smart move. The US can go in either of two directions. One is to expand the number of countries in the talks to dilute China’s role.⁷⁵ The other direction is the bilateral one, which has been much discussed over the years.⁷⁶

China’s contortions, and those of Russia, have been painful to watch. They have condemned North Korea for its violations of the UNSC resolutions forbidding satellite launches and nuclear tests, but they are partly responsible for the resolutions in the first place. They are also partly responsible for the nuclear tests. The United States does provide security and a nuclear umbrella for South Korea. Because it is a master-client relationship it has been able to prevent the South developing nuclear weapons in the past, during Park Chung-Hee’s time, and will surely do so in the future despite Trump’s comments during the election campaign.⁷⁷ Neither China nor Russia provides real security assurances, or a nuclear umbrella, to North Korea, so they can scarcely be surprised if it attempts to look after itself. To be fair, the United States is far superior in military terms and they perhaps cannot be expected to match America’s muscular approach. This leaves China in particular in a vulnerable, defensive position where the initiative is in America’s hands. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has warned that “As the largest neighbour of the peninsula, China will not sit by and see a fundamental disruption to stability [there], and will not sit by and see unwarranted damages to China’s security interests.” ⁷⁸.

But what does this mean in practice? Is he saying that if the US does invade North Korea, China will intervene? If so, surely it would be wise for China to be more explicit. It should be recalled that in 1950, with no direct communication with the US, China conveyed a message through Indian Ambassador K. M. Panikkar that it would intervene if US forces invaded the North and moved towards the Yalu. Washington did not hear, did not listen, or just ignored that warning.⁷⁹ The first Sino-American War ensued. Will history repeat itself for a lack of a clear understanding of the consequences of invasion?

If, however, the U S decides that now is the time to give resurgent China a bloody nose, explicit warnings will be irrelevant. Starting the conflict in Korea would give the US signal advantages, not available elsewhere. It would automatically bring in the formidable South Korean military, with the world’s largest reservoir of military manpower. It would certainly utilise Japan, whose military budget is 25% higher that South Korea’s and whose air and seapower is reputedly superior to China’s.⁸⁰

Japan – leveraging the Korean situation for remilitarisation

Japan’s position in all this is relatively straightforward. The conservative Liberal Democratic Party has long sought to remilitarise, to shed itself of the constraints of Article 9 of the ‘Peace Constitution’ imposed by the US after its defeat in 1945, and so become a ‘normal’ nation again. This process has accelerated under Abe Shinzo.⁸¹ It has used the Korean situation, and the perceived ‘North Korean threat,’ buttressed by a good dose of Japanese colonial racism as a pretext for remilitarisation.⁸² This has been supported by the US, not in respect of North Korea, where it is scarcely needed except as a place for bases, but as a bulwark against China.⁸³ Japan’s recent eagerness to join in conflict on the Korean peninsula, however, has caused considerable anguish in Seoul.⁸⁴ Fighting fellow Koreans under an American general is bad enough, but for South Korea soldiers to fight alongside Japanese troops would be a public relations disaster.

South Korea – the pivot which did not turn

When Lee Myung-bak’s term of office came to an end in 2013 it seem reasonable to suppose that whoever succeeded him there would be a shift in North Korea policy. His policy had been such a disaster that it seemed that the new president would move in some ways to correct things. Lee had increased the danger of war, and his sanctions had damaged the South Korean economy while pushing the North’s into the hands of China. Even on his own terms nothing had been achieved.

Whilst Park was less likely than a progressive to want to improve the relationship with the North she has a distinct advantage in being able to do so, if she wishes. Just as Nixon, with his anti-Communist reputation could go to Beijing and play the ‘China card’ against the Soviet Union without being accused of being ‘soft on Commies’ so too could Park, as the daughter of the late anti-Communist dictator, Park Chung Hee, engage Pyongyang in ways that the more liberal Moon Jae-in (her opponent in the 2012 presidential election) could not.

Back in 2011, before the election President Park published an article in Foreign Affairs entitled ‘A new kind of Korea: building trust between Seoul and Pyongyang’ where she talked about ‘Trustpolitik.’⁸⁵ That, and the phrase ‘peaceful unification’ was often on her lips; a notable occasion being her speech in Dresden in 2014.⁸⁶ She described unification as a ‘bonanza’ and described her dream, stolen in fact from Kim Dae-jung, of a Eurasian land bridge through the Koreas and Russia through to Western Europe. ⁸⁷The words still live on. Yet her actions have always belied her words.

Obviously, if she had been serious about building trust she would have cancelled the May 24 Sanctions, have built economic and social links between South and North, and have at least attempted to curtail the joint military exercises⁸⁸. She did none of those things. On the contrary, she has now done what Lee couldn’t do, and closed down the Kaesong industrial Park, and the current exercises are larger than ever. It is commonly agreed that she has brought inter-Korean relations to a nadir. The Cheonan and Yeonpyeong incidents of 2010 were spurious but they did provide Lee with an alleged justification for his actions.⁸⁹ Nothing comparable has happened during Park’s term of office. The things that did happen, and were seized upon by her to escalate tension with the North, related primarily not to South Korea but to the United States. Long range missile development and nuclear tests were a response to US policy and had little to do with South Korea in itself. The exception was the satellite launch programme which was in fact part of North-South competition. ⁹⁰But even this was construed, incorrectly, as the development of an ICBM aimed at the United States.⁹¹ And an ICBM, by definition, was not relevant to inter-Korean combat.

Park Geun-hye aside South Korea remains what might be called a ‘pivot state’. All the other actors in this drama, from the US through to North Korea, have their lines written for them. The United States is an empire and will do what empires do. It has many options within that characterisation but the general thrust is fairly ineluctable. Mao Zedong once said that we shouldn’t expect imperialism to put down its butcher’s knife and become a Buddha. Conceivably it could, but it won’t. North Korea is a vulnerable target state and will do what it can to defend itself, wisely or unwisely. It has few options and cannot avoid the role it has to play.

South Korea is different. Born as a client state of the US from the ruins of the Japanese empire it now has considerable economic and social strength. It has options. It can make choices. It can, at its most brutal, choose between putting Korea first or serving the US. Roh Moo-hyun, in a rather sad exchange with Kim Jong Il at their 2007 summit described how he was attempting to make gradual moves towards autonomy from the US. ⁹² He did not succeed but the challenge is still on the agenda.

Park Geun-hye’s administration has not been a happy or successful one. South Korea is beset with economic problems, due in part to encroaching Chinese competition. ⁹³ It is reported that ‘Most Koreans Feel Economy Is in Crisis’.⁹⁴ There is a general lack of manufacturing competitiveness against Japan and China.⁹⁵ Key South Korean industries such as shipbuilding⁹⁶, shipping⁹⁷, automobiles⁹⁸, and overseas construction⁹⁹ are faltering, with some top companies going into receivership. Dreams of Seoul becoming an East Asian financial hub are fading.¹⁰⁰ Samsung’s woes with its ‘exploding’ Galaxy Note 7 smartphone have captured headlines around the world but an editorial in the Chosun Ilbo suggested that the problems lie deep and are symptomatic of much of the South Korean economy – 3^rd generation chaebols which cannot cope with competition from China, and a political class so entangled with them that it cannot seek solutions.

South Korea has social problems common to many countries – corruption, ageing society, lack of meaningful employment, nepotism, and limited social mobility.¹⁰¹ However the problems are felt to be so pressing and intractable that young people have coined a term for their country: ‘Hell Joseon’ (variously ‘Hell Chosun’ and ‘Hell Korea’).¹⁰²

All countries tend to utilise foreign threat – real , imagined, or exaggerated- to divert attention from domestic problems but for South Korea this has been so inbuilt by historical circumstance that it is more part of the political fabric than is the case in most other places. Conservative politicians, and Park Geun-hye, is no exception are prone to use the ‘North Wind’ – the perceived threat from North Korea – both for electoral advantage and for diversion.

Under Park Geun-hye South Korea’s foreign relations have followed a distinct pattern, reminiscent of the Cold War and a definite regression since the days of Roh Moo-hyun’s attempt to position the country as a ‘balancer’.¹⁰³ The relationship with North Korea is the worst it has been in decades. That with Japan is bedevilled by the ghost of Japanese colonialism, exemplified by the ‘comfort women’ issue, territorial disputes and lingering mutual antipathy. Park Geun-hye, under American pressure, has given into Japan over the comfort women issue.¹⁰⁴ That, though galling, is mainly symbolic. More important she has antagonised China, and Russia, over the proposed deployment of THAAD missiles in South Korea. This is not a temporary irritant because THAAD is just a stage in the incorporation of South Korea into the US missile defense architecture, so the problem will not fade away, but rather grow.¹⁰⁵ This in itself is important, but it is also a symbol of a deeper and continuing dilemma. The United States sees South Korea as a pawn in its struggle against China, and Russia. Pawns, as we know, sometimes survive but are often sacrificed.

The one country with whom relations have blossomed during her tenure in office is the United States, and therein lies the root of Park’s failure. She has shown herself willing to sacrifice the interests of Korea to those of the United States, with THAAD being the most prominent recent example.

Early revelations, with presumably more to come, on the role played by Choi Sun-sil (also transliterated Choi Soon-sil), Park Geun-hye’s ‘Shaman confidante’ in influencing policy towards North Korea are shedding new light on this strange, rather dysfunctional administration.¹⁰⁶ Choi Sun-sil inherited her relationship with the Park family, father and daughter, from her father Choi Tae-min, who was labelled in State Department cable, Korea’s Rasputin.¹⁰⁷

President Park Geun-hye, center, who served as first lady for her father President Park Chung-hee, left, after her mother was assassinated, speaks to Choi Tae-min, her mentor and the father of Choi Soon-sil, at a hospital owned by Guguk (save-the-nation) missionary group, set up by the senior Choi, in 1976. / Korea Times file

In particular it is alleged that Choi Sun-sil was instrumental in the closure of the Kaesong Industrial Park, and propagated the myth of North Korea’s imminent collapse.¹⁰⁸ Obama’s policy of ‘Strategic Patience’ is widely supposed to have been based on the collapse myth – no negotiations with North Korea were necessary because collapse was just around the corner.¹⁰⁹ We are left with the intriguing possibility that recent US policy towards North Korea has been based on Shamanistic prediction, unconsciously echoing the Reagans’ predilection for astrology.¹¹⁰

North Korea – limited options of a target state

Most writers put North Korea first; here it is last because there is less to say. There are few options to discuss.

Militarily speaking, as we have seen, North Korea is vulnerable and far inferior to its adversaries who outspend it from a hundred to a thousand times. It has survived sanctions so far – some 70 years and counting – but that is to a large degree due to uncertain and undependable Chinese policy.

There are many things about North Korea policy that are difficult to fathom. It is unclear, for instance, why Kim Jong Un has not worked harder at relations with China and Russia. There may be good, but unknown reasons, why he did not attend the anniversary celebrations in Moscow and Beijing in 2015, leaving the stage to Park Geun-hye.¹¹¹Why, with his overseas education did he not do anything to reform North Korea’s notoriously dysfunctional foreign communications/propaganda apparatus? Having lived in Switzerland he must have been aware of how superbly the Americans do these sorts of things. Lack of resources is clearly an issue and frankly however sophisticated and adroit the communications became it would not make much difference to the way that North Korea is portrayed in the mainstream Western media.¹¹² The Russians run a pretty sophisticated show but that has not stopped the demonization of Putin and the vilification of Russia. But it would help on the margins. Then there are the ridiculously excessive prison sentences imposed on foreigners, most of whom are seemingly mentally unstable or pawns, for petty crimes.¹¹³ There is a long list.

Nevertheless these are relatively minor matters compared with the overriding reality of the problems that North Korea faces, circumstances forged by geography and history, and forged primarily, but not exclusively, by US policy. If South Korea can be seen as a pivot state with some freedom of action to develop autonomy, North Korea can be thought of as a responsive state whose main challenge is how to cope with the United States. It cannot deflect or ignore American hostility, but it must respond to it.

North Korea is constantly portrayed as a threat to the United States.¹¹⁴ In military terms it could conceivably be considered as a threat to South Korea on its own (but not in alliance with the US), although the South is very much stronger. However given the huge disparity in power between the US, buttressed by its allies, its bases, and with its geographic invulnerability the assertion of a North Korea threat is nonsense. It is a belief produced by unrelenting propaganda and indoctrination which even a cursory examination of reality should dispel. It is part of a pattern in which the US is depicted as threatened by countries which are far weaker and have absolutely no ability to project power to attack it – Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iran come immediately to mind.

North Korea cannot threaten the US, but the US certainly does threaten North Korea and has waged war against it since the late 1940s.

First of all North Korea is constantly under military threat – the frequent joint military exercises with South Korea, increasingly involving Japan,¹¹⁵ are just one example – and is subject to continual economic, propaganda, and psychological warfare.¹¹⁶ Sometimes this is relatively straightforward with physical and financial sanctions. Occasionally it is very petty as illustrated by a couple of stories from Japan, one of a South Korean who was arrested for sending sweets, garments, dishes, spoons and forks to North Korea and another of the Chinese woman arrested for selling knitwear.¹¹⁷ Sometimes the warfare is more invidious. Recently there were media stories from Australia of goods for the sports clothing company Rip Curl being made in Pyongyang by ‘slave labour’.¹¹⁸ Unnerved by the hype, Rip Curl apologised and cancelled the contract. Perhaps the unfortunate textile workers in Pyongyang lost their jobs – which were probably highly prized – just like those of their compatriots in Kaesong.

‘Slave labour’ is also a term used in respect of North Koreans working abroad and whilst the propaganda has been around for some time, 2016 has seen a concerted push by the US. The intention is to dissuade countries from permitting the employment of North Korea citizens by a mix of bilateral pressure and action through the United Nations.¹¹⁹ It is unclear how much remittances from overseas workers contribute to the North Korean economy. The South Korean Ministry of Unification estimates $200-300 million a year.¹²⁰Others suggest $500million.¹²¹ The Chosun Ilbo goes up to $1billion and an article in Foreign Affairs came up with a high of $2.3 billion. ¹²² In the other direction Yonhap, perhaps drawing on US estimates quotes ”low $100s of millions” a year.¹²³ Remittances from overseas workers (and migrants) are an important part of the global economy. In 2015 it was estimated that China would receive $66billion in remittances, continuing a trend stretching back centuries.¹²⁴ Remittances to lower and middle income countries in 2016 were projected to reach $422billion.¹²⁵ The Philippines has some 10million overseas workers ‘often employed in low-paying service jobs and under harsh working conditions. Stories of maltreatment and abuse are …common’.¹²⁶ In fact the global migrant worker industry is often revealed as scandalous, with stories about Qatar being just a recent example.¹²⁷ Ironically in this context, South Korea has a particularly bad reputation in respect of migrant (i.e. non-Korean) workers, both at home and abroad.¹²⁸

There is no credible evidence that North Korean workers overseas in general fare any worse than others. Plenty of lurid stories from the propaganda mills of course but nothing substantial. It was reported in August 2016 that the State Department had issued a report to Congress on the subject and it might perhaps have been expected that it would contain some solid evidence. However the South Korean state news agency Yonhap admitted that ‘Details of the latest report were not immediately available’.¹²⁹ That was August; the report had not appeared on the State Department website by the end of October, suggesting that something was amiss. Many of the stories about North Korean overseas workers revolve around allegations that they are left with little disposable income after deductions by North Korean government agencies. ¹³⁰ There is no rigorous evidence on the level of deductions but it appears that they escape the fate of so many migrant workers who fall into a debt trap in which they find it very difficult to repay their debt to the recruitment agency. One estimate has 21 million people worldwide trapped in this ‘modern-day slavery’. ¹³¹ Are North Koreans to be counted amongst them? Andrei Lankov, the Seoul-based Russian academic who is certainly no friend of the North Korean government, is scathing:

But are these people actually “modern day slaves?” Well, they certainly do not see themselves as such, and not because they have been brainwashed by North Korean propaganda, but rather because they are doing what they and their compatriots overwhelmingly see as a prestigious and exceptionally [well] paid job. Indeed, the selection process is highly competitive, and nearly all those who make it have to make use of family connections and/or bribes to get selected.¹³²

Most discussion about North Korea are infused with hypocrisy – for a country which has conducted over a 1000 nuclear tests, many atmospheric with damage to both humans and the environment, to express such indignation over a country that has conducted just five underground tests requires considerable chutzpah. The subject of overseas labour is no exception, providing fruitful ground for displays of insincerity and historical amnesia. The United States was founded to some extent on slave labour and, more relevant, the economic development of South Korea was due in large part to the export of labour. Park Chung-hee sent over 300,000 troops to Vietnam between 1964 and 1973, which provided a great stimulus to the economy, and foreign exchange¹³³. Then the ‘Middle East Boom’ of the 1970s provided a further opportunity. Between 1975 and 1985 nearly one million labourers were sent to the Middle East to work mainly in construction, often for Korean chaebol, providing profit and foreign exchange. In the peak year of 1982 Middle East construction constituted 6.6 percent of South Korea’s GDP.¹³⁴ By comparison North Korea’s overseas labour is small beer, but it does provide a useful source of foreign exchange, where such opportunities are much constrained by sanctions, as well as income for the workers and their families.

The ostensible rationale given for trying to stop North Koreans working overseas, and for sanctions on exports – from coal to fish – is that the foreign revenue is used for nuclear weapons. We are told that North Korea ‘ is likely to expand the export of fish to continue pursuing development of nuclear weapons.¹³⁵ So, the argument goes, if foreign exchange is cut off then spending on weapons will go down. This is both untrue and masks the strategy behind sanctions. Since money is fungible and the North Korean government, like others, spends its revenue on a wide variety of activities from defense through to importing grain for domestic consumption, building hospitals and schools, agricultural and industrial development and so on, then constraining revenue streams does not necessarily impact on expenditure of a certain type.¹³⁶ In fact any government faced with an existential threat will prioritise national defence so if sanctions impose constraints they are more likely to impact on general, civilian expenditure. Moreover, as noted below, since a nuclear deterrent is cheaper than a conventional one, the nuclear weapons programme is unlikely to suffer from sanctions, and may even get a boost.

If sanctions cannot stop North Korea’s development of a nuclear deterrent, what is their purpose and strategy? Here we might go back to the classic studies of US sanctions conducted by Gary Hufbauer and colleagues who describe the objective of sanctions against North Korea, stretching back to 1950 as ‘1) impair military potential 2) destabilize communist government’.¹³⁷’Destabilisation’ covers a range of objectives from creating a dysfunctional ’failed state’, with impaired military potential to the replacement of a hostile or independent regime with something more compliant. Sanctions are one way of achieving such objectives – propaganda campaigns and funding opposition movements – being alternative or complementary mechanisms. By creating economic distress which is blamed on the government, rather than the sanctioner, they seek to create an environment in which the victims try to escape (as refugees or, or in South Korean parlance, ‘defectors’) or rebel in some way against the government. No doubt there are those in Washington, and Seoul, who hope that sanctions will produce food riots in Pyongyang which would provide a justification for a ‘humanitarian intervention’. However, sanctions tend not to be very effective in achieving these objectives. Famine in the 1990s did not lead to massive protest against the government and realistic observers see no likelihood of that happening today even if increased sanctions were to result in similar food shortages.¹³⁸ Hufbauer tends to be sceptical about them and as we have seen in the recent case of sanctions against Russia they may have the opposite effect, of actually increasing the popularity of the government.¹³⁹ Nevertheless they can cause immense suffering and damage. One North Korean source estimates the damage done by ‘economic sanctions and blockade, the products of the US hostile policy toward the DPRK….for six decades up to 2005 to 13,729,964 million US dollars’.¹⁴⁰

North Korea has sought to counter American hostility by a dual strategy. It has basically been open to genuine negotiations with the US. ‘Genuine’ primarily revolving around negotiations without preconditions that would deliver to the US its objectives without concessions on its part.¹⁴¹ The conventional wisdom is that the US honestly has tried over the years to negotiate with North Korea but has not got anywhere because Pyongyang is untrustworthy and ‘cheats’.¹⁴² The logic of the situation suggests that the reverse is more likely. North Korea is a small, tightly controlled state for whom these negotiations are of huge, existential importance. It has a strong incentive to honour an agreement. The US is very different. It is the global hegemon with many choices to make and is run by a large fractious elite within which foreign policy is contested between cliques, institutions, personalities and of course succeeding administrations. The US finds it very difficult to honour its commitments.¹⁴³ For North Korea Hillary Clinton’s destruction of the Gadhafi government in Libya in contravention of Condoleezza Rice’s assurances must be the outstanding example.¹⁴⁴

The other side of this dual strategy is the development of defensive and deterrent capability, culminating in Kim Jong Un’s Byungjinpolicy. This strategy of a simultaneous development of a nuclear deterrent with economic development is sensible and perhaps inevitable although it has often been pilloried as evidence of economic mismanagement and irrationality.¹⁴⁵ It is really merely a special variant of the guns and butter dilemma that all governments face and can be analysed dispassionately.¹⁴⁶

There is clearly no easy way for North Korea to counter what it rightly calls the ‘hostility policy’ of the US except with nuclear weapons. For all their direct and indirect costs, they do make sense. They are cheaper than conventional arms.¹⁴⁷ Although the long-term development costs, which crucially must include delivery systems, are considerable, some costs are surprisingly modest. For instance the South Korean National Intelligence Service (NIS) estimated that the fifth nuclear test on 9 September 2016 ‘Only Cost $5 Million’.¹⁴⁸ Moreover, even if it suddenly acquired huge wealth North Korea could never match the conventional military power of the US and its allies. It may be the best option for North Korea in the circumstances, but it does have its drawbacks. ‘Best option’ of course does not mean that something is desirable, merely that of all of the possible options it is the best choice. This obvious point is often avoided or obscured by people who do not recognise the predicament that North Korea is in; a predicament produced by geographical location, by history and by US global strategy. It was the US that divided the Korean peninsula; it is the US that is hostile to North Korea. This is not a situation that North Korea can avoid, but only seek to cope with.

Being cheaper than conventional weapons means that more resources can be devoted to the economy. There are indications that this is happening.¹⁴⁹ The March 2016 budget showed a small decrease in the proportion devoted to national defense.¹⁵⁰

As a corollary, it should be remembered that one function of the military threat, as exemplified by the invasion exercises, is to force North Korea to divert resources from the productive economy into defence. ‘Going nuclear’ offers a way of avoiding that trap.

The most authoritative assessment of the Byungjin policy comes from the Russian Koreanologist Georgy Toloraya. Writing in 38 North,the Washington website set up by former US official Joel Wit, he noted that he saw evidence in his recent trips to North Korea substantial (though constrained) economic growth and pronounced the Byungjin policy a success:

Despite all the mockery, North Korea’s Byungjin policy seems to have proven more effective than foreign critics expected. This is evidenced by empirical data I have collected during recent visits to North Korea…

What are the sources of this [economic] growth? One explanation might be that less is now spent on the conventional military sector, while nuclear development at this stage is cheaper—it may only cost 2 to 3 percent of GNP, according to some estimates.¹⁵¹

There are however three major disadvantages of the nuclear weapons option.

Firstly the early stage of nuclear weapons requires physical testing. The US no longer needs that, because it already has under its belt those 1000 physical tests in the past that brought it to this position. Unlike, for instance, acquiring an F-35 fighter or an Aegis destroyer nuclear tests are obvious and newsworthy and attract much opprobrium, hypocritical though most of that is. One of the great successes of American propaganda has been to attach to non-proliferation the assumption of peace and disarmament. In fact it has nothing to do with that, it is merely preserving the monopoly of nuclear weapons states. The authoritative US political scientist Kenneth Waltz argued that proliferation is peace-enhancing because it provides protection to small states that that they would not otherwise have.¹⁵²

Secondly, nuclear weapons for North Korea can only be used as a deterrent. However unlike the prospect of mutually assured destruction (MAD) of the US-Soviet Cold War, North Korea’s deterrent is rather like the ‘Sampson Option’ described by Seymour Hersh in respect of Israel.¹⁵³ It is similar to a suicide bomber who kills himself, and in the process some, but not all, of the enemy.

In any case deterrence is a matter of convincing the other side that attacking you would result in intolerable damage to them, and that it is not worth the risk. So it is a matter of perception rather than reality. You may be bluffing – and bluff is an inherent aspect of deterrence – and your defences may in reality be weak, but that is irrelevant.

North Korea is often mocked for making extravagant claims about its military capabilities and accused of being crazy for threatening to attack the US. That is a misunderstanding of what it is all about. North Korean threats are always essentially conditional. For instance the warning by the Korean People’s Army (KPA) Supreme Command regarding stories that the US was preparing to launch a ‘decapitation’ attack:

…all the powerful strategic and tactical strike means of our revolutionary armed forces will go into pre-emptive and just operation to beat back the enemy forces to the last man if there is a slight sign of their special operation forces and equipment moving to carry out the so-called “beheading operation” and “high-density strike.”[Emphasis added] ¹⁵⁴

The media often, especially in headings, leaves out the crucial little word ‘if’ thereby creating the false impression that North Korea is being threatening and bellicose, when in reality it is the other way round. The military exercises, the practising of decapitation and amphibious landings, and of the invasion of North Korea are surely threatening and belligerent – one can well imagine the uproar in the West if it were Chinese and North Korean forces practising to invade the South. North Korean statements therefore are not a matter of threat, but of deterrence.

However, the third problem for North Korea is that its deterrent in respect of the US is a nuclear one. If the US were not involved and it were merely a matter of deterring the South then North Korea’s artillery, which it claims can turn Seoul into a sea of flames, would be sufficient. ¹⁵⁵ But it is the US that must be deterred and the only feasible way to do that is to convince American leaders that there is a real chance that America itself might be damaged in a counterattack and that means nuclear weapons. In this context bluff is quite reasonable since it is a matter of instilling doubt in the minds of the other side. North Korea almost certainly can’t deliver a nuclear warhead on the US at the moment but it just might.¹⁵⁶

The phrase used above -not worth the risk- is relevant here. From the point of view of the US it is a matter of risk-benefit analysis. The amount of risk must be related to the amount of benefit. We might image some megalomaniac strategist sitting in Washington and calculating that it might be worthwhile losing the West Coast if it meant destroying China. With China out of the way the US would have no challengers for generations. The world would be at its feet. It would be a big prize.¹⁵⁷ North Korea is quite a different matter. It is a very small prize and as discussed above removing it through war, or indeed peace, would cause problems for the containment of China.

Moreover a nuclear deterrent is a blunt instrument. For a small country like North Korea, faced by vastly more powerful adversaries, a retaliatory attack has to be all out, no holds barred. No calibrated response, no escalation such as a powerful country might apply to a weak one – Vietnam comes to mind. But, as noted above, this is the Samson option, one that could result in the devastation of North Korea.

This brings us to the word ‘pre-emptive.’ This was misconstrued by George W. Bush to mean unprovoked. A simple dictionary definition is an action to prevent attack by disabling the enemy. Since Iraq was in no position to attack the US, the invasion was clearly not pre-emptive. Pre-emption is normally associated with the action of a weaker person or country faced with what is perceived as an imminent attack by a stronger adversary. This is probably what would happen in a conflict between the US and China, apart from the scenario of China intervening, as in 1950, in response to a US invasion of North Korea.¹⁵⁸ The US would force China into a situation, say in the South China Sea or Taiwan Straits, in which it felt it was compelled to make a pre-emptive strike.¹⁵⁹ Being by far the stronger combatant the US would absorb this strike, and then having gained the moral high ground would launch the attack, now a counter-attack, that it had planned; a variant on Pearl Harbour.¹⁶⁰

Leaving aside the moral deception involved in shifting blame there is the danger that the weaker party might misinterpret the actions of the stronger and launch a pre-emptive strike unnecessarily. This is particularly plausible in the case of North Korea which has very limited surveillance and intelligence capabilities compared with the US (North Korea’s satellite programme is an attempt to remedy this deficiency).¹⁶¹ The US makes a feint which North Korea interprets as presaging, say, a decapitation strike and launches a pre-emptive all-out attack. The war, so long desired in certain quarters, comes about.

It might well be argued that for North Korea nuclear deterrence is unwise and might in fact incite the US to attack now, before it is too late. If tomorrow the enemy will be invulnerable, better to attack today. This is the inevitable predicament in developing a deterrent. Certainly to do so is to enter a dangerous period, as Stratfor explains:

As Pyongyang approaches a viable nuclear weapon and delivery system, the pressure is rising for the United States and other countries to pre-empt it. Consequently, the final moments of North Korea’s transition from a working program to a demonstrated system are the most dangerous, providing a last chance to stop the country from becoming a nuclear weapons state. For North Korea, then, these final steps must happen quickly.¹⁶²

This is probably the explanation for the frenetic pace of North Korea nuclear and missile tests in 2016. ¹⁶³ The US is unlikely to attack during a presidential election year, but 2017 is different. It is probable that the bellicose Hillary Clinton will be in her first year of office, and Park Geun-hye in her final full year.¹⁶⁴ It might be that Clinton will be less of a hawk than most observers expect or too occupied with Russia to embark on a potential war with China.¹⁶⁵ It might be that Park Geun-hye will be impeached or her political power fatally wounded by the Choi Sun-sil affair.¹⁶⁶ However at this stage it would be prudent to assume that 2017 will be a particularly dangerous year for North Korea. Indeed, Josh Rogin, writing in the Washington Post on the eve of the 2016 election in an article entitled ‘The coming clash with China over North Korea’ concluded that:

…the North Korea issue could mean that the first foreign crisis of a potential Clinton presidency will come not in the Middle East or with Russia, but in northeast Asia.¹⁶⁷

The report that the US command in Korea (United States Forces Kores, USFK) has begun to practice the evacuation of US civilians is surely a better indicator than any article of speech that the US military is anticipating that conflict is likely under the incoming administration.¹⁶⁸

North Korea could say ‘if you invade we will unleash a people’s war – remember the 1950s, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.’ The problem with that is what might be called the ‘Stalingrad factor’. Stalingrad, it has been said, was easier to defend against the Germans when it had been reduced to rubble. But who wants their cities reduced to rubble?

North Korea’s nuclear deterrent also have the potential to force the US into some sort of peace agreement in a way that a conventional defence, which by its nature would pose little danger to the US, ever could. Whether that might come to pass is another matter but since peace with America must remain North Korea’s major foreign policy goal, it will always be on the agenda even if denied. ¹⁶⁹

Conclusion

The American empire is a curious one, rather different to the ones with which most of us are familiar – the Roman, the British, or the French. It is an empire which does not proclaim itself; indeed it denies its existence, to the condescending amusement of admirers such as Niall Ferguson. ¹⁷⁰It often names its weapon systems after vanquished peoples – Apache and Iroquois –perhaps in a somewhat cannibalistic attempt to acquire their fruitless valour and to deny their subjugation. Denial goes a long way back; what other group of slave owners would have written in their declaration of independence that ‘all men are created equal’? The United States does not erect statues of its presidents in its foreign possessions. Its imperial forces in Europe are described as those of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and those in South Korea, in the ‘Republic of Korea’ are called the United Nations Command. There is little doubt where the power really lies; an American general is in command of both. Indeed, General Curtis M. Scaparrotti the commander of the US forces in South Korea, and hence of the United Nations Command, and the ROK army, was transferred to Brussels in March 2016 to become NATO commander, in a career move which would have been familiar in the Roman Empire.¹⁷¹ Despite its relative invisibility the American empire is the greatest in history and the salient reality of contemporary geopolitics. Any analysis of a geopolitical situation must start with the US, though not end there.

The US is by no means omniscient or strategically coherent, and it is certainly not omnipotent; the relationship with ‘allies’ and adversaries is under constant negotiation. This means the relationships have to be carefully scrutinised, avoiding simplistic narratives. Nevertheless it is the dominant factor in most circumstances and in general, and in the long term (though not necessarily in the short term) it is the initiator to which other countries respond. The US divided Korea in 1945 as part of its strategy of containing the Soviet Union and protecting its war booty of Japan. The focus has now shifted to China but the basic thrust is the same. The US has a necessary and crucial interest in Korea because of its strategic location and this situation informs its Korea policy. North Korea is far too small to threaten the US, but the US does threaten North Korea and has conducted economic and diplomatic war against it since the late 1940s. The Korean War itself had its own specific causes and effects but it was one episode in a longer historical struggle. This hostility has moulded North Korean politics into a particular defensive and distorted configuration, and has produced, amongst other things, the putative nuclear deterrent. North Korea has long proposed a peaceful coexistence in the form of a peace treaty to the US, and the US has refused out of concerns about the impact on its global strategy of preserving nuclear superiority (‘non-proliferation’) and its containment of China, and Russia.¹⁷²North Korea’s commitment to a peace treaty is likely to endure because it is the gateway to survival and prosperity. American policy on that may conceivably change as it attempts to cope with shifts in the international landscape. In order to understand what is going on, and attempt to anticipate future developments, it is essential to start with the US and move out from there.

This is a revised and updated version of a paper prepared for webinar Crisis in Korea – Causes/aftermaths of 2016 H-bomb test and Satellite Launch, 19 March (US/Canada) 20 March (Korea/New Zealand) 2016 organised by the Korea Policy Institute, Los Angeles.

Notes

¹ Editorial, “THAAD deployment on the Korean Peninsula opens Pandora’s box,” Hankyoreh, 9 July 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/751627.html

² “US and South Korea agree THAAD missile defence deployment,” BBC, 8 July 2016.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36742751

³ “South Korea and US agree to deploy THAAD missile defence system,” Guardian, 8 July 2016.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/south-korea-and-us-agree-to-deploy-thaad-missile-defence-system

⁴ Missy Ryan, “Pentagon to deploy anti-missile system in South Korea,” Washington Post, 7 July 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/07/pentagon-to-deploy-anti-missile-system-in-south-korea/

⁵ Sang-Hun Choe, “South Korea and U.S. Agree to Deploy Missile Defense System,” New York Times, 8 July 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/world/asia/south-korea-and-us-agree-to-deploy-missile-defense-system.html

⁶ Jack Kim, “South Korea, U.S. Agree to Deploy THAAD Missile Defense to Counter North Korea Threat,” Reuters, 7 July 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/07/07/world/asia/07reuters-southkorea-usa-thaad.html

⁷ Shinhye Kang, “China Blasts U.S., South Korea Missile Defense Deployment,” Bloomberg, 8 July 2016.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-08/china-blasts-u-s-south-korea-missile-defense-deployment

⁸ David R. Sands, “Russia, China react angrily as U.S. to put anti-missile THAAD system in South Korea,” Washington Times, 8 July 2016.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/8/russia-china-angered-us-anti-missile-system-skorea/

⁹ “S.Korea, U.S. Agree THAAD Deployment,” Chosun Ilbo, 11 July 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/07/11/2016071100969.html

¹⁰ Jane Perlez, “For China, a Missile Defense System in South Korea Spells a Failed Courtship,” New York Times, 8 July 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/world/asia/south-korea-us-thaad-china.html?hpw&rref=world&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

¹¹ Michael Elleman and Michael J. Zagurek Jr., “THAAD: What It Can and Can’t Do,” 38 North, 10 March 2016.http://38north.org/2016/03/thaad031016/

¹² Garth McLennan, “Needle in a Haystack: How North Korea Could Fight a Nuclear War,” 38 North, 13 June 2016.http://38north.org/2016/06/gmclennan061316/

¹³ Yong-in Yi, “Critic of THAAD wins prestigious award for scientific contribution,” Hankyoreh, 24 Februrary 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/731885.html

¹⁴ Yong-in Yi “Expert rebuts Defense Ministry’s claims about THAAD missile interception ” Hankyoreh, 17 February 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/730794.htm; Yi Yong-in, “Expert says S. Korean government has overstated THAAD’s efficacy,” Hankyoreh, 17 February 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/730792.html

¹⁵ Seung-woo Kang, “Defense chief’s SLBM claims doubted,” Korea Times, 11 July 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/07/116_209142.htm; Whan-woo Yi, “THAAD can destroy SLBMs: defense chief,” Korea Times, 10 July 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/07/120_209038.html

¹⁶ Hyun Park and Byong-su Park, “THAAD missile defense system could be used to defend against Chinese attack on US,” Hankyoreh, 2 June 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/693913.html

¹⁷ “Can THAAD Batteries Protect Seoul?,” Chosun Ilbo, 11 July 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/07/11/2016071101311.html

¹⁸ Theodore Postol, “How the US Nuclear Weapons Modernization Program Is Increasing the Chances of Accidental Nuclear War with Russia,” Harvard College Peace Action, 25 February 2016.http://www.lasg.org/Modernization/Postol_Harvard_Peace_Action_longer_25Feb2016.pdf

¹⁹ Hyun Park, “AN/TPY-2 radar could track any Chinese ICBMs as they pass over the Korean peninsula,” Hankyoreh, 2 June 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/693916.html

²⁰ Yong-in Yi, “Expert says THAAD needlessly raises tension, hurts security,” Hankyoreh, 11 July 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/751801.html

²¹ Byong-su Park and Oi-hyun Kim, “South Korea and US officially announce deployment of THAAD missile defense system,” Hankyoreh, 9 July 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/751625.html

²² Editorial, “China can counter THAAD deployment,” Global Times, 9 July 2016.http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/993131.shtml

²³ Yoo-chul Kim, “Businesses fear backlash from China,” Korea Times, 11 July 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2016/07/133_209129.html

²⁴ Oi-hyun Kim, “After THAAD deployment decision, a backlash from China,” Hankyoreh, 11 July 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/751799.html[24] 

²⁵ ibid; “Poll: fears of war in Korea have increased since Park gov’t took office,” Hankyoreh, 24 June 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/749560.html

²⁶ Yong-in Yi, “How a beefed-up military actually raises security risks,” Hankyoreh, 26 August 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/758563.html

²⁷ Sung-jin Choi, “Tourism industry will feel pain of Chinese visitor cut,” Korea Times, 26 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/10/123_216838.html

²⁸ Patrick L. Smith, “Disarray in NATO Completes Obama’s Foreign Policy Legacy,” Fiscal Times, 11 July 2016.http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/07/11/Disarray-NATO-Completes-Obama-s-Foreign-Policy-Legacy

²⁹ Motoko Rich, “Japan Election, a Landslide for Abe, Could Allow a Bolder Military,” New York Times, 11 July 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/world/asia/japan-election-shinzo-abe.html

³⁰ A recent Cuban estimate is $126billion; Nelson Acosta, “Cuba launches new international campaign against U.S. embargo,” Reuters, 10 September 2016.http://in.reuters.com/article/cuba-usa-embargo-idINKCN11G04R

³¹ Commander’s Guide to Money as a Weapons System, (Fort Leavenworth, KS US Army [Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), US Army Combined Arms Center], 2009).

³² Victoria Nuland, “Address by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland,” US-Ukraine Foundation, 13 December 2013.http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm. Keith Wagstaff, “The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan: The United States?,” TheWeek, 29 April 2013.http://theweek.com/article/index/243401/the-biggest-source-of-corruption-in-afghanistan-the-united-states

³³ Nick Turse, “Black sites in the empire of bases ” Asia Times online, 11 February 2010.

³⁴ “Military Balance 2016,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, February 2015.https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/military%20balance/issues/the-military-balance-2016-d6c9

³⁵ Kyu-won Kim, “Defense intelligence director says N. Korea would win in a one-on-one war,” Hankyoreh, 6 November 2013.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/610084.html

³⁶ Vitaly Churkin (Interviewee) and Sophie Shevardnadze: (Interviewer), “Russia’s UN envoy: Without veto power, UNSC would become America’s mouthpiece,” RT, 16 September 2016.https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/359512-un-veto-power-balance/

³⁷ Tim Beal, “Satellites, Missiles and the Geopolitics of East Asia,” in North Korea: Political, Economic and Social Issues, ed. Marvin Harrison (New York: Nova Publishers, 2016).

³⁸ “Charter of the United Nations,” United Nations, http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html; Derek Croxton, “The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty,” The International History Review 21, no. 3 (1999).

³⁹ Benjamin Lee, “THAAD and the Sino-South Korean Strategic Dilemma,” Diplomat, 7 October 2016.http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/thaad-and-the-sino-south-korean-strategic-dilemma/

⁴⁰ Jin-hwan Seok, “Biden seeks Seoul’s support on US ‘rebalancing to Asia’ policy,” Hankyoreh, 7 December 2013.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/614389.html

⁴¹ Perry Anderson, “Sino-Americana,” London Review of Books 34, no. 3 (2012).

⁴² Donald P. Gregg, “Changing U.S. Views of North Korea,” East Asia Foundation, 12 January 2016.http://www.keaf.org/book/EAF_Policy_Debate_Changing_US_Views_of_North_Korea

⁴³ J E Hoare, “Potboiler Press: British Media and North Korea,” 38 North, 5 October 2016.http://38north.org/2016/10/jhoare100516/

⁴⁴ Robert Carlin and John W. Lewis, “Negotiating with North Korea: 1992–2007,” Center for International Security and Cooperation, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, January 2008.http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22128/Negotiating_with_North_Korea_1992-2007.pdf

⁴⁵ World War, disagreed with Palmerston: Condoleezza Rice, “Rethinking the National Interest: American Realism for a New World,” Foreign Affairs (2008).

⁴⁶ Kimie Hara, “50 Years from San Francisco: Re-Examining the Peace Treaty and Japan’s Territorial Problems ” Pacific Affairs, Autumn 2001.http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557753

⁴⁷ Akiyoshi Komaki, “Russia refuses to budge on stance on Northern Territories,” Asahi Shimbun, 13 April 2016.http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201604130062.html

⁴⁸ Jonathan D. Pollack, “The United States, North Korea, and the end of the Agreed Framework,” Naval War College Review LVI, no. 3 (2003).

⁴⁹ “Military Balance 2016.”

⁵⁰ Ho Il Moon, “How big is the North Korean army? Evidence from missing population,” VoxEU, 13 December 2011.http://www.voxeu.org/article/how-big-north-korean-army-evidence-missing-populatio; Je-hun Lee, “Debate over size of North Korea’s army reignites,” Hankyoreh, 25 December 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/723487.html

⁵¹ Jin-myung Kim, “400,000 N.Korean Soldiers Forced to Labor for 10 Years,” Chosun Ilbo, 6 October 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/10/06/2016100601550.htm; Whan-woo Yi, “N. Korea has up to 400,000 slave workers,” Korea Times, 15 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/485_215425.htm; Steven Borowiec, “North Koreans perform $975 million worth of forced labor each year ” Los Angeles Times, 6 October 2016.http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-north-korea-forced-labor-20161006-snap-story.html

⁵² “Korea, U.S. to Stage Drills with Commonwealth Countries,” Chosun Ilbo, 11 March 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/03/11/2016031100984.html

⁵³ 19 August 2015.http://www.army.mil/article/154133/20th_CBRNE_participates_in_Ulchi_Freedom_Guardian/

⁵⁴ Mark Selden, “The Future of Korea: An Asia-Pacific Perspective,” Japan Focus, 14 August 2006.http://japanfocus.org/products/topdf/2190

⁵⁵ Joe Cirincione, “How to stop North Korea’s bomb,” PolicyForum.net, 26 January 2016.http://www.policyforum.net/how-to-stop-north-koreas-bomb/

⁵⁶ Johnna Rizzo, “How the Romans Used Crucifixion—Including Jesus’s—as a Political Weapon,” Newsweek, 4 April 2015.http://www.newsweek.com/how-romans-used-crucifixion-including-jesus-political-weapon-318934

⁵⁷ Suk-koo Jung, “Ironically, N. Korea’s nuclear program serves the US’s interests,” Hankyoreh, 28 May 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/693252.html

⁵⁸ Clinton Ehrlich, “The Kremlin Really Believes That Hillary Wants to Start a War With Russia,” Foreign Policy, 7 September 2016.https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-kremlin-really-believes-that-hillary-clinton-will-start-a-war-with-russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks

⁵⁹ David C. Gompert, Astrid Stuth Cevallos, and Cristina L. Garafola, “War with China: Thinking through the Unthinkable,” RAND, 28 July 2016.http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pd; Mike Pietrucha, “The Economics of War with China: This Will Hurt You More than It Hurts Me,” WarontheRocks, 4 November 2015.http://warontherocks.com/2015/11/the-economics-of-war-with-china-this-will-hurt-you-more-than-it-hurts-me/

⁶⁰ Daniel Twining, “As the US pivots away, China bets on Pakistan,” PACNet Newsletter, 23 April 2015.http://csis.org/publication/pacnet-26-us-pivots-away-china-bets-pakistan. “China-Europe fast rail brings mutual benefit “, Xinhua, 2 January 2016.http://www.china.org.cn/business/2016-01/02/content_37443571.htm

⁶¹ Tim Beal, “Shenanigans in the South China Sea – Implications for Korea,” Zoom in Korea, 16 August 2016.http://www.zoominkorea.org/shenanigans-in-the-south-china-sea-implications-for-korea/

⁶² Norman Angell, The Great Illusion (London; New York: Heinemann; Putnam, 1910).

⁶³ Vladimir Isachenkov, “New Russian military might on full display in Syria,” Washington Post, 24 October 2015.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/syria-mission-demonstrates-russias-new-prowess/2015/10/24/ae6b07a2-7a3a-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html. Eric Heginbotham et al., “Tallying the U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Relative Capabilities and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996–2017,” RAND Corporation, 14 September 2015.http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9858z1.html

⁶⁴ David Smith, “Military power in Asia ‘shifting against’ the US, major report warns,” GUardian, 20 January 2016.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/19/obama-us-military-power-pivot-to-asi; Michael J. Green et al., “Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025: Capabilities, Presence, and Partnerships,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 19 January 2016.https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/160119_Green_AsiaPacificRebalance2025_Web_0.pdf

⁶⁵ “China fears Hillary Clinton far more than it does Donald Trump,” Reuters, 11 July 2016.http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/11/china-fears-hillary-clinton-focus-on-south-china-sea-human-rights-far-more-than-it-does-donald-trump.htm; Molly O’Toole, “From Reset to Realpolitik, Clinton’s New Hard Line on Moscow,” Foreign Policy, 22 September 2016.https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/22/hillary-clintons-new-colder-cold-war-russia-putin-election/

⁶⁶ Won-je Son, “The “most remarkable concession of sovereignty in the entire world”,” Hankyoreh, 4 November 2014.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/662856.html

⁶⁷ Daniel W. Drezner, “Let’s dispense with the fiction that China will solve the North Korea problem,” Washington Post, 11 February 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/11/lets-dispense-with-the-fiction-that-china-will-solve-the-north-korea-problem/

⁶⁸ Chol Min Kim, “North Korea has legitimate right to satellite launches,” NK News, 6 April 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/04/north-korea-has-legitimate-right-to-satellite-launches/

⁶⁹ Tim Beal, “The United Nations and the North Korean missile and nuclear tests ” NZ Journal of Asian Studies 9, no. 2 (2007).

⁷⁰ Ji-suk Kim, “The Korean peninsula amid US-China confrontation,” Hankyoreh, 15 October 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/712972.html

⁷¹ David Feith, “China’s Proliferation Rap Sheet,” Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2016.http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-proliferation-rap-sheet-145642011; Jane Perlez and Hufan Huang, “A Hole in North Korean Sanctions Big Enough for Coal, Oil and Used Pianos,” New York Times, 31 March 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/asia/north-korea-china-sanctions-trade.html

⁷² Mark Landler, “What Quagmire? Even in Withdrawal, Russia Stays a Step Ahead,” New York Times, 15 March 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/what-quagmire-even-in-withdrawal-russia-stays-a-step-ahead.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

⁷³ Alastair Crooke, “Putin Is Being Pushed to Abandon His Conciliatory Approach to the West and Prepare for War,” Huffington Post, 17 May 2016.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/putin-west-war_b_9991162.html

⁷⁴ “China urges for early resumption of six-party talks,” Xinhua, 24 June 2016.http://www.china.org.cn/world/2016-06/24/content_38735675.htm

⁷⁵ Leszek Buszynski, “The Six-Party Talks have had their day: time for an expanded dialogue,” East Asia Forum, 6 August 2013.http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/08/09/the-six-party-talks-have-had-their-day-time-for-an-expanded-dialogue/

⁷⁶ Sung-jin Choi, “US experts on N. Korea call for direct dialogue, reciprocity,” Korea Times, 4 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/116_215317.htm; Charles “Jack” Pritchard, “The Korean Peninsula and the role of multilateral talks,” Brookings Institution, 1 March 2005.https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/pdf-art2275.pdf

⁷⁷ Yong-in Yi, “Senior White House official decries calls for South Korea to get nuclear weapons,” Hankyoreh, 23 September 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/762486.html

⁷⁸ Liu Zhen and Pinghui Zhuang, “We Won’t Tolerate Instability: Beijing’s Warning to Washington and Pyongyang,” South China Morning Post, 8 March 2016.http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1922570/we-wont-tolerate-instability-beijings-warning

⁷⁹ Thomas J. Christensen, “Threats, Assurances, and the Last Chance for Peace: The Lessons of Mao’s Korean War Telegrams,” International Security 17, no. 1 (1992).

⁸⁰ Jeremy Bender and Gus Lubin, “Why Japan’s Smaller Military Could Hold Its Own Against China,” Business Insider, 5 May 2014.http://www.businessinsider.com/japans-smaller-military-could-match-china-2014-5?international=true&r=US&IR=; Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., “China’s Dangerous Weakness, Part 1: Beijing’s Aggressive ‘Self-Defense’ ” Breaking Defense, 26 September 2013.http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/chinas-dangerous-weakness-part-1-beijings-aggressive-idea-of-self-defense/

⁸¹ Alexis Dudden, “The Nomination of Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution for a Nobel Peace Prize,” The Asia Pacific Journal Japan Focus, 20 April 2014.http://japanfocus.org/events/view/215. Gavan McCormack, “Abe Days Are Here Again: Japan in the World,” The Asia Pacific Journal, 1 December 2012.http://apjjf.org/2012/10/52/Gavan-McCormack/3873/article.htm; Ichiyo Muto, “Retaking Japan: The Abe Administration’s Campaign to Overturn the Postwar Constitution ” The Asia Pacific Journal, 4-5 August 2015.http://apjjf.org/2016/13/Muto.html

⁸² Yonhap, “Japan could go nuclear in 10 years to contain N. Korea provocations: study,” Korea Times, 8 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/120_215647.htm; Nobuhiro Kubo and Tim Kelly, “North Korean missile advances expose Japan in two-decade arms race: sources,” Reuters, 3 October 2016.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-japan-idUSKCN1232F; Ayako Mie, “Defense Ministry requests ¥5.1 trillion for fiscal 2017 to address new threats,” Japan Times, 31 August 2016.http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/31/national/japan-seeks-%C2%A55-1-trillion-defense-next-year-2-3-rise-reflects-new-threats/#.WBNL1-T_rIV

⁸³ Lawrence Repeta, “Japan’s Proposed National Security Legislation — Will This Be the End of Article 9?,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 22 June 2015.http://apjjf.org/2015/13/24/Lawrence-Repeta/4335.html

⁸⁴ “Defense Ministry in Deepening Mire Over Japanese Troops,” Chosun Ilbo, 23 October 2015.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/10/23/2015102301394.htm; Yun-hyung Gil and Byong-su Park, “Could Japan intervene militarily on the Korean peninsula?,” Hankyoreh, 22 September 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/709903.html

⁸⁵ Geun-hye Park, “A new kind of Korea: building trust between Seoul and Pyongyang,” Foreign Affairs 90, no. 5 (2011).

⁸⁶ , 28 March 2014.http://english1.president.go.kr/activity/speeches.php?srh%5Bview_mode%5D=detail&srh%5Bseq%5D=5304&srh%5Bdetail_no%5D=27

⁸⁷ ———, “Remarks by President Park Geun-hye at the 2013 International Conference on Global Cooperation in the Era of Eurasia,” Cheong Wa Dae, 18 October 2013.http://www.korea.net/Government/Briefing-Room/Presidential-Speeches/view?articleId=114334

⁸⁸ Editorial, “Sanctions on N. Korea,” Korea Times, 22 May 2015.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2015/05/202_179423.html

⁸⁹ Tim Beal, Crisis in Korea: America, China, and the risk of war (London: Pluto, 2011); ———, “Korean Brinkmanship, American Provocation, and the Road to War: the manufacturing of a crisis,” The Asia-Pacific Journal, 20 December 2010.http://japanfocus.org/-Tim-Beal/3459

⁹⁰ ———, “Satellites, Missiles and the Geopolitics of East Asia.”

⁹¹ Whan-woo Yi and Ji-hye Jun, “N. Korea fires long-range rocket,” Korea Times, 7 February 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/02/485_197538.htm; John Schilling, “Satellites, Warheads and Rockets: Is North Korea’s Space Program Really about Missile Development?,” 38 North, 28 September 2015.http://38north.org/2015/09/schilling092815/

⁹² Kyu-won Kim, “At 2007 inter-Korean summit, then-Pres. Roh discussed autonomy ” Hankyoreh, 26 June 2013.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/593313.html

⁹³ “For S. Korean businesses, China patent blitz is a clear and present danger “, Hankyoreh, 2 April 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/685182.htm; “Chinese Manufacturers Threaten Korean Rivals,” Chosun Ilbo, 7 May 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/05/07/2016050700422.html

⁹⁴ Hyeon-cheol Bang, “Most Koreans Feel Economy Is in Crisis,” Chosun Ilbo, 24 October 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/10/24/2016102401454.html

⁹⁵ Sung-jin Choi, “Korea’s manufacturing competitiveness behind Japan, China ” Korea Times, 12 March 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/03/123_200219.html

⁹⁶ “Korea Plummets to 6th in Global Shipbuilding Orders,” Chosun Ilbo, 3 June 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/06/03/2016060301434.html

⁹⁷ Hyun-woo Nam, “Hanjin Shipping files for court receivership ” Korea Times, 1 September 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/09/123_213174.html

⁹⁸ Seung-bum Kim and Eun-jin Shin, “Fresh Woes for Hyundai Crisis as Exports Plunge by Half,” Chosun Ilbo, 13 October 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/10/13/2016101301322.html

⁹⁹ Ki-hong Kim, “Shipbuilding, Construction Orders from Overseas Plummet,” Chosun Ilbo, 21 July 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/07/21/2016072101308.html

¹⁰⁰ Jae-won Kim, “Seoul’s dream to become financial hub evaporating,” Korea Times, 22 January 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/01/488_196122.html

¹⁰¹ Jun-beom Hwang, “Less than 1.5 years left, more corruption bombs expected in Park government,” Hankyoreh, 24 September 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/762548.html. Hwangbo Yon, “Due to aging, South Korean population headed for structural reversal,” Hankyoreh, 20 October 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/766614.html. Park. Hyong-ki, “Inequality concerns grow amid increased income distribution to rich,” Korea Times, 16 October 2016.http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2016/10/602_216168.html

¹⁰² Se-Woong Koo, “Korea, Thy Name is Hell Joseon,” Korea Expose, 22 September 2015.http://www.koreaexpose.com/voices/korea-thy-name-is-hell-joseon; No-ja Park, ““Hell Joseon” — a country where sleepless toil brings no mobility,” Hankyoreh, 6 October 2015.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/711631.html

¹⁰³ Emanuel Pastreich, “The Balancer: Roh Moo-hyun’s Vision of Korean Politics and the Future of Northeast Asia,” The Asia Pacific Journal Japan Focus, 1 August 2005.http://japanfocus.org/-Emanuel-Pastreich/2041

¹⁰⁴ Editorial, “Humiliating comfort women settlement incurs fierce backlash,” Hankyoreh, 5 January 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/724772.html

¹⁰⁵ Seong-hun Park and Sarah Kim, “U.S. Defense Department is developing Thaad 2.0,” JoongAng Ilbo, 19 July 2016.http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=3021475

¹⁰⁶ Young-jin Oh, “Choi Soon-sil – Shaman or con artist?,” Korea Times, 6 November 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/11/667_217591.htm; Ha-young Choi, “Don’t call Choi a shaman, it’s disgrace to shamans,” Korea Times, 8 November 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/11/116_217758.htm; Ye-rin Choi, “Park Geun-hye believed in Choi Tae-min after he predicted her father’s death,” Hankyoreh, 6 November 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/768958.html

¹⁰⁷ Aidan Foster-Carter, “Did Park Geun-hye’s Rasputin run her North Korea policy?,” NK News, 28 October 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/10/did-park-geun-hyes-rasputin-run-her-north-korea-policy; Min-hyuk Lim, “Leaked U.S. Embassy Cable Warned of ‘Rasputin’ Behind Park,” Chosun Ilbo, 28 October 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/10/28/2016102801342.html

¹⁰⁸ Sang-hun Choe, “A Presidential Friendship Has Many South Koreans Crying Foul,” New York Times, 27 October 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/world/asia/south-korea-choi-soon-sil.htm; Yong-in Yi, “Strange memories of a President’s late and ambiguous decisions,” Hankyoreh, 4 November 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/768856.htm; Jin-cheol Kim and Eui-gyum Kim, “Was Choi Sun-sil behind the closing of the Kaesong Industrial Complex? ,” Hankyoreh, 27 October 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/767646.html

¹⁰⁹ John Delury, “The Urgency of Now: Why Obama Needs to Take the Lead on North Korea,” 38 North, 9 December 2014.http://38north.org/2014/12/jdelury120914; Aidan Foster-Carter, “Obama Comes Out as an NK Collapsist,” 38 North, 27 January 2015.http://38north.org/2015/01/afostercarter012715/

¹¹⁰ Steven V. Roberts, “White House Confirms Reagans Follow Astrology, Up to a Point,” New York Times, 4 May 1988.http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/04/us/white-house-confirms-reagans-follow-astrology-up-to-a-point.html

¹¹¹ “N.Korea Mum Over China Parade,” Chosun Ilbo, 4 September 2015.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/09/04/2015090401667.html. “Park Attends China Parade,” Chosun Ilbo, 4 September 2015.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/09/04/2015090401552.html

¹¹² Hoare, “Potboiler Press: British Media and North Korea.”

¹¹³ Nate Thayer, “Freed American Matthew Miller: ‘I wanted to stay in North Korea’,” Guardian, 20 November 2014.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/20/-sp-north-korea-matthew-miller. Konstantin Asmolov, “Fifteen Year’s Sentence for a Motto Torn Off,” New Eastern Outlook, 17 April 2016.http://journal-neo.org/2016/04/17/fifteen-year-s-sentence-for-a-motto-torn-off/

¹¹⁴ David Ignatius, “North Korea is scarier than ever,” Washington Post, 13 October 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/north-korea-is-scarier-than-ever/2016/10/13/0657cb80-9169-11e6-9c85-ac42097b8cc0_story.html?utm_term=.c4c2b925eb91&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

¹¹⁵ Yonhap, “S. Korea, US, Japan to conduct joint military exercise against N. Korea,” Korea Times, 14 May 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/05/120_204802.html

¹¹⁶ Ji-hye Jun, “Tensions grow as joint drills begin,” Korea Times, 7 March 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/03/116_199829.htm; Alexander Vorontsov, “War Games: who is responsible for tension on the Korean peninsula?,” NK News, 15 September 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/09/war-games-who-is-responsible-for-tension-on-the-korean-peninsula/

¹¹⁷ Jiwon Song, “Chinese woman arrested in Japan for selling knitwear to N.Korea,” NK News, 2 March 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/03/chinese-woman-arrested-in-japan-for-selling-knitwear-to-n-korea; Jiwon Song, “S.Korean arrested in Japan for export to N.Korea through Singapore,” NK News, 26 February 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/02/s-korean-arrested-in-japan-for-export-to-n-korea-through-singapore/

¹¹⁸ Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, “Surf clothing label Rip Curl using ‘slave labour’ to manufacture clothes in North Korea,” Sydney Morning Herald, 21 February 2016.http://www.smh.com.au/business/surf-clothing-label-rip-curl-using-slave-labour-to-manufacture-clothes-in-north-korea-20160219-gmz375.html

¹¹⁹ Whan-woo Yi, “UN rights resolution may include N. Korea workers,” Korea Times, 16 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/485_216187.htm; Yi-jun Cho, “Seoul, Washington to Push on N.Korean Slave Labor at UN,” Chosun Ilbo, 17 October 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/10/17/2016101701175.htm; Yong-in Yi, “UN seeking to fill few existing loopholes with additional sanctions on North Korea,” Hankyoreh, 13 September 2016.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/761296.html

¹²⁰ “Up to 100,000 N.Koreans Labor Abroad,” Chosun Ilbo, 18 March 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/03/18/2016031801213.html

¹²¹ ———, “UN seeking to fill few existing loopholes with additional sanctions on North Korea.”

¹²² Cho, “Seoul, Washington to Push on N.Korean Slave Labor at UN; Sarah E. Mendelson, “Outsourcing Oppression: Trafficked Labor from North Korea,” Foreign Affairs, 28 May 2015.https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2015-05-28/outsourcing-oppression?cid=soc-tw-rdr

¹²³ “U.S. State Department to release report on N. Korea’s labor exports this week “, Yonhap, 15 August 2016.http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2016/08/15/78/0301000000AEN20160815000600315F.html

¹²⁴ “Overseas Chinese to send home US$66 bln this year,” China Daily, 22 June 2015.http://www.china.org.cn/business/2015-06/22/content_35878101.htm Mark Selden, “East Asian Regionalism and its Enemies in Three Epochs: Political Economy and Geopolitics, 16th to 21st Centuries,” Japan Focus, 25 February 2009.http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/3061/article.html

¹²⁵ Dilip Ratha, “Trends in Remittances, 2016: A New Normal of Slow Growth,” World Bank, 6 October 2016.http://blogs.worldbank.org/peoplemove/trends-remittances-2016-new-normal-slow-growth%20

¹²⁶ Ana P. Santos, “Why is Duterte so popular in the Philippines?,” DW, 9 September 2016.http://www.dw.com/en/why-is-duterte-so-popular-in-the-philippines/a-19540056

¹²⁷ Pete Pattisson, “Revealed: Qatar’s World Cup ‘slaves’,” Guardian, 25 September 2013.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/revealed-qatars-world-cup-slaves

¹²⁸ Michael Field, “Slave fishing in NZ waters exposed,” Sunday Star-Times, 8 November 2011.http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5431221/Slave-fishing-in-NZ-waters-expose; Hyun-woong Noh, “Government investigation finds foreign workers on Korean vessels were abused,” Hankyoreh, 11 June 2012.http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/537104.html. “South Korea: End rampant abuse of migrant farm workers,” Amnesty International, 19 October 2014.https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/10/south-korea-end-rampant-abuse-migrant-farm-workers/.Dong-hwan Ko, “In the hurt of the sea,” Korea Times, 20 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/09/116_214313.html

¹²⁹ Yonhap, “US State Department submits report on N. Korea’s labor exports to Congress,” Korea Times, 30 August 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/08/485_213019.html

¹³⁰ Greg Scarlatoiu, “Testimony to Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission entitled “North Korea’s Forced Labor Enterprise: A State-Sponsored Marketplace in Human Trafficking”,” Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 29 April 2015.https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwj2rNfUsebPAhXEPRoKHZ-OAF8QFgggMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hrnk.org%2Fuploads%2Ffiles%2FStatement%2520of%2520Greg%2520Scarlatoiu%2520-%2520FINAL-FINAL.docx&usg=AFQjCNFkwyUFXD6Zu5lGZu21tV2D9k-8tg&sig2=GG52TC8q5i3x30dRHokR1w

¹³¹ Pattisson, “Revealed: Qatar’s World Cup ‘slaves’.”

¹³² Andrei Lankov, “North Korean workers abroad aren’t slaves,” NK News, 27 November 2014.http://www.nknews.org/2014/11/north-korean-workers-abroad-arent-slaves/

¹³³ “60 Years of the Republic: Troop Dispatch to Vietnam “, Chosun Ilbo, 23 July 2008.http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807230025.htm; Charles Armstrong, “America’s Korea, Korea’s Vietnam,” Critical Asian Studies 33, no. 4 (2001).

¹³⁴ Editorial, “Second Middle East boom,” Korea Herald, 3 March 2015.http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=2015030300051; Alon Levkowitz, “The Republic of Korea and the Middle East: Economics, Diplomacy, and Security,” Korea Economic Institute, Academic Papers Series, August 2010.http://keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/APS-Levkowitz-FINAL%202010(MYM).pdf

¹³⁵ Whan-woo Yi, “North Korea earning currency through fish sales,” Korea Times, 19 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/485_216394.html

¹³⁶ Leo Byrne, “North Korea quadruples rice imports after flood,” NK Pro, 3 November 2016.https://www.nknews.org/pro/north-korea-quadruples-rice-imports-after-flood/

¹³⁷ Gary Clyde Hufbauer et al., Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd ed. (Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2007). (Case 50-1)

¹³⁸ Andrei Lankov, “North Korea: Don’t dream the impossible,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1 June 2016.http://thebulletin.org/north-koreas-nuclear-weapons-what-now. Georgiy D. Toloraya, “Byungjin vs the Sanctions Regime: Which Works Better?,” 38 North, 20 October 2016.http://38north.org/2016/10/gtoloraya102016/

¹³⁹ Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “Sanctions-Happy USA,” Washington Post, 12 July 1998.http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb.cfm?ResearchID=83. Andrew Osborn and Maria Tsvetkova, “Putin firms control with big win for Russia’s ruling party,” Reuters, 19 September 2016.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-electon-idUSKCN11N0T6

¹⁴⁰ “KCNA on Tremendous Damage Done to DPRK by US “, KCNA, 24 June 2010.http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201006/news24/20100624-24ee.html. For comparison a Cuban estimate of the damage caused by the US embargo was $125.9 billion;

¹⁴¹ Ji-hye Jun, “NK-US thaw unlikely under Obama,” Korea Times, 20 December 2015.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/12/485_193588.htm; Alexander Vorontsov, “The reasons for the crisis on the Korean Peninsula,” Strategic Culture Foundation, 12 April 2013.http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/04/12/the-reasons-for-the-crisis-on-the-korean-peninsula.html

¹⁴² Michael Auslin, “Kim Jong Untrustworthy,” Foreign Policy, 11 January 2016.https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/11/kim_jong_un_nuclear_north_korea; Michael Green, “Six Reasons Why Trump Meeting With Kim Jong Un Is a Very Bad Idea,” Foreign Policy, 18 May 2016.http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/18/six-reasons-why-trump-meeting-with-kim-jong-un-is-a-very-bad-idea/. Robert A. Manning and James Przystup, “What’s Wrong with Both Sides of the North Korea Debate,” National Interest, 9 October 2016.http://nationalinterest.org/feature/whats-wrong-both-sides-the-north-korea-debate-17983

¹⁴³ Babak Dehghanpisheh, “Iran’s Khamenei: Nuclear Deal Proves Pointlessness of Negotiating With U.S.,” Haaretz, 2 August 2016.http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/1.73469; Tim Arango, “Kurds Fear the U.S. Will Again Betray Them, in Syria,” New York Times, 1 September 2016.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/world/middleeast/kurds-syria-turkey.html?_r=; Andrew C. Kuchins, “That brief U.S.-Russia strategic partnership 15 years ago? New interviews reveal why it derailed.,” Washington Post, 23 September 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/23/that-brief-u-s-russia-strategic-partnership-15-years-ago-new-interviews-reveal-why-it-derailed/

¹⁴⁴ In-sun Kang, “Libya Intervention Makes It Harder to Denuclearize N.Korea,” Chosun Ilbo, 30 March 2011.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/03/30/2011033001315.htm; Christine Kim, “Libyans should have kept nukes, says Pyongyang,” Joongang Ilbo, 24 March 2011.http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2933884

¹⁴⁵ Scott Snyder, “The Economic Costs of North Korean Nuclear Development,” Council on Foreign Relations, 25 November 2013.http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2013/11/25/the-economic-costs-of-north-korean-nuclear-development; Joseph R. DeTrani, “North Korea’s Irrational Approach to Diplomacy—Is There Any Hope?,” 38 North, 17 December 2013.http://38north.org/2013/12/jdetrani121713/

¹⁴⁶ Jeffrey Sachs, “The fatal expense of American imperialism,” Boston Globe, 30 October 2016.http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/30/the-fatal-expense-american-imperialism/teXS2xwA1UJbYd10WJBHHM/story.html

¹⁴⁷ Dingli Shen, “What’s Behind the North Korea Nuclear Test? ,” China.org, 20 January 2013.http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2013-01/20/content_27741385.htm

¹⁴⁸ Seung-sik Yang, “N.Korea’s Nuke Test ‘Only Cost $5 Million’,” Chosun Ilbo, 12 September 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/09/12/2016091201285.html

¹⁴⁹ Tim Beal, “The transformation of the nuclear weapons calculus,” NK News, 19 June 2014.http://www.nknews.org/2014/06/the-transformation-of-the-nuclear-weapons-calculus/

¹⁵⁰ Ha-young Choi, “North Korea to decrease national defense proportion this year,” NK News, 31 March 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/03/north-korea-to-decrease-national-defense-proportion-this-year/

¹⁵¹ Toloraya, “Byungjin vs the Sanctions Regime: Which Works Better?.”

¹⁵² Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” International Institute for Strategic Studies: Adelpi Papers171(1981).

¹⁵³ Simon Shen, “Have Nuclear Weapons Made the DPRK a Rogue State? Studying the Korean Peninsula Crisis from the Waltzian Theory,” Journal of Comparative Asian Development 10, no. 2 (2011). Seymour M. Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1991).

¹⁵⁴ “Crucial Statement of KPA Supreme Command,” KCNA, 24 February 2016.http://www.oananews.org/content/news/politics/crucial-statement-kpa-supreme-command

¹⁵⁵ “KPA Mission Statement on US-S. Korea Joint Military Exercises,” KCNA, 27 February 2011.http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2011/201102/news27/20110227-24ee.html

¹⁵⁶ James R. Clapper, “A Conversation With James Clapper,” Council on Foreign Relations, 25 October 2016.http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/conversation-james-clapper/p38426

¹⁵⁷ Gompert, Cevallos, and Garafola, “War with China: Thinking through the Unthinkable; Peter Apps, “Commentary: Here’s how a U.S.-China war could play out,” Reuters, 9 August 2016.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-commentary-china-apps-idUSKCN10I0WB

¹⁵⁸ Robert Farley, “Asia’s Greatest Fear: A U.S.-China War,” National Interest, 9 June 2014.http://nationalinterest.org/feature/asia-flames-us-china-war-10621?page=show

¹⁵⁹ Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., “China’s Fear Of US May Tempt Them To Preempt: Sinologists ” Breaking Defense, 1 October 2013.http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/chinas-fear-of-us-may-tempt-them-to-preempt-sinologists/

¹⁶⁰ Richard Sanders, “How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents,” Global Research, 2 May 2002.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28554

¹⁶¹ Tim Beal, “North Korean satellites and rocket science,” NK News, 3 February 2016.https://www.nknews.org/2016/02/north-korean-satellites-and-rocket-science/

¹⁶² “A Rare Congress and Mixed Signals in North Korea,” STRTFOR, 5 May 2016.https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/rare-congress-and-mixed-signals-north-korea

¹⁶³ John Schilling, “Musudan Could Be Operational Sooner Than Expected,” 38 North, 17 October 2016.http://38north.org/2016/10/jschilling101716/

¹⁶⁴ Tim Beal, “The Dangerous Year, 2017 – Part 1,” Zoom in Korea, 20 July 2016.http://www.zoominkorea.org/the-dangerous-year-2017-part-1; ———, “The Dangerous Year, 2017 – Part 2,” Zoom in Korea, 28 July 2016.http://www.zoominkorea.org/the-dangerous-year-2017-part-2/

¹⁶⁵ Michael Kranish, “Hillary Clinton regrets her Iraq vote. But opting for intervention was a pattern,” Washington Post, 15 September 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-her-iraq-vote-but-opting-for-intervention-was-a-pattern/2016/09/15/760c23d0-6645-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.htm; “‘Surgical’ U.S. strike on N. Korea would lead to ‘bloodbath,’ war with China: expert warns,” Yonhap, 1 November 2016.http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2016/11/01/0401000000AEN20161101000200315.html

¹⁶⁶ Anna Fifield and Yoonjung Seo, “South Korea’s presidency ‘on the brink of collapse’ as scandal grows,” Washington Post, 29 October 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/south-koreas-presidency-on-the-brink-of-collapse-as-scandal-grows/2016/10/28/7639a2cc-1700-4ef7-a3a4-661b3ff989c4_story.htm; Hyo-jin Kim, “Hard-line N. Korea policy put on line,” Korea Times, 30 October 2016.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/10/116_217122.html

¹⁶⁷ Josh Rogin, “The coming clash with China over North Korea,” Washington Post, 6 November 2016.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coming-clash-with-china-over-north-korea/2016/11/06/798a8148-a1f8-11e6-a44d-cc2898cfab06_story.html

¹⁶⁸ Yong-weon Yu, “USFK Practices Evacuating American Civilians,” Chosun Ilbo, 8 November 2016.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/11/08/2016110800919.html

¹⁶⁹ Robert Carlin, “Paying Attention Helps: Pondering North Korean Signals,” 38 North, 6 September 2016.http://38north.org/2016/09/rcarlin090616/

¹⁷⁰ Niall Ferguson, “Is the U.S. an Empire in Denial? A Lecture by Niall Ferguson,” Foreign Policy Association, 17 September 2003.http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=193437

¹⁷¹ “NATO announces nomination of General Curtis M. Scaparrotti as Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” NATO Press Release, 11 March 2016.http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_129181.htm

The Syrian government and its key ally, Russia, have launched a fresh offensive against Islamist militias backed by the US and its regional allies both in the besieged eastern sector of Aleppo and in Idlib and Hama governorates in northwestern Syria.

Syrian fighters and helicopters carried out airstrikes against eastern Aleppo, where Russia had maintained a suspension of all air operations for the past month. Russia, meanwhile, confirmed that it had conducted bombing runs and missile strikes for the first time from the war fleet it has positioned off the Syrian coast in the eastern Mediterranean. The Russian Defense Ministry said that its forces had hit ISIS and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front in the countryside of Idlib and Hama.

The US State Department issued a hysterical response to the renewed offensive, accusing Russia of carrying out air strikes “in violation of international law,” under conditions in which the US is conducting similar strikes, without the authorization of either the United Nations or the Syrian government, in its anti-ISIS campaign in Syria, as well as in the offensive in Iraq against the city of Mosul. The State Department spokeswoman also accused the Russians of having “allowed no food or aid into east Aleppo.” When pressed, however, she was unable to point to any action taken by Russia to block such aid.

There have been multiple reports from eastern Aleppo of demonstrations by the city’s residents denouncing the Islamist militias for hoarding food supplies and demanding that they leave the city. In some instances there were violent clashes when civilians attempted to gain access to the “rebel” food warehouses. It has been a common practice for the US-backed Islamist militias to monopolize food and supplies, selling them to the people in areas they occupy at exorbitant rates. There have also been reports of Al Qaeda-linked fighters killing civilians for attempting to leave the besieged zone of Aleppo. None of these crimes, needless to say, have evoked any protest from the State Department.

The heated nature of the US rhetoric is a reflection of the increasingly desperate situation confronting the Islamist militias that have served as Washington’s proxy forces in the five-year-old war for regime change that has left Syria in tatters. A defeat for the Al Qaeda-affiliated elements in Aleppo would deprive the so-called rebels of their last major urban stronghold in Syria.

The same level of political hysteria has been directed at the prospect that an incoming Trump administration would seek a rapprochement with the Russian government of President Vladimir Putin, including over military operations against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

In response to the report of Monday’s telephone conversation between Trump and Putin which, according to a statement from the Kremlin, included an agreement on “the need to work together in the struggle against the No. 1 enemy–international terrorism and extremism,” there were multiple condemnations of Trump by both the major media and fellow Republicans.

The Washington Post published an editorial Wednesday charging that Trump “has all but given Mr. Putin the green light for atrocities.” The editorial’s line repeated similar criticisms made in a November 13 editorial in the New York Times entitled “The danger of going soft on Russia,” which accused the Republican president-elect of having “shown little concern that Russia poses a major strategic challenge” and accused him of having “so far been Mr. Putin’s apologist.”

Similarly, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement Tuesday denouncing any amelioration of relations with Moscow. “At the very least, the price of another ‘reset’ would be complicity in Putin and Assad’s butchery of the Syrian people,” McCain said.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives Tuesday passed by a voice vote a sweeping new sanctions bill against Syria and anyone doing business with the country. In addition, the bill demands that the US president present a report on the prospect of establishing “a no-fly zone or a safe zone over part or all of Syria,” an action that US military commanders have warned would lead to armed confrontation with Russia.

On the same day, the House voted 419 to one for a 10-year re-authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, or ISA, a law first adopted in 1996 to punish those doing business with Iran’s energy industry, supposedly to block Teheran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons. The bid to reimpose this measure, even after the negotiation of an international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, is in line with Trump’s own denunciations of this deal and indications during the presidential campaign that he would renege on it.

The concerns expressed within the US ruling establishment over a supposed danger posed by Trump’s campaign rhetoric that he will “go soft” on Russia or abandon Washington’s regime change war in Syria are belied by the politics of those he has brought around his transition and who are in the running for top cabinet posts in his administration.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has been named as a top choice for secretary of state, speaking to an audience of business executives Monday, suggested that the “reset” with Moscow could be achieved through military confrontation. “Russia thinks it’s a military competitor, it really isn’t,” Giuliani said. “It’s our unwillingness under Obama to even threaten the use of our military that makes Russia so powerful.”

Stephen Hadley, the former national security advisor to George W. Bush, who is reportedly under consideration for nomination as secretary of defense, has repeatedly called for launching strikes against Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles, a weapon produced by defense contractor Raytheon, where he has served on the board of directors.

Sources close to the Pentagon have expressed buoyant optimism that the incoming Trump administration will initiate a massive US military buildup.

The Navy Times Tuesday highlighted the president-elect’s vow to build a 350-ship naval fleet in an article headlined “Donald Trump wants to start the biggest Navy build-up in decades.” The Navy currently has a fleet of 272 ships.

The Army Times, meanwhile, published an article Tuesday headlined “Early signs point to a bigger, badder Army under Trump.”

It quoted former four-star General Barry McCaffrey as predicting that despite Trump’s criticisms of NATO he expected to see a major buildup of US forces not only in the Pacific but also in Eastern Europe.

“You’ve got to have a military combat capability that is believed by the Russians and the North Koreans, among others, as being capable and willing to confront them in an air-ground-sea battle,” he said.

McCaffrey added that there had been “overwhelming support for Trump during the campaign from the rank-and-file of the armed forces,” due in part to his criticism of restrictive “rules of engagement.”

The article also quoted Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a prominent Trump supporter also reported to be a leading choice for secretary of defense, saying that Trump “proposes an increase in the Army.”

“We now have about 480,000 troops. He proposes that the Army should be sustained at 540,000 troops,” Sessions said.

In short, whatever Trump’s campaign rhetoric about rapprochement with Russia or halting the US intervention in Syria, all indications are that the incoming administration is preparing to embark on an even more reckless and aggressive campaign of global US military aggression.

Sputnik’s Arabic bureau has obtained photos of a decree by Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) leaders instructing its fighters not to attack US-led coalition aircraft operating over Mosul and the surrounding area.

The document, discovered in the recently-liberated Iraqi city of Bakhdida, about 32 km southeast of the Daesh-held stronghold of Mosul, explicitly tells jihadis not to attack any coalition aircraft over Mosul or its suburbs.

According to Sputnik Arabic, the decree was discovered by Assyrian Christian militia on an information stand in central Bakhdida, at a so-called Daesh ‘mobilization center’. Such centers were established by the terrorist group to mobilize the local population and train new recruits.

Decree instructing Daesh fighters not to attack coalition aircraft.

The text of the decree reads: “It is strictly forbidden to shoot down, using any weapons whatsoever, any aircraft that is in the air, no matter what height they are flying at, even if the aircraft lands on the rooftop of houses.”

The document is signed by local Daesh leader Abu Muawia.

Decree instructing Daesh fighters not to attack US-led coalition aircraft

The decree was discovered by the Nineveh Plain Protection Units, a militia group composed mostly of Assyrian Christians, who are concentrated in northern Iraq. The militia was formed in late 2014 to defend against Daesh, which has treated those who refused to convert to their faith with extreme brutality.

“It should be noted,” Sputnik Arabic stressed, “that the competency to conduct airstrikes against Daesh in the Nineveh region lies [strictly] with planes of the international coalition led by the United States, which has repeatedly been accused of airstrikes on forces of the People’s Militia and the Iraqi military, and of dropping humanitarian and military aid which has ended up in Daesh’s hands.”

The US and its allies began a massive campaign of airstrikes against Daesh targets in and around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul in mid-October, after Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi announced a campaign to liberate the key Daesh stronghold.

We’ll never know despite lots of guesswork suggesting it. He’s a footnote in the sordid history of US presidential politics – part of the dirty system like all other duopoly power candidates.

In return for supporting Hillary after campaigning against what she represents, Democrats rewarded him with a low-ranking leadership position, choosing him as outreach chairman in charge of winning over blue-collar Trump supporters.

He lied calling it a “heavy responsibility to help shape the priorities of the United States government.”

He lied again, saying he’ll do “everything (he) can to make sure that the budget that leaves the United States Congress is a budget that represents the needs of working families and a shrinking middle class and not billionaires.”

How when his self-styled independent socialist credentials are phony. His congressional voting record proves it.

He supports deplorable Democrat party policies 98% of the time – including imperial wars; economic policies resulting in an unprecedented wealth disparity, high unemployment and underemployment, and an unaddressed protracted Main Street Depression; along with police state laws reflecting growing tyranny, as well as other disturbing policies.

Among the leading candidates to succeed Obama, Sanders was worst in my judgment – and here’s why.

Like Obama, he’s a longstanding con man, winning support with empty promises, breaching them consistently in office. Rhetorically endorsing progressive change, most often he’s for dirty business as usual in practice.

GW Bush left office with a near-record low approval rating. Obama exceeded his worst policies, yet enjoys support from 56% of the electorate, based on early November polling, most backers ignoring his betrayal, his war on humanity and other high crimes.

Sanders is Obama with a white face. His phony populism matches the president’s, their blackguard agenda concealed, backing what they claim to oppose – representing hypocrisy, not progressive change.

Washington’s criminal class is bipartisan, Sanders like all the rest, pretending to be different.

His disturbing record speaks for itself – supporting phony war on terror, devastating imperial wars, drone killings, Israel’s war on Palestine, along with no criticism of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other tyrannical regimes responsible politicians would denounce.

He’s more opportunist than populist – the only Senate member publicly supporting universal healthcare – then voted with Democrats for Obamacare. His no vote would have killed what Ralph Nader at the time called a “pay or die” system – a rationing scheme benefitting insurers, drug companies and large hospital chains.

His idea of revolutionary change is business as usual with a facelift, old wine in new bottles, phony lofty mumbo jumbo – sham democracy, not the real thing.

If he meant what he said, he’d renounce money-controlled duopoly power politics, leave the Democrat party, and run as a true progressive independent.

Instead, he’s a populist in name only, profiting from pretense, part of a debauched system, power brokers intend keeping unchanged.

Like Obama, a Sanders presidency would likely fool most people most of the time – instead of widespread disapproval, maybe erupting in unrest, a similar reaction awaiting Trump if he fails to deliver for supporters, aside from orchestrated street protests now.

In hindsight, maybe Democrats regret not choosing Sanders, easily controlled to do their bidding – maybe president-elect today if they hadn’t gone for Hillary.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Trump’s triumph let humanity dodge a bullet – possible nuclear war on Russia had Hillary defeated him.

He saved America from an emotionally unstable aspirant’s ascension to power – evident from her electoral loss behavior.

She erupted election night after hearing she lost, Gateway Pundit saying she “became physically violent,” citing radio host Todd Kincannon, saying:

“CNN reporter t(old) me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.”

“She was (drunk). She was in a ‘psychotic drunken rage,’ according to my reporter friend. Doctor added sedatives to the mix.”

CNN refused to air its own reporter’s account of what happened. It “banned all ‘Hillary in the bunker’ stories.”

She was too emotionally distraught, enraged, and out-of-control to make customary concession comments, congratulating her opponent on his electoral triumph.

Campaign chairman John Podesta appeared in her place. She showed up the next day. The episode provided more evidence of her unfitness to serve.

If elected, how would she handle crises all presidents face? Would she erupt in a psychotic rage – perhaps similar fashion any time things didn’t go her way?

Most crucially, would she squeeze the nuclear trigger to prove her machismo, showing she’s as tough as any man, letting Russia know who’s boss?

Political Insider said she “had a violent meltdown on election night…at some points inconsolably emotional, possibly drunk, and physically threatening towards her top aides…”

“According to author Ed Klein, (she) ‘couldn’t stop crying’ once she realized she had lost the election” she believed she’d easily win, “popping champagne corks before votes (were) counted.”

“Thank goodness for the rest of us, she isn’t going to be the actual leader of our nation. This kind of behavior shows that Trump was most definitely the correct choice for President” – between two unacceptable ones, the most widely reviled White House aspirants in US history.

A Final Comment

During the 1973 Watergate hearings, Hillary, aged 27 at the time, was a staffer for House Judiciary Committee chief counsel Jerry Zeifman.

He fired her, saying “she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

“In one legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel” – ignoring his constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Early in her professional career as a young lawyer, she showed appalling disdain for rule of law principles. It showed by her actions as first lady, US senator, secretary of state and two-time presidential aspirant.

Thankfully, she’s politically dead – the enormous threat of her leadership had she defeated Trump now past.

At last we can exhale while staying vigilant, holding him accountable for harmful domestic and foreign policies on his watch.

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.

Although political and media analysts will be parsing the election results for months to come one winner is blatantly obvious, and it is not Donald Trump. Rather, it is something all tax-paying Americans support, even if they don’t think about it: the military-industrial congressional-complex (MICC).

To confirm that one need look no further than the stock market on November 9. As Defense One reported, military contractor stocks soared:

• Lockheed Martin: Up 4.8 percent
• Northrop Grumman: Up 5.1 percent
• Raytheon: Up 6.2 percent
• General Dynamics: Up 4.1 percent
• L-3 Communications: Up 5.4 percent
• Textron: Up 2.2 percent
• Boeing: Up .76 percent
• Huntington Ingalls: Up 6.5 percent

As the title of an op-ed in Forbes put it, “For The Defense Industry, Trump’s Win Means Happy Days Are Here Again.”

It is hardly surprising that military contractors anticipate good times. Trump’s campaign website callsfor fully repealing “the defense sequester and submit a new budget to rebuild our depleted military.”

Although how an annual military budget of about $600 billion dollars, not counting military related expenditures in other parts of the federal budget, can be called depleted is the subject of another article.

The Revolving Door

To make sure that happy days are here again the MICC is taking a hands-on approach. Inside Defense reports that Mira Ricardel, a former Boeing vice president for international business development for network and space systems, will be working under former Army general and defense executive Keith Kellogg to run President-elect Donald Trump’s Defense Department transition team. Kellogg will run Trump’s defense team, with Ricardel in charge of the Pentagon transition.

This just another example of the classic revolving door between private and public sector work. Between 1994-1998, according to an analysis by the Boston Globe, fewer than 50 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives. By 2004-2008, that number had jumped to 80 percent.

The door has been spinning steadily since then. In 2012 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) found that at least nine of the top-level generals and admirals who retired between 2009 and 2011 took positions with the five largest defense companies contracting with the government: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. In 2013, in new data on people retiring from Department of Defense employment, 13 people listed Lockheed Martin as a possible employer, seven listed Boeing, eight listed General Dynamics, 10 listed Raytheon, and 13 listed Northrop Grumman. Defense contractors SAIC, Booz Allen Hamilton, and BAE were also listed by multiple people.

A notorious example of the phenomenon involves former Air Force Secretary James G. Roche, who before his nomination in summer 2002 was a top executive at Northrop Grumman for 17 years. In October 2002, he awarded Lockheed-Grumman a $250 billion contract to build the supersonic Joint Strike Fighter combat aircraft. The order, expected to provide 40 years of work and revenue, called for the development and manufacture of 3,000 (later reduced to 2,443) fighter planes for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. A similar number was to be sold to countries such as Turkey, Israel, and Canada. Toward the end of Roche’s tenure at Northrop Grumman, he was president of the Electronic Sensor and Systems Sector, a division of which is now a key subcontractor for the fighter.

Repealing the Sequester?

Still, there are some potholes on the happy days road. For example, repeal of the sequester will pose an early challenge for the Trump administration.

The next president will face a 254-day deadline to either negotiate a budget deal with Congress or watch the military budget suffer automatic cuts. August 2 marked the fifth anniversary of the Budget Control Act (BCA), the 2011 law that placed caps on the federal budget for a decade. Its restrictions last through fiscal 2021, encompassing almost the entire four-year term of the next president.

But the Pentagon has strongly argued it cannot operate effectively at these levels. The Obama administration was unable to strike a long-term budget deal repealing the BCA, although it has supported three smaller, two-year deals that increased Pentagon and non-defense spending caps. The latest of those deals will expire on October 1, 2017. Thus, the next administration will find itself facing a budget deadline just 254 days after taking the oath of office on Jan. 20.

Things could get worse thanks to the influence of dark money groups. Freedom Partners, a group with close ties to the Koch brothers, is reportedly trying to rally congressional Republicans behind a plan that would postpone this year’s appropriations process until at least spring 2017, after the next president takes office, as part of an effort to reduce government spending.

If a Trump administration does significantly increase the military budget he will, in the view of past senior government officials, imperil the country.

More Money, Less Security

In 2010, the final report of The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform stated:

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has noted, the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. The ability of the United States to keep our country secure over time depends on restoring fiscal restraint today. Any serious attempt to reduce the deficit will require deliberate, planned reductions in both domestic and defense spending.

Indeed, recent history suggests that increased military spending would hurt, not help. Consider, for example, the huge military increases of the Reagan administration. As Chuck Spinney, a former Pentagon analyst who became famous in the early 1980s for criticizing what he described as the Pentagon’s reckless pursuit of costly complex weapon systems without regard to budgetary consequence, wrote in 2011:

A telling vignette of the buy-our-way-out fantasy is the Ronald Reagan spending spree beginning in 1981: his budget increases unleashed a round of cost growth wherein weapons costs grew at a far faster rate than ever before, thereby widening the gap between accelerating unit costs and the much slower growth of the overall budget. Those Reagan budget increases led directly to a 1990 combat force structure that, overall, was smaller and older than in 1981.Similarly, the ongoing Clinton-Bush-Obama spending spree that began in 1999 merely set the stage for today’s much larger crisis.

Yet if more money is needed it is not because of external threats. It is because of a corrupted Pentagon management system. Later, in 2011, Spinney wrote:

The central management problem plaguing the Department of Defense — i.e., the meltdown of the entire defense program — can be characterized in a general sense as being produced by the mutually reinforcing effects of:

1. A modernization program that cannot buy enough new weapons to modernize the force structures of the Army, Navy/MC, and Air Force, because the unit costs of new weapons always grow faster than budgets, even when budgets increase sharply, as they did in the 1980s and after 1998;

2. Continual budgetary pressure to reduce readiness and shrink force size to contain the growth of operating costs (from operating aging, more complex hardware, but also from the growing personnel costs of the all-volunteer force) to free up funds to finance the bankrupt modernization program; and

3. Corrupt and unauditable accounting, financial management, and program planning systems that lubricate the degenerative process by making impossible to assemble the information needed to sort out and correct the first two problems.

Indeed, “unauditable” is putting it mildly. The Pentagon has not undergone a full audit in almost two decades, despite being legally mandated to do so.

David Isenberg is an independent researcher and writer on U.S. military, foreign policy, and national and international security issues. He a senior analyst with the online geopolitical consultancy Wikistrat and is a U.S. Navy veteran. He is the author of Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq. His blog, The PMSC Observer, focuses on private military and security contracting, a subject he has testified on to Congress.

It’s 2016 going on 1984.

The UK has just passed a massive expansion in surveillance powers, which critics have called “terrifying” and “dangerous”.

The new law, dubbed the “snoopers’ charter”, was introduced by then-home secretary Theresa May in 2012, and took two attempts to get passed into law following breakdowns in the previous coalition government.

Four years and a general election later — May is now prime minister — the bill was finalized and passed on Wednesday by both parliamentary houses.

But civil liberties groups have long criticized the bill, with some arguing that the law will let the UK government “document everything we do online”.

It’s no wonder, because it basically does.

The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer’s top-level web historyin real-time for up to a year, which can be accessed by numerous government departments; force companies to decrypt data on demand — though the government has never been that clear on exactly how it forces foreign firms to do that that; and even disclose any new security features in products before they launch.

Not only that, the law also gives the intelligence agencies the power to hack into computers and devices of citizens (known as equipment interference), although some protected professions — such as journalists and medical staff — are layered with marginally better protections.

In other words, it’s the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy,” according to Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group.

The bill was opposed by representatives of the United Nations, all major UK and many leading global privacy and rights groups, and a host of Silicon Valley tech companies alike. Even the parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinizing the bill called some of its provisions “vague”.

And that doesn’t even account for the three-quarters of people who think privacy, which this law almost entirely erodes, is a human right.

There are some safeguards, however, such as a “double lock” system so that the secretary of state and an independent judicial commissioner must agree on a decision to carry out search warrants (though one member of the House of Lords disputed that claim).

A new investigatory powers commissioner will also oversee the use of the powers.

Despite the uproar, the government’s opposition failed to scrutinize any significant amendments and abstained from the final vote. Killock said recently that the opposition Labour party spent its time “simply failing to hold the government to account”.

But the government has downplayed much of the controversy surrounding the bill. The government has consistently argued that the bill isn’t drastically new, but instead reworks the old and outdated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This was brought into law in 2000, to “legitimize” new powers that were conducted or ruled on in secret, like collecting data in bulk and hacking into networks, which was revealed during the Edward Snowden affair.

Much of those activities were only possible thanks to litigation by one advocacy group, Privacy International, which helped push these secret practices into the public domain while forcing the government to scramble to explain why these practices were legal.

The law will be ratified by royal assent in the coming weeks.

The Democratic primary elections were marked by fraud and manipulation, largely with a view to ensuring “the defeat” of Bernie Sanders.

In this regard, we are publishing an excerpt from Bernie Sanders’s speech at a meeting of the National Committee for Independent Political Action in New York City on June 22, 1989, published under the title “Reflections from Vermont” in the December 1989 issue of Monthly Review.

Bernie Sanders text is followed by an article by Seth Ackerman entitled A Blueprint for a New Party, Monthly Review, November 2016

It seems obvious to me that there is no way that we can deal with the enormous economic, social, and environmental problems facing this country without making radical changes in the economic system, and we’ve got to be honest about that. I believe that democratic socialism is the appropriate framework for making those changes, and we should be upfront about our beliefs. . . .

When the rich are getting richer while the poor and middle class are getting poorer; when the standard of living of the average worker is in rapid decline; when people can’t afford healthcare, can’t afford housing, can’t afford to send their kids to college, and the environment is being destroyed for quick profits, when you put it all together, what do you have? You’ve got a disaster. And the people understand that. They know what’s going on, and they want a movement which will speak to these issues, the issues that are wrenching out the guts of this country, but which the Democrats and Republicans and the corporate media will never honestly deal with.

Who is Responsible?

Now, who do we hold responsible for these problems? I know that’s a strange question, very rarely asked, but let’s pursue it. Well, what’s in vogue now, you see, is: ‘Gee, that Ronald Reagan was a terrible president, what a reactionary guy.’ Well, he was. But let me give you some interesting news that most of you already know. Throughout the eight years of the Reagan presidency another political party, it’s called the Democratic Party, controlled the U.S. House of Representatives, controlled every important committee in the House of Representatives. For six out of the eight years of the Reagan presidency the Democratic Party controlled the U.S. Senate. The ‘Reagan Revolution’ was not brought about by Reagan and the Republicans. It was brought about by Reagan with the active support of the Democratic Party. It was a truly bipartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans working together – protecting the interests of the rich and the powerful.

Now what I think is crying out in this country is the need for a new political movement which talks truth and common sense to the ordinary people. I often speak on campuses and other places around the country, and the disgust with the two-party system is incredible. Very, very few people have faith or belief in either of those parties. People will vote for one of their candidates because they’ll say that this guy is better than that guy, but it’s very much a question of the ‘lesser of two evils’. The people know that the present political system is failing. They want an alternative.

Now I know that there are people, good and honorable people, people who are friends of mine, who believe that the Democratic Party can be turned around. I don’t. I believe that what we have got to do right now is create a progressive, independent political movement which brings together all of the single-issue groups who are currently banging their heads against the wall. The unions, the minority groups, the women’s organizations, the environmentalists, the senior citizens, the youth, the peace activists – and all the people who know that we need fundamental change in this country. More than anything, I believe that we’ve got to bring those people together and articulate the real reality of America – not the TV reality. We’ve got to make people understand that the enormous problems that they are facing are not primarily personal problems, but social problems. Further, we’ve got to articulate a democratic vision which is based on social justice, peace, and respect for the environment.

Now the argument, and I’m sure that we’ll discuss this later on because some of you will disagree with me, the argument for working within the Democratic party is that, presumably, that’s where the people are. You’ve got to go where the people are. All I can tell you is two things. In Burlington, in Vermont, the people have shown that they are not dumb. They can read and they can think and they are quite capable of voting for someone who is not a Democrat or a Republican. They discovered that their fingers didn’t fall off when they pulled the lever for someone outside of the two-party system. People can do that. Not only in Vermont but all over the country. It is absurd to believe that, for some mysterious reason, people will only vote for a Democrat or a Republican, and that we will always have to support the two-party system.

Secondly, and equally important, if we are interested in getting people excited about politics and the possibility of real social change, how can you do that within the Democratic Party? I think that it’s impossible to get people excited, to get people motivated, when you say to them, ‘Come on into the party of Jim Wright, Lloyd Bentsen, and worse. We’re really going to change things around and here’s my good friend Lloyd Bentsen.’ You can’t do it.

I’m not here to tell you that I have a magic solution to the problem and that everybody else is a jerk. I have no easy solutions. Nobody does. There are enormous obstacles that will have to be overcome if we are going to build a successful third party. But I do believe this: Winning elections tomorrow is important, but it’s not necessarily the most important thing. In a country which has such a low level of political consciousness; in a country where the level of political ‘debate’ is so pathetically low, it is absolutely imperative that the progressive movement raise the issues and the analyses which will educate the people of our nation to begin to understand what the hell is going on. And I honestly don’t believe that that can take place within the Democratic Party. . . .

To my mind, it is absolutely imperative that we build an independent, democratic socialist left which has the guts to raise the issues that all of us know to be true, but which are very rarely even discussed within establishment politics. Our major task is to change the entire nature of political discussion in the country. In my view that’s just not going to happen within the Democratic Party. It seems to me that if you add up all of the people who are getting a raw deal from the system today you’re talking about a majority of the population. That’s our potential constituency, and I think we’ve got to form a political movement which brings these people in. •

First published on MRZine website.

When Bernie Sanders announced he would run for president as a “democratic socialist,” few believed it would amount to much. Then, against all expectations, Sanders drew massive crowds, commanded high levels of favorability in almost every demographic category (including overwhelming support among young people), and raised hundreds of millions in campaign dollars from small donors. Not least, he came within a few percentage points of beating Hillary Clinton, a frontrunner once assumed to be unassailable.

Waged by a candidate who had never run as a Democrat before and has declined to do so in the future, the Sanders campaign has revived hope that a serious electoral politics to the left of the Democratic Party might be possible. The question is what such a politics would mean in practice.The question isn’t new, and so far the debate has unfolded along familiar lines. Advocates of third-party politics who backed Sanders in the primaries, like Seattle councilmember Kshama Sawant, went on to support Jill Stein’s Green Party candidacy. Meanwhile, longstanding opponents of the third-party route, like democratic socialist columnist Harold Myerson, have argued that the Left should focus on trying to change the Democratic Party from within. Others have called for a different approach, standing neither wholly inside nor wholly outside the Democratic Party. But few concrete proposals have been discussed so far.

This political moment offers a chance to fill in some of these blanks – to advance new electoral strategies for an independent left-wing party rooted in the working class. But we won’t get far unless we grapple seriously with the exceptional character of the American party system, and the highly repressive laws that undergird it.

Lessons from the Labor Party

The last major effort to form a national vehicle for working-class politics was the Labor Party (LP), founded twenty years ago. Under the leadership of Tony Mazzocchi, president of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers union, the party’s organizers gathered support from other major unions and grassroots trade-unionists and held its founding convention in 1996.

The Labor Party’s history is not well-known in the broader progressive world. But as the most recent major effort by organized labor to form an independent party, it is a story that should interest anyone who hopes to see a revival of left politics, because on the Left only unions have the scale, experience, resources, and connections with millions of workers needed to mount a permanent, nationwide electoral project.

By all accounts it was an inspiring effort that seemed, for a moment, to portend a renaissance for the labor-left. But the party lost momentum just a few years after its founding. By 2007 it had effectively ceased to exist.

In a history of the party based on interviews with major participants, LP activist Jenny Brown cited two key factors as being most important in explaining its decline. The first was the weakening of the labor movement itself after 2000, especially the industrial unions that had formed its original core.

But the second, more immediate reason was essentially political: the party failed to attract enough support from major national unions. That wasn’t due to any great fondness for the Democratic Party on the part of the labor leadership of the time, or because they opposed the idea of a labor party on principle. As Mazzocchi said in 1998: “I’ve never found a person in the top labor leadership say they’re opposed to a labor party.”

Instead, the problem arose from the oldest dilemma of America’s two-party system: running candidates against Democrats risked electing anti-labor Republicans. For unions whose members had a lot to lose, that risk was considered too high.

Despite the dedication of its organizers, the Labor Party didn’t succeed. But its founders were right to believe that a genuinely independent party, rather than a mere informal faction of the Democrats, is indispensable to successful working-class politics.

Today we can learn some lessons from their effort. A true working-class party must be democratic and member-controlled. It must be independent – determining its own platform and educating around it. It should actually contest elections. And its candidates for public office should be members of the party, accountable to the membership, and pledged to respect the platform.

Each of those features plays a crucial role in mobilizing working people to change society. The platform presents a concrete image of what a better society could look like. The candidates, by visibly contesting elections and winning votes under the banner of the platform, generate a sense of hope and momentum that this better society might be attainable in practice. And because the members control the party, working people can have confidence that the party is genuinely acting on their behalf. But notice what is missing from this list: there is no mention of a separate ballot line.

The Labor Party always assumed that a genuinely independent labor party must have a separate party ballot line. That assumption was a mistake. The assumption gave rise to an intractable dilemma: if the party took a separate line and ran candidates against incumbent Democrats, it would destroy relationships with Democratic officeholders who might otherwise be sympathetic to unions, and thus lose the support of the unions that depended on those officeholders.

On the other hand, if it didn’t run candidates – which is ultimately the path it chose – the nagging question would arise: what’s the point of having this so-called “party” in the first place? That question ended up spurring endless internal debates over whether and when to run candidates. And in the end, by not contesting elections, the party failed to give workers a reason to pay attention to the organization in the first place.

The dilemma stands out clearly in the recollections of Labor Party veterans. “The Labor Party had to start with the assurance that it wouldn’t play spoiler politics and that it would [first] focus on building the critical mass necessary for serious electoral intervention,” former LP national organizer Mark Dudzic recalled in a recent interview. Yet, as Les Leopold of the Labor Institute told Brown, that path ultimately led to irrelevance: “It’s not easy for Americans to understand a party that’s not electoral. I think that that was just a difficult sell.”

“In retrospect,” Dudzic concluded, “I think it was premature for us to coalesce into a party formation without an understanding of how we would relate to elections.”

“Only in the USA”

Labor Party organizers were not the first to worry about being electoral “spoilers” – discussions of third-party politics have hinged on this problem for decades. However, history shows that, contrary to popular belief, the spoiler problem is not insurmountable. In fact, the trade-union activists in other countries who organized the successful labor parties of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries faced the same dilemma: the prospect of splitting the vote and causing defeat for more labor-sympathetic mainstream parties (usually liberal parties).

But those activists and their allies persevered, and as labor parties gained in strength the spoiler issue gradually became a threat to the mainstream parties. At that point, in the interests of self-preservation, liberal parties moved to accommodate the upstarts, either by forging defensive electoral pacts (in which the two parties agreed not to run candidates against each other in specified districts) or by pushing through proportional representation systems. That gave the labor parties an initial foothold in the political system.

But the United States is different. Beneath our winner-take-all electoral rules, we also have a unique – and uniquely repressive – legal system governing political parties and the mechanics of elections. This system has nothing to do with the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. Rather, it was established by the major-party leaders, state by state, over a period stretching roughly from 1890 to 1920.

Before then, the old Jacksonian framework prevailed: there was no secret ballot, and no officially printed ballot. Voters brought their own “tickets” to the polls and deposited them in a ballot box under the watchful eye of party workers and onlookers.

Meanwhile, the parties – which were then wholly private, unregulated clubs, fueled by patronage – chose their nominees using the “caucus-convention” system: a pyramid of county, state, and national party conventions in which participants at the lower-level meetings chose delegates to attend the higher-level meetings.

At the base of the pyramid were precinct-level caucuses: informal, little-publicized gatherings where decisions on delegates to be sent to the county convention were sewn up through private bargaining among a few patronage-minded local notables.

In the 1880s and 1890s, this cozy system was disrupted by a new breed of “hustling candidates,” who actively campaigned for office rather than quietly currying favor with a few key party workers. When informal local caucuses started to become scenes of open competitive campaigning by rival factions, each seeking lucrative patronage jobs, they degenerated into chaos, often violence.

Worse, candidates who lost the party nomination would try to win the election anyway by employing their own agents to hand out “pasted” or “knifed” party tickets on election day, grafting their names inconspicuously onto the regular party ticket.

Party leaders were losing control over their traditional means of maintaining a disciplined political army. Their response was a series of state-level legislative reforms that permanently transformed the American political system, creating the electoral machinery we have today.

Repression

Henceforth, state governments would administer party primaries, print the official ballot for primary and general elections, and mandate that voting be conducted in secret.

In the lore of American politics, these direct-primary and “Australian ballot” laws (i.e., laws mandating government-printed ballots cast inside a private booth) were the work of idealistic progressive reformers aiming to depose the party bosses and enshrine popular sovereignty. In reality, they were adopted by the party leaders themselves when such measures were deemed to suit their interests.

Of course, there’s nothing objectionable about secretly cast, government-printed ballots. Countries around the world were adopting such good-government reforms around the same time. But once the job of printing the ballot was handed over to governments, some mechanism was needed to determine who was “officially” a candidate, and under which party label.

This is where the American system began to diverge wildly from democratic norms elsewhere.

When the world’s first government-printed secret ballot was adopted in Australia in the 1850s, the law required a would-be parliamentary candidate to submit a total of two endorsement signatures to get on the ballot. When Britain adopted the reform in 1872, its requirement was ten endorsement signatures. But when the first U.S. state, Massachusetts, passed an Australian-ballot law in 1888, it required one thousand signatures for statewide office, and, in district-level races, signatures numbering at least 1 per cent of the total votes cast at the preceding election.

Yet those barriers were mild compared to what came afterward. Over the three decades following U.S. entry into World War I, as working-class and socialist parties burgeoned throughout the industrialized world, American elites chose to deal with the problem by radically restricting access to the ballot. In state after state, petition requirements and filing deadlines were tightened and various forms of routine legal harassment, unknown in the rest of the democratic world, became the norm.

The new restrictions came in waves, usually following the entry of left-wing parties into the electoral process. According to data gathered by Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, in 1931 Illinois raised the petition requirement for third-party statewide candidates from one thousand signatures to twenty-five thousand. In California, the requirement was raised from 1 per cent of the last total gubernatorial vote to 10 per cent. In 1939, Pennsylvania suddenly decided it was important that the thousands of required signatures be gathered solely within a three-week period. In New York, according to one account, “minor-party petitions began to be challenged for hyper-technical defects.”

“Although these statutes have been assailed on all sides,” a 1937 Columbia Law Review article reported, “their severity is constantly being increased, probably because the interests oppressed seldom have representation in the legislatures.” Indeed, when the Florida legislature found socialists and communists advancing at the polls, it responded in 1931 by banning any party from the ballot unless it had won 30 per cent of the vote in two consecutive elections; naturally, when the Republican Party failed to meet that test, the state immediately lowered the threshold.

By comparison, in Britain getting on the ballot was never a major concern for the newly founded Labour Party; the only significant requirement was a £150 deposit (first instituted in 1918), to be refunded if the candidate won at least 12.5 per cent of the vote. In its first general-election outing in 1900, the party started with a mere 1.8 per cent of the national vote. Despite the allegedly fatal “spoiler” problem, it then gradually increased its vote share until it overtook the Liberals as the major party of the Left in 1922.

Today, in almost every established democracy, getting on the ballot is at most a secondary concern for small or new parties; in many countries it involves little more than filling out some forms. In Canada, any party with 250 signed-up members can compete in all 338 House of Commons districts nationwide, with each candidate needing to submit one hundred voter signatures. In the United Kingdom, a parliamentary candidate needs to submit ten signatures, plus a £500 deposit which is refunded if the candidate wins at least 5 per cent of the vote. In Australia, a party with five hundred members can run candidates in all House of Representatives districts, with a $770 deposit for each candidate, refundable if the candidate wins at least 4 per cent of the vote.

In Ireland, Finland, Denmark, and Germany, signature requirements for a parliamentary candidacy range from 30 to 250, and up to a maximum of 500 in the largest districts of Austria and Belgium. In France and the Netherlands, only some paperwork is required.

The Council of Europe, the pan-European intergovernmental body, maintains a “Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters,” which catalogs electoral practices that contravene international standards. Such violations often read like a manual of U.S. election procedure. In 2006, the council condemned the Republic of Belarus for violating the provision of the code proscribing signature requirements larger than 1 per cent of a district’s voters, a level the council regards as extremely high; in 2014, Illinois required more than triple that number for House candidacies. In 2004, the council rebuked Azerbaijan for its rule forbidding voters from signing nomination petitions for candidates from more than one party; California and many other states do essentially the same thing.

In fact, some U.S. electoral procedures are unknown outside of dictatorships: “Unlike other established democracies, the USA permits one set of standards of ballot access for established ‘major’ parties and a different set for all other parties.”

That America’s election system is uniquely repressive is common knowledge among experts. “Nowhere is the concern [about governing-party repression] greater than in the United States, as partisan influence is possible at all stages of the electoral contest,” concludes a recent survey of comparative election law.

“Perhaps the clearest case of overt partisan manipulation of the rules is the United States, where Democrats and Republicans appear automatically on the ballot, but third parties and independents have to overcome a maze of cumbersome legal requirements,” writes Pippa Norris, a world elections authority at Harvard and director of democratic governance at the United Nations Development Program.

“One of the best-kept secrets in American politics,” the eminent political scientist Theodore Lowi has written, “is that the two-party system has long been brain dead – kept alive by support systems like state electoral laws that protect the established parties from rivals and by federal subsidies and so-called campaign reform. The two-party system would collapse in an instant if the tubes were pulled and the IVs were cut.”

Regulation and Its Consequences

These considerations cast the usual debates about third parties, particularly on the Left, in a peculiar light.

Typically, advocates of the third-party route depict their strategy as a revolt against a rigged two-party system; sometimes they even castigate doubters as timid accommodationists. Yet, in the context of American law, when such advocates speak of creating an independent “party,” what they mean, ironically, is choosing to subject their organization to an elaborate regulatory regime maintained by, and continually manipulated by, the two parties themselves.

This is one fundamental problem with the third-party strategy: the need to continually maintain ballot status – an onerous process in most states – places the party’s viability at the mercy of the legislature.

A cautionary tale unfolded last year in Arizona, where the Republican-controlled legislature, concerned about the strength of the Libertarian Party, passed a law effectively raising the number of signatures each Libertarian candidate needs to appear on his or her party’s primary ballot from 134 to 3,023. (This is in addition to the hoops the party itself has to jump through to keep a ballot line in the first place.)

The bill’s Republican sponsor, Representative J. D. Mesnard, helpfully explained his thinking on the floor of the state House: “I believe that, if you look at the last election, there was at least one, probably two, congressional seats that may have gone in a different direction, the direction I would have liked to have seen them go, if this requirement had been there.”

Another unique aspect of American party law raises similar issues: in their internal affairs, ballot-qualified parties in the United States are “some of the most comprehensively regulated parties in the world.”

Normally, democracies regard political parties as voluntary associations entitled to the usual rights of freedom of association. But U.S. state laws dictate not only a ballot-qualified party’s nominating process, but also its leadership structure, leadership selection process, and many of its internal rules (although it’s true that these mandates are often waived for third parties deemed too marginal to care about).

In other words, when third-party activists seek ballot status, they are often seeking to grant far-reaching control over their own internal affairs to a hostile two-party-dominated legislature. That is a peculiar way to go about smashing the two-party system.

Yet the perverse consequences of the system are often at their most visible when third parties do succeed in getting on the ballot.

These parties are frequently forced to devote the bulk of their resources not to educating voters, or knocking on doors on election day, but to waging petition drives and ballot-access lawsuits. The constant legal harassment, in turn, ends up exerting a subtle but powerful effect on the kinds of people attracted to independent politics. Through a process of natural selection, such obstacles tend to repel serious and experienced local politicians and organizers, while disproportionately attracting activists with a certain mentality: disdainful of practical politics or concrete results; less interested in organizing, or even winning elections, than in bearing witness to the injustice of the two-party system through the symbolic ritual of inscribing a third-party’s name on the ballot.

The official parties are happy to have such people as their opposition, and even happy to grant them this safe channel for their discontent. And if, unexpectedly, a third party’s fortunes were to start rising, the incumbents could always put a stop to it, simply by adjusting the law.

The Labor Party – wisely, in my opinion – adopted a strategy of not seeking ballot status until it had built enough strength to mount a credible challenge to the Democrats. But confronted with the dilemmas of a repressive electoral system, combined with the more familiar spoiler problem, it never actually reached that point. In the end, the party sought and obtained a ballot line only once, in South Carolina (a state where ballot laws were relatively relaxed), in a last-ditch effort near the end of its active life. But by then it was too late, and ultimately the party chose not to wage a serious electoral campaign in the state.

One lesson from this history is clear: We have to stop approaching our task as if the problems we face were akin to those faced by the organizers of, say, the British Labour Party in 1900 or Canada’s New Democratic Party in 1961. Instead, we need to realize that our situation is more like that facing opposition parties in soft-authoritarian systems, like those of Russia or Singapore. Rather than yet another suicidal frontal assault, we need to mount the electoral equivalent of guerrilla insurgency. In short, we need to think about electoral strategy more creatively.

Boring From Within?

Does that mean opting for the strategy championed by most progressive critics of the third-party route – namely, “working within the Democratic Party”?

No. Or at least, not in the way that phrase is usually meant.

It’s true that a number of sincere, committed leftists, or at least progressives, run for office on the Democratic ballot line at all levels of American politics. Sometimes they even win. And all else equal, we’re better off with such politicians in office than without them. So in that limited sense, the answer might be “yes.”

But electing individual progressives does little to change the broad dynamics of American politics or American capitalism. In fact, it can create a kind of placebo effect: sustaining the illusion of forward motion while obscuring the fact that neither party is structurally built to reflect working-class interests.

“Working within the Democratic Party” has been the prevailing model of progressive political action for decades now, and it suffers from a fundamental limitation: it cedes all real agency to professional politicians. The liberal office-seeker becomes the indispensable actor to whom all others, including progressives, must respond.

Think of Ted Kennedy or Mario Cuomo in the 1980s; Paul Wellstone or Russ Feingold in the 1990s; Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, or Bill de Blasio since 2000. Each emerges into the spotlight as they launch their careers or seek higher office. Each promises to represent “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Each generates a flurry of positive coverage in progressive media and a ripple of excitement within a narrow circle of progressive activists and voters.

Orbiting around these ambitious office-seekers are the progressive “grassroots” organizations exemplified by MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, or Progressive Democrats of America. (In an earlier, direct-mail era, it was Common Cause, People for the American Way, or even the Americans for Democratic Action.)

Run by salaried staffers, these groups monitor the political scene in search of worthy progressive candidates or legislative causes, alerting their supporters with bulletins urging them to “stand with” whichever progressive politico needs support at the moment. (Support, in this usage, usually means sending money, or signing an email petition.) Such groups generally maintain no formal standards for judging a candidate’s worthiness. Even if they did, in drawing up such standards they would be accountable to no one, and would have no power to change those candidates’ policy objectives.

Although it’s too early to tell, Bernie Sanders’s recently created Our Revolution organization seems in danger of falling into the same trap: becoming a mere middleman, or broker, standing between a diffuse, unorganized progressive constituency and a series of ambitious progressive office-seekers seeking their backing.

In this “party-less” model of politics, it’s the Democratic politician who goes about trying to recruit a base, rather than the other way around. The politician’s platform and message are devised by her and her alone. They can be changed on a whim. And there is no mechanism by which the politician can be held accountable to the (fairly nebulous) progressive constituency she has recruited to her cause.

The approach taken by the Working Families Party (WFP) is different, but it, too, remains vulnerable to the problems of such “party-less” politics. The WFP has built an impressive record of policy achievements in its New York State home base, using “fusion” voting – a ballot strategy forbidden by most state laws. (The ban on fusion is another legacy of the two-party election reforms of the 1890s.) Under fusion, a minor party places the name of a major-party’s nominee on its own ballot line, hoping that, if the major-party candidate wins, he or she will feel beholden to the minor party for however many votes it managed to “deliver.”

But the contradictions of its 2014 endorsement of New York governor Andrew Cuomo showed how the WFP’s fusion strategy can place it in the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, the party remains chained to the interests of Democratic Party politicians, forced to endorse candidates that are not its own, who run on platforms far removed from its priorities, as if it were a mere faction of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, it still needs to worry about keeping its third-party ballot line, leaving it exposed to the kind of ballot-repression problems that more marginal third parties face.

At a deeper level, the “party-less” model that dominates progressive politics today is an outgrowth of America’s lamentable history of “internally mobilized” parties: that is, parties organized by already-established politicians for the sole purpose of creating a mass constituency around themselves. The Democratic Party – created in the 1830s by a network of powerful incumbents led by New York senator and power broker Martin Van Buren – is the classic case.

This stands in contrast to “externally mobilized” parties: organized by ordinary people, standing outside the system, who come together around a cause and then go about recruiting their own representatives to contest elections, for the purpose of gaining power they don’t already have.

For reasons that are not hard to guess, historical parties of the Left – true parties of the Left – have, almost without exception, been mobilized externally. As the historian Geoff Eley recounts in his history of the Left in Europe:

“Parties of the Left sometimes managed to win elections and form governments, but, more important, they organized civil society into the basis from which existing democratic gains could be defended and new ones could grow. They magnetized other progressive causes and interests in reform. Without them, democracy was a nonstarter.”

By contrast, not a single externally mobilized party has ever attained national electoral significance in the United States. “The major political parties in American history,” writes Martin Shefter – who first introduced this taxonomy of party mobilization – “and most conservative and centrist parties in Europe,” were founded “by politicians who [held] leadership positions in the prevailing regime and who [undertook] to mobilize and organize a popular following behind themselves.”

“Modern democracy,” in E. E. Schattschneider’s classic formulation, “is unthinkable save in terms of the parties.”

Popular, working-class democracy, on the other hand, is unthinkable without parties mobilized from outside the political system – that is, by people organizing around common goals.

What Is a Democratic Party?

In a genuinely democratic party, the organization’s membership, program, and leadership are bound together tightly by a powerful, mutually reinforcing connection. The party’s members are its sovereign power; they come together through a sense of shared interest or principle. Through deliberation, the members establish a program to advance those interests. The party educates the public around the program, and it serves, in effect, as the lodestar by which the party is guided. Finally, the members choose a party leadership – including electoral candidates – who are accountable to the membership and bound by the program.

It might seem obvious that those are the characteristics of a truly democratic party. Yet the Democratic Party has none of them.

Start with the most fundamental fact about the Democratic Party: it has no members. A few months ago I was flattered to receive a letter signed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then chair of the Democratic National Committee, in which she urged me to consider sending a donation, thereby “becoming a DNC member,” in her words.

Was she proposing to let me vote on the Democratic primary schedule, or its mode of selecting convention delegates – or, for that matter, the next DNC chair? Obviously not. Mere “members” aren’t allowed to influence such decisions because, fundraising letters aside, there are no real members of the Democratic Party: “Unlike these [British, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand] democracies, where members join a political party through a process of application to the party itself, party membership in the United States has been described as ‘a fiction created by primary registration laws.’ ”

Just as the Democratic Party has no real membership, it offers only the most derisory semblance of a “program”: a quadrennial platform usually dictated by an individual nominee (or occasionally negotiated with a defeated rival) at the height of the election-season frenzy, a document that in most years no one reads and in all years no one takes seriously as a binding document. (At the state level, party platforms often reach hallucinatory levels of detachment from real politics.)

It’s true, of course, that in a constitutional democracy there’s never anything stopping an elected representative, once elected, from doing the opposite of what he or she had promised. And in the history of left-wing party politics it’s not hard to find instances where elected politicians have gone turncoat. One famous example was Ramsay MacDonald, a founder of the British Labour Party, who betrayed his party after becoming prime minister by joining with the Conservatives and pushing through drastic public spending cuts in the midst of the Depression.

But since MacDonald was accountable to a democratically organized party, he could be repudiated and expelled from that party – as he was in 1931, while still a sitting prime minister. For generations afterward, he was reviled within Labour Party circles, his name synonymous with betrayal.

Suppose, by way of comparison, that some onetime liberal Democratic hero – say, a senator – decides to flout the promises he or she initially made to MoveOn.org, or Democracy for America, or their constituents. Those groups’ staffs – whom no one has elected anyway – would have no power to meaningfully discipline, let alone expel, them.

To whom, then, is the senator accountable? An electorate, in theory, come reelection time. But no party.

This is the treadmill we need to get off.

A Party of a New Type

The widespread support for Bernie Sanders’s candidacy, particularly among young people, has opened the door for new ideas about how to form a democratic political organization rooted in the working class.

The following is a proposal for such a model: a national political organization that would have chapters at the state and local levels, a binding program, a leadership accountable to its members, and electoral candidates nominated at all levels throughout the country.

As a nationwide organization, it would have a national educational apparatus, recognized leaders and spokespeople at the national level, and its candidates and other activities would come under a single, nationally recognized label. And, of course, all candidates would be required to adhere to the national platform.

But it would avoid the ballot-line trap. Decisions about how individual candidates appear on the ballot would be made on a case-by-case basis and on pragmatic grounds, depending on the election laws and partisan coloration of the state or district in question. In any given race, the organization could choose to run in major- or minor-party primaries, as nonpartisan independents, or even, theoretically, on the organization’s own ballot line.

The ballot line would thus be regarded as a secondary issue. The organization would base its legal right to exist not on the repressive ballot laws, but on the fundamental rights of freedom of association.

Such a project probably wouldn’t have been feasible in the past, due to campaign-finance laws. For most of the last four decades, the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA), along with similar laws in many states, would have left any such organization with little alternative but to fundraise through a political action committee (PAC). That PAC would have been limited to giving a maximum of $5,000 (the current threshold) to each of its candidates per election, and barred from taking money from unions or collecting donations larger than $5,000 from individuals. That kind of fundraising could never support a national organization.

All of these restrictions would be waived if, like the DNC or RNC, the group registered as a “party committee.” But there’s a catch: a group can only register as a party committee if it runs the ballot-access gauntlet at the state level (a requirement from which Democrats and Republicans are exempt), then wins a ballot line and runs its candidates on it. (Here we find one of the many reasons scholars have described the FECA as a “major-party protection act.”)

In the years leading up to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, these regulations were already being eroded by the emergence of so-called “527” groups, which evaded the laws by taking unlimited donations to finance “independent expenditures” on behalf of candidates.

But in the wake of Citizens United (and subsequent rulings), the restrictions no longer pose a serious obstacle at all. Today, a national political organization could adopt the “Carey” model of campaign finance, validated in 2011 by the Carey v. FEC federal court decision. In this model, the national organization would incorporate as a 501(c)4 social welfare organization, permitting it to endorse candidates and engage in explicit campaigning, while accepting unlimited donations and spending unlimited amounts on political education. (It would also, of course, be free to adopt rigorous self-imposed disclosure rules, as it should.)

In addition, it would be allowed to establish a PAC that maintains two separate accounts: one permitted to donate to, and directly coordinate with, individual candidates (though subject to FECA contribution limits and allowed to actively solicit contributions only from the organization’s own members); and the other allowed to accept unlimited contributions and make unlimited independent expenditures on behalf of its candidates (though not donations to candidates themselves). A separate online “conduit” PAC, on the ActBlue model, could aggregate small-donor hard-money fundraising on a mass scale to finance the individual campaigns.

With a viable fundraising model patterned along these lines, all of the organization’s candidates nationwide, up and down the ballot, would be able to benefit from its name recognition and educational activities. It could sponsor speakers, hold debates, establish a network of campus affiliates, and designate spokespeople who would be recognized as its public voices. In the media and on the internet, voters would be continually exposed to its perspective on the events of the day and its proposals for the future.

To put the electoral possibilities of this approach into perspective, consider a few numbers. In 2014, there were 1,056 open-seat state-legislative races (races where no incumbent was running). The median winner spent only $51,000, for the primary and general elections combined. Two-thirds of the races cost less than $100,000. And in 36 per cent of all state-legislative races that year – almost 2,500 seats – the winner had run unopposed.

I think this model can work. But like any blueprint, it’s not a panacea. Simply filing the paperwork to create such an organization is not going to magically conjure a large and successful movement into existence. To make it work, it needs to be a real vehicle and voice for working-class interests. And that means a significant part of the labor movement would have to be at its core. •

Seth Ackerman is a doctoral candidate in history at Cornell, and on the editorial board of Jacobin where this article first appeared.

President Trump: The Anti-Globalist USA Champion or Just Another Con Man Riding a Trojan Horse?

By Joachim Hagopian, November 16 2016

Many Americans who’ve been supporting President-elect Trump see him as the populist leader who will save America from ruin. Trump supporters have been unfairly marginalized and pigeonholed by the MSM broad stroke as white supremacy extremists bent on plunging America back into a new Jim Crowism era and a second Civil War along with a growing number of angry, uneducated, disenfranchised blue collar, mostly white male redneck loser types. Despite a spike in racist graffiti and vandalism since the election, this gross overgeneralization is the Hillary/MSM’s desperate attempt to discredit Trump’s victory while establishment NGOs continues funneling money into paid agitators bussed to US city “warfronts” to foment violence, chaos and national crisis.

Donald Trump, Draining the Swamp? The Alt-Right Backlash…

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, November 16 2016

“Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor. Make no mistake about it: we did this. If it were not for us, it wouldn’t have been possible. … [T]he White race is back in the game. And if we’re playing, no one can beat us. The winning is not going to stop.” The above is a revealing quote from the Neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, which claims to be the “#1 Alt-Right” website, following Donald Trump’s election, Stormfront’s motto is: “White Pride Worldwide”: “the Storm has Arrived”

Trump’s Card on Illegal Immigrants: From Obstacles to Impossibility

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 16 2016

Throughout the campaign for the White House, Donald Trump sensationalised one of the great sores of US political and social life: the issue of immigrants, notably the undocumented, and what his presidency would do to them.

Trump Transition Points to Escalation of US Militarism

By Bill Van Auken, November 16 2016

Multiple media reports that former New York City Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is president-elect Donald Trump’s top choice for secretary of state have provided further indication of the extreme right-wing and militarily bellicose character of the incoming US administration.

Five Stunning Facts About the 2016 Election

By Washington’s Blog, November 16 2016

Here are 5 stunning facts about the 2016 election…

Throughout the campaign for the White House, Donald Trump sensationalised one of the great sores of US political and social life: the issue of immigrants, notably the undocumented, and what his presidency would do to them.

As Trump asserted to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, the target here was deporting “the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, we have a lot of people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.”

To that end, he has also promised to create what he has termed a “deportation force” specifically to “round up” undocumented residents, enabling the “good” ones to enter on a legal basis. This view, incidentally, in such countries as Australia and some in the European Union.

Throughout its history with immigration, the United States has had a complex association, swerving between nativist impulse and economic accommodation.  The issue of Hispanic immigrants, most notably Mexicans, riles various US citizens concerned that a reconquista, pecking away at US sovereignty, is in the making.  Trump’s promised Wall along the Mexican border is not so much a practical response as a viscerally padded one, rooted in the symbol of control long lost.

Since a Trump administration is supposedly going to be all about business, the near impossibility of achieving the totality of such an ignoble dream will come to the fore.  The balance sheet of contributions by immigrants, whatever their status, has always outweighed by some good margin what negative aspects the vast pool offers the United States.  Furthermore, the undocumented pool provides a class that enables prices, however justly this may seem, to be kept down.

To deport on scale millions of immigrants deemed unsuitable to the US dream would not so much make America great again – to use Trump’s tiresome, sales-pitched line – as it would unmake it.  That is merely an observation on consequence, and possibly one the non-ideologues will pick up on.

The figure of two to three million drawn out by Trump out of his not so magical hat is also questionable. The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t have those figures, at least in so far as they are of the bad egg variety.  The Donald, as ever, continues being shallow about the facts.

Trump is also going to be facing considerable opposition on the ground, both from the legal side of matters, and logistical frustrations. The machinery needed to fulfil the removal of such immigrants is patchy, often stuttering due to local measures.

The Due Process Clause of the US Constitution stands out as one the greatest impediments. Full removal proceedings must be undergone in court. Time is required, with the government having to show grounds of alienage and deportability, with the respondent permitted grounds of defence and opportunities to plead for relief from deportation. These points are also outlined in measures implemented by Congress. A burdensome road for the government indeed.

The scale also being promised would be staggering – the ACLU suggests that the whole mass deportation scheme, were it to be implemented, would require the arrest of 15,000 people a day on immigration charges, seven days a week, 365 days a year.[1]  Courts charged with immigration cases are bound to suffer acute paralysis.

In hotspot California, opposition and resistance to any such policy from a Trump administration is being promised.  In Los Angeles alone reside up to a million undocumented immigrants of the total 11 million in the country.  Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said on Monday that no favours were going to be given to the federal government, making the point that the LAPD would not abandon precedent in favour of Trump’s new calls.[2]

“We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status.  We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts.  That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.”

Since 1979, then police chief Daryl Gates signed Special Order 40 prohibiting officers from making contact with someone on the sole grounds of determining whether he or she was in the country on legal grounds.[3]  During Gates’ tenure, the supply of those arrested for low-tier crimes to federal agencies for deportation started to dry up.  The LAPD, in other words, was uninterested in doing the dirty work of the federal authorities.

This effectively undercuts the issue of identifying the undocumented non-citizens in question. To deport, you would have to have the means, and complicity of state authorities, to conduct the round-up. Such behaviour, if conducted to scale, would result in mass violations of the Fourth Amendment, a true police state measure.

Trump has a few bullying tricks up his sleeve. He has threatened to withdraw funding from police departments and sanctuary cities that persist in their pathway of protection and stalling on the issue of how to deal with undocumented residents.  But government is not merely about hard cash and threats of targeting budgets. Ideas and pragmatism count, and Trump’s self-proclaimed embrace of shallowness in search of success will have to bend – at least at points.

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

Notes

[1] https://action.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pages/trumpmemos.pdf

[2] http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-police-immigration-20161114-story.html

[3] http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf

“Our Glorious Leader has ascended to God Emperor. Make no mistake about it: we did this. If it were not for us, it wouldn’t have been possible. … [T]he White race is back in the game. And if we’re playing, no one can beat us. The winning is not going to stop.”

The above is a revealing quote from the Neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, which claims to be the “#1 Alt-Right” website, following Donald Trump’s election, Stormfront’s motto is: “White Pride Worldwide”: “the Storm has Arrived”

And KKK ex-Grand Wizard David Duke couldn’t help but celebrate the part that his white supremacist movement had in electing Trump.

Duke proclaimed the day after the election: “make no mistake about it, our people played a HUGE role in electing Trump!… You arrogant, unthankful, degenerate pieces of shit no longer have absolute power.”

And the image below makes clear one of the reasons that southern white supremacists and southern states rights’ advocates have had so much power since the South’s humiliating defeat150 years ago in the War Between the States.

The hard core among them don’t think that the “godly” cause of white supremacy over non-whites was actually lost. Trump has given hope to them, and now the White House and control over the US might be a possibility. And theocratic Southern Christian Fundamentalists, with whom the KKK types seem to have a silent relationship, agree, for, as Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed revealed during the last part of the 20^th century:

What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime, we will see a country once again governed by Christians…and Christian values.” “I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag. You don’t know until election night. — Ralph Reed

Two months ago Hillary Clinton unwisely made the now-infamous statement saying that half of Donald Trump’s supporters were what she libelously characterized as “a basket of deplorables”.

She was speaking at the LGBT for Hillary Gala in New York City 2 months before election day. In the speech, Clinton went on to explain the phrase by saying that many of Trump’s supporters were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic.”

Hillary could have legitimately elaborated by adding to her list ofl anti-democracy hate groups some of the following groups of ardent Trump supporters: sociopathic groups like the Ku Klux Klan; far right-wing activists like David Duke; assorted NeoFascist groups, white supremacy groups (pro-Trump “Make America White Again”) and the hundreds of well-armed paramilitary vigilantes across America (as listed in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s archives at: https://www.splcenter.org/issues/hate-and-extremism).

Perhaps a more “progressive” Hillary Clinton could have added some of the following white collar, Wall Street and War Street parasitic predatory capitalist and investor groups who thrive by feeding at the “Corporate Welfare Trough” who increase wasteful military spending, expand the American Empire, privatize Social Security and keep  the for-profit prison system privatized and highly profitable for investors.

There are many antidemocratic American groups that have emerged, since the Trump campaign’s success, from both Washington insider “swamps” and non-Washington outsider “swamps” who are feeling their oats and are becoming energized Trump sycophants because of his vote-getting “promises”, most of which will not be kept.

Most Trump voters aren’t crypto-fascists or even racists. They voted that way because they wanted to give the middle finger to the establishments of both major political parties, neither of which had been very responsive to their needs for seemingly generations. Many Trump voters, even if they couldn’t articulate it, wanted to say “F… You” to the sea of predatory corporations that have kept them in perennial consumer debt, credit card debt, educational debt, mortgage debt, and healthcare debt and also dependent on the multitude of addictive consumer products (including their medications) that they can’t stop purchasing or swallowing (legal addictive psychiatric drugs, illegal addictive street drugs, nicotine, caffeine, spectator sports (especially NFL football), videogaming, entertainment and pornography all come to mind).

Why So Many Bernie Supporters Didn’t Vote For Hillary

Prior to having the nomination stolen from him, Bernie Sanders had energized a lot of the lower 99% of the minority and oppressed population (both white and non-white, some of whom also wanted to give the finger to the Democratic Party establishment that had repeatedly ignored them for  all those years). Bernie particularly resonated with young people because he was exposing a lot of the establishment’s corruption that those voters had suspected but had not heard articulated so powerfully.

So when Bernie was cheated by the Democratic National Committee, many of those young voters naturally became disillusioned and some of the less progressive ones were even attracted to Donald Trump, the other anti-establishment candidate. Some of them voted for Trump, even if they had to hold their noses, symbolically saying “F… You” to America’s Two Party system and the corporate elites who had control over both of them; and the enthusiasm that Bernie had generated went to waste.

I take no pride in saying “I told you so” to the misbegotten Hillary campaign insiders who dissed and cheated Bernie and his supporters (offered no apologies), but I agree with many political pundits that Bernie would have beaten Trump last Tuesday.

I attach below portions of my (prophetic?) June 14, 2016 Duty to Warn column that was published soon after Hillary became the Democratic Party nominee. The column was titled:

“Why Many Bernie Supporters Will Soon be Abandoning the Democratic Party”, and the pertinent subtitle was “Why Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Organizers and her Democratic Party Super-Delegates Will Some Day Regret Sabotaging Sanders’ Candidacy”.

The 2016 Democratic primaries have been frustrating for many progressives who have had their political juices awakened and energized by the nonviolent political revolution of Bernie Sanders, his New Deal/Fair Deal politics, his democratic socialist candidacy and his support for oppressed and discriminated-against minorities (including Latinos, African-Americans, Native Americans, Palestinians, Muslims and the LGBT community, among others).

But the Democratic Party, once the mortal enemy of fascism, corporate monopolies, governmental rule by wealthy elites and fraudulent elections, has sabotaged, through any number of backroom deals (and with the willing help of the corporate-controlled media), Sanders’ highly respected, altruistic candidacy. The Democratic national leadership has unfairly denied him the well-deserved nomination. Because of the intransigency of their pro-Wall Street, pro-War Street, wealthy insiders in the party hierarchy, they will soon regret what they have done as much as the GOP will soon be regretting the choice of the xenophobic, sociopathic, paranoid, narcissistic megalomaniacal Donald Trump as their party’s leader.

Both political parties have had their agendas shaped by billionaire corporate and militaristic plutocrats and Wall Street tycoons who have purchased large numbers of mercenary lobbyists, lawyers and federal and Supreme Court judges and also the loyalties of the vast majorities of elected legislators (both at the state and national levels) via massive amounts of campaign cash.  The classic truism of “whoever pays the piper, calls the tune” still holds in 2016.

It is truly rare to find altruistic politicians in America who are capable of igniting the imaginations and hopes of millions of folks, especially minorities and the younger generations, who have been “feeling the Bern”.

The Wall Street/War Street NeoCons (now tragically in total control of the GOP and in positions of majority power in the Democratic Party) have been somehow allowing a small minority of idealistic politicians to exist in America, I suppose partly for window-dressing. As Rush Limbaugh once proclaimed (after the GOP started feeling its oats in DC in the mid-90s): “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus—living fossils—so we will never forget what these people stood for.”

But there have been other American idealists throughout history that have also felt something resembling ‘the Bern’. Such people-power movements have happened only a handful of times over the past American century. Each movement’s progressive leadership has been ‘disappeared’, snuffed out or ‘suicided’, either by intimidation, assassination, smear campaigns or some other political intrigue such as imprisonment (as in the case of democratic socialist and labor union leader Eugene Debs, who was convicted in 1918 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for his antiwar activism [where he continued his run for president on the American Socialist Party ticket, garnering nearly a million votes]).

History tells us about the brief appearances of past progressive movements that promised to benefit the ‘common man’, like ‘Fighting Bob’ LaFollete’s Progressive Party era, Eugene Debs’s persecuted Socialist Party, FDR’s New Deal era, the antiwar, liberal efforts of JFK, RFK and MLK, Eugene McCarthy, Paul Wellstone’s people’s campaign, Ralph Nader’s Green Party candidacy, Occupy Wall Street’s efforts, the disappearing democratic wing of the Democratic Party and, most importantly, all those millions of eager progressive-minded college-age Bernie supporters who so clearly see the dire need for a true political revolution.” <<Snip>>

Draining the Swamp, but Protecting Many of the Far Right-Wing Swamp-dwellers

One of Donald Trump’s sure-fire applause lines – besides pledging to “make America great again”, pledging to put Hillary Clinton behind bars, and forcing Mexico to pay for his multi-billion dollar border wall – was his pledge to “drain the swamp” in Washington. Un-appreciated by most his true believers, Trump’s transition team and likely appointees are heavily populated with swamp creatures who are already mired in Washington or, what actually might be worse for the nation, New York’s Wall Street.

Trump’s supporters and assorted partners in crime include white collar corporate bigwigs from both Wall Street’s Big Banks and War Street’s Big Weapons industries. These elite swamp creatures are behind-the-scenes multimillionaires campaign contributors (who expect handsome returns on their “investments”) that have also funded right-wing think tanks, anti-environmental activist groups, climate change deniers, oil industry lobbyists, former federal bureaucrats, pro-industry academics, corporate lawyers, and assorted special-interest lobbyists.

Below are excerpts from a list of individual and their conflicts of interest. The information came from: http://bigstory.ap.org/7f2605f079334fddb0dfb341010b68ea.

The original AP article mentioned Trump’s frequently stated promise to “Drain the Swamp in Washington” and was titled “Trump Relies on Washington Insiders to Build Administration”. Below I have excerpted pertinent details about those insiders: These theme of the piece prompted me to consider sub-titling this portion of the column:

A Basket of Swamp-dwelling Bureaucrats that Trump won’t Flush Down the Drain

An internal organizational chart for the Trump transition team lists more than 30 names, some well-known within the GOP establishment. They are tasked with helping to select and vet Trump’s Cabinet, as well as map out the key policy initiatives the new administration will pursue.

Their areas of experience and policy expertise on the chart hint at future efforts to restrict abortion, strip away consumer protections, boost defense spending, and dismantle environmental regulations. Key members of Mr. Trump’s team are also advocates for sweeping privatization of government programs, including Social Security.

’Personnel is policy’, said Republican operative Ron Kaufman, who also served in George W. Bush’s White House.

The team … is in charge of putting together hiring recommendations, working with outgoing appointees, and laying the groundwork for the administration’s opening months. <<snip>>

The behind-the-scenes transition operation is being run by Ron Nichol, a senior partner at The Boston Group, a management consulting firm where 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney launched his business career.

The man put in charge of staffing for the Social Security Administration, Michael Korbey, is a former lobbyist who led President George W. Bush’s effort to privatize America’s retirement system. (Note that Trump did not campaign to privatize Social Security.)

Overseeing the transition for domestic issues is Ken Blackwell, the former Republican Ohio secretary of state, state treasurer, and Cincinnati mayor. He is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, which opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Veteran agribusiness lobbyist Michael Torrey is tasked with transforming the Agriculture Department.

Energy industry lobbyist Mike McKenna, who represents electricity and chemical companies, is leading the Energy Department transition team.

For the Interior Department there is David Bernhardt, a top lawyer at the agency under President George W. Bush who represents mining companies seeking to use resources on federal lands and Indian reservations. (Sarah Palin, an ardent anti-environmentalist and climate change denier, whose campaign slogan when she ran for Vice President with John McCain was “Drill Baby Drill” – is reportedly being considered for Interior Department Secretary.)

Lobbyist Steven Hart, who focuses on tax and employee benefits, is leading the transition team for the Labor Department.

Cindy Hayden, a former congressional staffer who is now the top lobbyist for Altria, the parent company of cigarette-maker Philip Morris, is overseeing the transition for the Homeland Security Department.

Jeff Eisenach, a consultant and former lobbyist who has called for deregulation of the telecommunications industry, is overseeing the transition for the Federal Communications Commission.

One of Trump’s campaign pledges was to spending up to $1 trillion over 10 years on infrastructure projects. But his selection to oversee the transition for the Transportation Department, Shirley Ybarra, has been a champion of “public-private partnerships” to build toll roads and bridges. A former Virginia state transportation secretary, Ms. Ybarra now works as a policy analyst with the libertarian-leaning Reason Foundation, which has received support from conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch.

Trump has also pledged to renegotiate the Paris climate treaty signed in December, saying efforts to restrict the carbon emissions are harming American industries such as coal mining.

Trump’s pick to oversee the transition for the Environmental Protection Agency is Myron Ebell from the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has voiced the false view that man-made global warming is a hoax. Ebell has called for dismantling environmental protections and assigning international carbon-cutting agreements to the ‘dustbin of history’

Trump has pledged to transform a national economy he said was hobbled by bad trade deals and rigged against American workers by Wall Street and the big banks. His list of advisers indicates an interest in rolling back many of the reforms made in the wake of the 2008 recession and appears to signal an interest in deregulating the financial sector.

David Malpass, who is overseeing the Treasury Department transition, was Bear Stearns’ chief economist in the years before the firm’s 2008 collapse. A few months before the recession began, Mr. Malpass wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled ‘Don’t Panic About the Credit Market.’ ‘Housing and debt markets are not that big a part of the US economy, or of job creation,’ Malpass said in August 2007, predicting continued economic growth. He has complained about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts.

Dan DiMicco, who is overseeing the transition of the US trade representative’s office, fits in well with Trump’s avowed hard line on tariffs. The former chief executive of steel company NUCOR and a board member at Duke Energy, he’s likely to steer the US toward far more aggressive trade policy. In his 2015 book, Mr. DiMicco declared that the United States is already in a trade war with China — and that it’s losing.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R) of Michigan, is taking the lead on crafting Trump’s national security team. The former chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mr. Rogers serves on boards for consulting firms IronNet Cybersecurity and Next Century Corp.

At the Justice Department, Kevin O’Connor, a former US attorney for Connecticut, is overseeing the transition. He briefly served as chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a George W. Bush appointee who resigned from the Justice Department in 2007 amid a scandal over the firing of US attorneys. He was also a partner at the law firm of close Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani. (Note: Guiliani is reported to be a top prospect for Attorney General.)

Jim Carafano is the Heritage Foundation’s vice president for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and is leading the transition at the State Department. A 25-year Army veteran, Mr. Carafano has been advising Trump on terrorism and border security. In a recent radio interview, Carafano said he told Trump that the next administration must pay more attention to transnational criminal cartels, toughen border security, and fight Al Qaeda globally. (Note: Newt Gingrich is reported to be a top prospect for Secretary of State.)

Trump has tapped retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who is close to Trump military adviser Michael Flynn, to oversee the transition for the Defense Department. Kellogg was chief operating officer for Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, which governed the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Working with Kellogg is Mira Ricardel, a former acting assistant defense secretary during the George W. Bush administration who more recently served as vice president of business development for Boeing Strategic Missile & Defense Systems, a major military contractor.”

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

His columns are archived at Global Research, click Gary G. Kohls as well as the Duluth Reader at http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn,

Damascus, SANA-President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to RTP TV channel (Portugal). Emphasis added by GR Editor

Following is the full text;

Question 1: Mr. President, let’s start with Aleppo if you don’t mind. There are still thousands of civilians trapped, trying to survive in a sort of sub-human conditions in the middle of a deluge of bombs. Why do you think that they refused to get out?

President Assad: The part that you mention in Aleppo, what they call it the eastern part, is occupied by the terrorists for the last three years, and they have been using the civilians as human shields. From our side, from our part as government, we have two missions: the first one is to fight those terrorists to liberate that area and the civilians from those terrorists, and at the same time to try to find a solution to evacuate that area from those terrorists if they accept, let’s say, what you call it reconciliation option, in which they either give up their armaments for amnesty, or they leave that area. The other thing we did as government is to open gates for the civilians to leave that area, and at the same time for the humanitarian convoys and help to go through those gates inside that part of Aleppo, but the terrorists publicly refused any solution, so they wanted to keep the situation as it is.

Question 2: But Mr. President, aren’t you using the jihadists to discredit all the oppositions at the eyes of the national and international public opinion, and in the end to try to wipe them all out?

President Assad: No, we cannot do that for a very simple reason: because we’ve been dealing with this kind of terrorism since the fifties, since the Muslim Brotherhood came to Syria at that time, and we learned that lesson very well, especially in the eighties, that terrorists cannot be used as a political card, you cannot put it in your pocket, because it’s like a scorpion; it will bite you someday. So, we cannot use jihadists because it’s like shooting yourself in the foot. They’re going to be against you sooner or later. This is in a pragmatic way, but if you think as value, we wouldn’t do it. Using terrorism or jihadists or extremists for any political agenda is immoral.

Question 3: But Mr. President, the people, the civilians inside Aleppo, couldn’t we assume that they probably don’t trust the government, they don’t trust the army, that they just want democracy, dignity, freedom? Can you give that to them?

President Assad: Let’s talk about this point, regarding the reality; since the beginning of the crisis, since the terrorists started to control some areas within Syria, the majority of the Syrian civilians left that areas to join the government areas, not vice versa. If the majority of the Syrians don’t trust the government, they should go the other way.

Let me tell you another example, which is a starker example. You were in Daraya, al-Muadamiya, a few days ago, when you came here, and the terrorists and militants who left that area to Idleb in the northern part of Syria to join their fellow terrorists, they left their families under the supervision of the government, and you can go and visit them now, if you want.

Question 4: Mr. President, I’ve been here first four years ago, and now. Are you winning the war, this war in Syria?

President Assad: We can say, you can win the war only when you restore stability in Syria. You cannot talk about winning the war as long as there’s killing and destruction on daily basis. That doesn’t mean we are losing the war; the army is making good advancement on daily basis against the terrorists. Of course, they still have the support of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some Western countries including the United States, but the only option that we have in that regard is to win. If you don’t win and the terrorists win, Syria wouldn’t exist anymore.

Question 5: But would you have done that also without Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia?

President Assad: They are here because they could offer very essential and important help, because the situation that we are facing now is not only about a few terrorists from within Syria; it’s like international war against Syria. Those terrorists have been supported by tens of foreign countries, so Syria alone wouldn’t be able to face this kind of war without the help of its friends. That’s why their existence and their support was very essential.

Question 6: Isn’t Mr. Putin your most important ally?

President Assad: Russia is very important, Iran is very important, Hezbollah is very important. All of them are important. Each one made important achievements against the terrorists in Syria, so it’s difficult to say who is more important than the other.

Journalist: But what’s the role of Russia in Syria nowadays?

President Assad: The most important part of their support is the aerial support, which is very essential, they have very strong firepower, and at the same time they are the main supply of our army for more than sixty years, so our army depends on the Russian support in different military domains.

Question 7: But are you free to decide the future of Syria, or are you dependent on Vladimir Putin’s strategies?

President Assad: No, first of all, we are fully free, not partially, fully free, in everything related to the future of Syria. Second, which is more important or as important as the first part or the first factor, that the Russians always base their policies on values, and these values are the sovereignty of other countries, the international law, respecting other people, other cultures, so they don’t interfere in whatever is related to the future of Syria or the Syrian people.

Question 8: But they have helped you quite a few times in the United Nations. They have vetoed a few resolutions condemning your government, and the Syrian Army. There are several reports regarding Syria for use of chemical weapons, human right abuses, war crimes. All of this in the framework of the United Nations.

President Assad: And many ask “what for?” I mean, what’s in return, what did they ask in return, that’s the question, actually, that’s the content of your question, because we heard it many times, whether in the media or directly. Actually, first of all, for their values, because in these values that I’m talking about, the value of international law, and they have their interest as well. I mean, fighting the terrorists in Syria is not only in the interest of Syria or the Syrian people; in the interest of the Middle East, of Europe itself – something that many officials in the West don’t see or don’t realize or don’t acknowledge – and in the interest of the Russian people, because they have been facing terrorists for decades now. So, the Russians are fighting for us, for the world, and for their self.

Question 9: But when you speak about values, democracy is a value.

President Assad: Of course.

Journalist: Freedom is a value.

President Assad: Of course.

Question 10: Can you say that Syria is a democracy, like the Western standards?

President Assad: The only one who can fight for these values like democracy and freedoms are the people of any country or any society, not the foreigners. Foreigners cannot bring freedom, cannot bring democracy, because this is related to the culture, to the different factors that affect or influence that society. You cannot bring it, you cannot import it. You cannot import anything from outside your country regarding the future of your country.

Question 11: But would you define Syria as a democracy?

President Assad: No, we were on the way to democracy. We didn’t say that we are fully democratic, we were on the way, we were moving forward. Slowly or fast, that’s subjective, cannot be objective, that’s always subjective. But we’re moving forward in that regard, of course. But the criteria or the paradigm for us is not the West, not the Western paradigm, because the West has its own culture, we have our own culture, they have their own reality, we have our own reality. So, our democracy should reflect our culture and our habits and our customs and our reality at the same time.

Question 12: I’m sure that you know that there is a new Secretary-General of the United Nations. How do you look at him, Mr. Guterres, taking into the account his well-known humanitarian approach to the situation?

President Assad: Of course, I agree about the headline of this approach. I say “headline” because you always – under the headline, you have many sub-headlines or different titles. When you talk about humanitarian, it doesn’t only mean to offer the people the help, the food, their necessary needs for their life. The first thing, if you ask the Syrian refugees, for example, the first thing they want is to go back to their country. The first thing they want is to be able to live within Syria. That means help, humanitarian help, the way we understand it, food, medical care, any other, let’s say, basics for the daily life. The second one is to have stability and to have security, which means humanitarian equals fighting terrorists. You cannot talk about humanitarian aid and supporting the terrorists at the same time. You cannot, you have to choose. And of course, I’m not talking about him; I’m talking about the countries that go to support his plan, because he needs the support of other countries, he cannot achieve that plan while many countries in the world are still supporting the terrorists in Syria. So, of course we support it, whether helping the people to live, to go back to their country, and to live in security without terrorists.

Question 13: He said already that peace in Syria is a priority. Are you available to talk with him, to work with him, for that purpose?

President Assad: Definitely, of course. It’s his priority, and of course it’s our priority, that’s self-evident. It’s not only our priority; it’s a Middle Eastern priority, and when the Middle East is stable, the rest of the world is stable, because the Middle East is the heart of the world geographically and geopolitically, and Syria is the heart of the Middle East geographically and geopolitically. We are the fault line; if you don’t deal with this fault line, you’re going to have an earthquake, that’s what we always said. That’s why this priority is a hundred percent correct from our point of view, and we are ready to cooperate in any way to achieve stability in Syria, of course taking into consideration the interest of the country, and the will of the Syrian people.

Question 14: You said when we spoke that the United Nations are biased. You think with Mr. Guterres that can change a little bit?

President Assad: Everybody knows that the United Nations is not the Secretary-General; he has an important position, but the United Nations is the states within this organization, and to be frank, most of the people say only the five permanent members; this is the United Nations because they have the veto, they can do whatever they want and they can refuse whatever they want, and if there’s a reform that is very much needed for this organization, they can make veto or they can move forward in that regard. But at the same time, the way he presented himself as Secretary-General is very important. If you ask me “what do you expect from such a new official in that important position,” I would say I need two things: the first one is to be objective in every statement he could make regarding any conflict around the world, including Syria. The second one, which is related and complimentary with the first one, is not to turn his office into a part or branch of the State Department of the United States. That’s what we expect now. Of course, when he’s objective, he can play an important role in dealing with different officials in the United Nations in order to bring the policies of the different states – mainly Russia and the United States – toward more cooperation and more stability regarding Syria.

Question 15: But regarding Syria, there are a lot agendas: Qatar, Turkey, Russia, United States, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. How is it possible to try to find that peace process with so many agendas?

President Assad: Without bringing all those countries and the different factors in one direction, of course it’s going to be difficult. That’s why I always say the Syrian problem as isolated case, as Syrian case, is not very complicated. What makes it complicated is the interference from the outside, especially the Western interference because it’s against the will of the Syrian government, while the intervention of the Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah is because of the invitation of the Syrian government. So, his role as Secretary-General in bringing all these powers together is very essential` and we hope he can succeed, it’s not easy of course.

Question 16: Let me pick out Turkey; their army is in your country, their President said last week that their interests lies beyond the natural borders; he referred to Mosul and Aleppo. Do you accept this?

President Assad: Of course not. You’re talking about a sick person; he’s megalomaniac President, he is not stable. He lives during the Ottoman era, he doesn’t live in the current time. He’s out of touch with the reality.

Question 17: But how you are going to do with their army inside your country?

President Assad: It’s our right to defend it; it’s invasion. It’s our right to defend our country against any kind of invasion. But let’s be realistic, every terrorist came to Syria, he came through Turkey with the support of Erdogan. So, fighting those terrorists is like fighting the army of Erdogan, not the Turkish army, the army of Erdogan.

Question 18: But it’s a NATO country, are you aware of that?

President Assad: Yeah, of course. Whether it is a NATO country or not, it doesn’t have the right to invade any other country according to the international law or to any other moral value.

Question 19: Mr. President, America’s new elected President, what do you expect of Donald J. Trump?

President Assad: We don’t have a lot of expectations because the American administration is not only about the President; it’s about different powers within this administration, the different lobbies that they are going to influence any President. So, we have to wait and see when he embarks his new mission, let’s say, or position within this administration as President in two months’ time. But we always say we have wishful thinking that the Unites States would be unbiased, respect the international law, doesn’t interfere in other countries around the world, and of course to stop supporting terrorists in Syria.

Question 20: But he said in an interview that he seems to be ready to work with you in the fight against the Islamic State or ISIL, are you ready for such a move?

President Assad: Of course, I would say this is promising, but can he deliver? Can he go in that regard? What about the countervailing forces within the administration, the mainstream media that were against him? How can he deal with it? That’s why for us it’s still dubious whether he can do or live up to his promises or not. That’s why we are very cautious in judging him, especially as he wasn’t in a political position before. So, we cannot tell anything about what he’s going to do, but if, let’s say if he is going to fight the terrorists, of course we are going to be ally, natural ally in that regard with the Russian, with the Iranian, with many other countries who wanted to defeat the terrorists.

Question 21: So, you will cooperate with the Americans in the fight against terrorists?

President Assad: Of course, definitely, if they are genuine, if they have the will, and if they have the ability, of course we are the first ones to fight the terrorists because we suffered more than any other one in this world from terrorists.

Question 22: So, cooperate with the Americans that are now supporting the Kurds, the YPG that are trying to get into Raqqa?

President Assad: When you talk about cooperation, it means cooperation between two legal governments, not cooperation between foreign government and any faction within Syria. Any cooperation that doesn’t go through the Syrian government is not legal. If it’s not legal, we cannot cooperate with, and we don’t recognize and we don’t accept.

Question 23: Anyway, the Vice President, Mr. Pence, said that he has admitted the use of military force to prevent your military force from a humanitarian crisis in Aleppo, how do you look at it?

President Assad: This is against the international law again, and that’s the problem with the American position; they think that they are the police of the world. They think they are the judge of the world; they’re not. They are sovereign country, they are an independent country, but this is their limit; they don’t have to interfere in any other country. Because of this interference for the last fifty years, that’s why they are very good only in creating problems, not in solving problems. That’s the problem with the American role. That’s why I said we don’t pin a lot of hopes of changing administrations because that context has been going on for more than fifty years now, and that’s expected. If they want to continue in the same position of the United States creating problems around the world, that’s what they have to do: only interfering in the matters of other nations.

Question 24: But returning to what the President, the newly elected American President said about cooperating with your government in the fight against Islamic State, do you expect a change also within European countries?

President Assad: Regarding fighting terrorism, we are ready to cooperate with anyone in this world with no conditions. That’s crux of our policy, not today, not yesterday; for years, even before the war on Syria, we always said that. In the eighties, we asked for international coalition against terrorism after the Muslim Brotherhood crisis in Syria when they started killing, of course they were defeated at that time. We asked for the same thing. So, this is a long-term policy that we base our policy on for years now.

Question 25: One last question. Mr. President, I need really to ask you this, because after all these years, do you still reject any responsibility for what happened in your country?

President Assad: No, I never rejected any responsibility, but that depends on the decision. When you talk about responsibility, you ask yourself what are the decisions that you take in order to deal with the crisis. Did the President order anyone to kill civilians, did he order the destruction, did he order supporting terrorism in his country? Of course not. My decision was, and the decision of the different institutions, and the decision of the different officials in Syria – I’m on top of them – was to have dialogue, to fight terrorists, and to reform as a response at the very beginning, response to the allegations, let’s say, at that time, that they needed reform in Syria, we responded. So, that’s the decision that I took. Would you say, or would anyone say that fighting terrorism is wrong? Making dialogue is wrong? Making reform is wrong? Protecting the civilians and liberating areas from terrorists is wrong? Of course not. So, there’s a difference between responsibility of the policy and responsibility of the practice. In any practice, you have malpractice, that’s another issue. When you talk about state and President, you always talk about the decisions and the policy.

Journalist: Thank you for being with RTP Mr. President.

President Assad: Thanks for you.

As the war in Syria continues to rage on, it is becoming more and more obvious that the battle taking place is about much more than Syria as a country. In this place, the cradle of civilization, there are now two warring ideologies. One that demands total fealty and the absence of all dissent, and one that believes a nation’s people should decide for themselves the direction of their country. One ideology wants to force its hegemonic world system upon all other nations, and the other contends that nations should choose their own direction.

This is not to argue perfection on the part of Syria or Russia by any means. But it is a reality nonetheless.

Even in the United States itself, a battle is raging that will determine whether or not the country will continue to march forward in totalitarianism and decline or whether individual choice and high living standards will rule the day. The elections have been, of course, merely a manifestation of the most vile elements of American society and the battle continues on despite the result.

Those vile elements are exactly those which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s political and media advisor addressed when she recently took to social media to condemn Western policy in Syria. But it was not only the foreign policy of proxy wars that Bouthaina Shaaban condemned, it was what she described as an attitude of “racism” and “supremacism” that accompanies those policies.

Shaaban wrote,

In a world where lies and rumors replace facts, and become central to the corporate media narrative; in such a world you only feel absolute comfort when you sit down with friends, allies, and partners who share your principles, values, and ethical standards, and do not dispute the fundamentals of your principles and objectives.

As you go smoothly through the meeting’s agenda, simply because everyone means what he says and does what he promises, you start thinking about the difficulties you face with the other side, and you remember that the reasons behind the pointless discussion with their officials are lack of honesty and the contradictions between their true motives and what they express in public. Right there, you sense what is wrong with our world today, and what is the main source for the troubles we face, ranging from wasting time in pointless discussion all the way to the loss of innocent lives, the destruction of countries, and denying entire generations the right to education and a free and dignified life.

The foreign ministers of the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran met in Moscow, and it was clear that all of them are departing from a deep belief in the sovereignty of states, a rejection of foreign intervention, the right of people to decide their fate away from foreign dictates, a rejection of land grab by force, and absolute solidarity with peoples suffering injustice and the loss of their rights. And when the discussion is based on such principles, and on the unity of ideas, values, and ethics, it is not too difficult for such a discussion to reach important strategic conclusion, which would shape the future.In such a meeting, hegemonic, colonial, and superior attitudes are completely absent; and you start to remember how hateful the racist approach present in meetings with Westerners, which demands you to prove your innocence at every juncture, thus robbing you of your humanity and your right to be treated equal, which should have been a nonissue in the first place.

In the Moscow meeting, I saw the coming world in which our children and grandchildren would live, a world devoid of racism; a world in which politicians, the media, and all people are honest and respectful of all human beings regardless of race, gender or creed. A world, all the inhabitants of which, wherever they may be, feel a sense of belonging and share a stake in its preservation and progress. A world in which everyone accepts and cherishes the different cultures and languages, and sees them as a gift from God rather than a pretext for national and racial supremacist claims. For despite all what Westerners and their media claim, the truth is that Western treatment of all other countries is a racist and supremacist treatment that seeks to advance the interests of the West at the expense of the rest of the world.

Looking at this coming world, I feel that the sacrifices of our martyrs and wounded were not only for us, but also for all mankind, for a better world and a better future. Looking at this future world, I am certain that we are living in a difficult phase of history resulting from the difference between what the West says and what it does, because it is fighting to preserve its colonial ways and its preferred methods of humiliating, destroying, and looting other peoples for its own benefit.

Looking at the future of our children and grandchildren, I feel that the battle we are fighting today was inevitable, and that it is for the greater good and for a better future for the coming generations. In this rich and constructive meeting in Moscow, I felt that the entire world is uniting to reject once and for all the concept of hegemony, and to reconstruct international relations on the basis parity, of respect, and shared interests.

Wherever I go, and whenever I write, I never forget to pay homage to the souls of our martyrs, and wish a speedy recovery to our wounded brave soldiers, because their blood and suffering are the torch that lights the path to freedom and dignity. I also do not forget to salute everyone who believed in the inevitability of victory, despite all the difficulties, and worked hard to achieve this victory, offering his life, money, effort, and prayers. As for the traitors, culprits, war profiteers, and those who call on the enemy to invade their country, they will be forgotten and they will never appear in the pages of history ever again.

Shaaban seems to be picking up on what many people are also starting to surmise, i.e. that we have entered a time that will determine the direction of the world and the planet on which our children and our children’s children will live. We will be the ones who determine their future. Many activists have had this feeling for some time and many people who are only tangentially aware of the political sphere are feeling it, too.

Shaaban is speaking not only of her country but of the world; and the people of the world would do well to recognize that what is happening in Syria will, in one way or the other, affect us all. The battle for Syria is not a Syrian fight alone, it is a fight for the future of the world.

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

In the name of demonitization to fight black money, a massive scam is being played out in the country, by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government at the Centre, said Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) here on Saturday.

In Goa, politicians have parked their black money in large-scale real estate investments in recent weeks and months. With advance information of the move, the politicians have transferred the black money burden onto the unsuspecting property owners who sold their land holdings, said AAP convenor in Goa, Valmiki Naik, and demanded a thorough investigation into all recent land deals registered in the last two months in Goa.

“Ordinary people are facing the hardships while the real culprits, the black money hoarders and influential quarters linked to the political powers have managed to stash their cash”, charged Goa AAP convenor Valmiki Naik here on Saturday.

Reitertaing AAP’s consistent support of any move against corruption and black money in the country, AAP spokesperson Ashley de Rosario said , “ But the manner in which the Modi government has implemented the demonitization scheme, it reeks of a scam and has only ended up burdening the common folks with the financial chaos witnessed across the country.”

The AAP leaders said that their national Convenor and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has revealed that deposits of thousands of crores of rupees in the last three months have shown a sharp rise raising questions and suspicion about the Modi government’s intentions.

Deposits suddenly spiked in the last three months, which raises more questions and suspicion about the Centre’s move, they quoted Kejriwal as saying.

The AAP leaders lamented that the honest and hardworking citizen has become the victim facing unbearable difficulties with the financial system in disarray.

“Access to your own hard-earned money has become burdensome,” said Mr. Naik and lamented that while the common man is queuing up at banks and ATMs, the crony-capitalists are unaffected by the chaos in the country’s financial system.

Trump the Anti-Globalist Champion of the People? 

Many Americans who’ve been supporting President-elect Trump see him as the populist leader who will save America from ruin. Trump supporters have been unfairly marginalized and pigeonholed by the MSM broad stroke as white supremacy extremists bent on plunging America back into a new Jim Crowism era and a second Civil War along with a growing number of angry, uneducated, disenfranchised blue collar, mostly white male redneck loser types. Despite a spike in racist graffiti and vandalism since the election, this gross overgeneralization is the Hillary/MSM’s desperate attempt to discredit Trump’s victory while establishment NGOs continues funneling money into paid agitators bussed to US city “warfronts” to foment violence, chaos and national crisis.

The other desperation move is the sudden push to change the electoral system as their last chance to steal the election on December 19th. It completely leaves out the real story – that a majority of Americans are so done with the fake war on terror, the policies designed to destroy America, the nonstop lies and corruption, and the last three dozen years of Bush-Clinton-Obama elitism that has humanity teetering on the edge of self-extinction.

Though Trump’s appeal has attracted a fringe element of racists within the US population, another quieter, far larger element historically referred to as the silent majority of Americans has by design purposely been overlooked and unacknowledged by mainstream media coverage throughout this year’s election. But this far larger base of Trump supporters comes from the libertarians, the Constitutionalists, former Bernie Sanders supporters, antiwar proponents, 2nd Amendment activists, veterans and American patriots

They have witnessed the neocons within Washington’s shadow government remain entrenched in power from the Bush-Cheney administration seamlessly on through the Obama regime. Against the people’s will and interests, this oligarchic cabal is being exposed like never before. A growing silent majority is no longer silent in response to this shadow government’s collusion with Israel and Saudi Arabia to perpetrate their inside 9/11 job in order to exploit a manufactured “endless war on terror” launched in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And to these Americans so sick and tired of permanent war that’s recast Russia and China as our cold war enemies on the way to World War III, and the corruption (survey one month prior to election found corruption Americans’ #1 fear), criminality and cancer of big government, this rising segment of the American populace sees Donald Trump as leading a second revolution to restore the Constitution as America’s rule of law while draining the swamp of dangerous traitors in Washington, kicking them all out to face trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity.

Against all odds they see Trump’s ascension to power as their last hope to ward off the globalists’ century old mission to destroy America in favor of one world government tyranny. In the face of this revolution, the neocons’ worn out lies behind their global war on terror, al Qaeda/ISIS terrorism, to push through their global governance agenda is simply no longer working. We have ultimately reached the tipping point of critical mass when enough of the people finally get it, demanding that the crumbling cabal be brought down once and for all. A transformation shift is in the air.

America’s Amnesia Every Eight Years

In the wake of the election results with Trump as president, this is what anti-globalists want desperately to believe is happening right now. And to some extent, it may be. But there is a darker, more sinister cloud facing the prospect of a Trump-Pence administration looming over the White House and nation in the months and years ahead. First of all, as we painfully learned the last time out eight years ago, anticipated relief and elation springs forward after another disastrous eight year run by another lame duck incompetent at the helm of the Empire of Chaos and Destruction. It automatically sets up a sigh of mass relief each time a newly elected president promises much needed positive changes in response to the blatant failures of the outgoing administration.

Hence, Obama was the perceived antithesis to Bush when so many Americans were taken in by the Manchurian Candidate preying on our hope for change. But no sooner was he occupying his figurehead puppet role in the White House, his promise to end Bush and Cheney’s unwanted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq predicated on lies and his promise to be “the most open and transparent president in US history” both went right out the window. After his first term, the liar even had the audacity to claim it was true, “This is the most transparent administration in history.”

Trojan horsed, fork tongued Obama has only delivered more lies and unending continuation to this day of those same disastrous neocon wars, with renewed aggression he’s added another one in Syria and reignited another cold war with Russia and China. On top of that, all throughout Obama has proven to be the most secretive, deceptive, least transparent president in US history.

Campaign Promises Come Cheap

Campaign promises always come extremely cheap by the elite’s preselected hustlers who tell voters whatever they want to hear to get themselves elected. So after the disappointment and devastation that smooth lying operator Obama inflicted on America, like clockwork his antithesis has emerged in “make America great again”.

Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor that will put Hillary behind bars. Let’s see if he follows up on that.

He has promised to partner with Putin in Syria to destroy the terrorists that Obama and Hillary created and continue supporting.

Trump has promised as an America firster to promote world peace as a noninterventionist, at one point stating he will withdraw the US from NATO, then three months ago revising his stance claiming he would work with NATO to defeat the terrorists.

But the newly elected president has expressed a desire to curtail the Empire’s role as the military policeman interfering aggressively around the world as the hegemon.

Internally Trump has promised to “drain the swamp” of treasonous Washington fixtures whose policies have been destroying America, including undoing everything that Obama the destroyer has built his legacy on, targeting the repeal of Obamacare, scrapping the climate accord and Iran agreement. Trump has promised to deliver a record that will save our national sovereignty, killing the TPP, TTIP and all globalist trade agreements.

Donald Trump has promised to restore and protect America’s constitutional rule of law, including repealing all of Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.

He has promised to fight against the carbon tax and the scientific tyranny promoting the global warming hoax.

He has promised to curb harmful use of vaccines, vowing to never make them mandatory for children or adults, unlike Obama who just signed another executive order enforcing globalized vaccination (along with proposed microchips) in every person on earth.

If Trump is like every president before him, all these very ballsy, noble anti-globalist stands are mere empty false promises self-servingly used to get himself elected. His biggest challenge will be to defy the pressures and demands from the ruling elite directly opposing all his election promises. As one person in a figurehead role, his power is limited to the extent that the cabal will try and thwart his every turn that Trump makes to follow through on his vowed promises to the people.

The last time a US president actually challenged the shadow government controlled by the ruling elite got himself assassinated 53 years ago this week. The international crime cabal has been regularly getting away with targeting and murdering perceived threats to its status quo evildoing for a very, very long time. Cheney carried out a secret executive assassination ring.

And as the president who plays God, Obama has even made his assassination policy of democide public. So the question becomes is the Donald, like every other president elected on false promises, just another con man willing to say and do anything to reach his ambitions? Or is he for real and actually going to fight the far bigger, far more powerful, corrupt and broken system that the cabal has owned, operated and controlled for centuries?

The crime cabal is presently in the fight of its life refusing to relinquish power in a changing, hegemonic, no longer unipolar world. The earth’s secret rulers fear losing control in the face of an awakened global masses determined to hold Satanic worshipping elitists accountable for their despicably horrifying crimes against humanity and their human genocide agenda.

Every eight years the ruling elite gleefully keeps executing its divide and conquer strategy ad nauseam, taking turns placing into power a new president that appears to be the antithesis of his predecessor. The elite simply alternates its presidential selections from one party to the next to conceal the fact that it owns and controls both parties. It’s been playing this diversionary game in the US for a long time to a dumbed down, amnesic American audience that never seems to realize every eight years it’s being bamboozled by the same malicious con game. And Trump as their potential latest con man to take center stage may be as slick as any before him.

Trump’s Shady Con Man Past

Let’s take a look at Trump’s historical roots which by elitist design during this election year has largely been unexamined and kept under wraps.

Donald Trump as a boy grew up in Queens, a middle class other-side-of-the-tracks New York borough adjacent to the Big Apple’s prize Manhattan. His father was a flourishing real estate developer operating primarily in Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island. In 1954 the US Senate investigated father Fred and his attorney for alleged improprieties and corruption involving HUD. Both father and son were always strong supporters of the Jewish state and Zionist cause. Today that still remains intact:

The only [candidate] that’s going to give real support to Israel is me. The rest of them are all talk, no action. They’re politicians. I’ve been loyal to Israel from the day I was born. My father, Fred Trump, was loyal to Israel before me.

While the young Donald was in his mid-twenties, in a ritzy Manhattan club in 1973 Trump met high-powered lawyer Roy Cohn who quickly became his attorney, mentor and longtime friend. Two decades earlier Cohn had risen to fame prosecuting the Rosenbergs, the alleged Soviet spy couple that were executed. Roy Cohn was also Senator Joseph McCarthy’s chief counsel during the senator’s Communist witch hunt in the early 1950’s. That night in the club Trump shared with Cohn his family’s pressing problem. The Nixon Justice Department was charging the Trumps with discrimination against renting to African Americans. Cohn took on Donald’s case and executed an aggressive million dollar countersuit against the DOJ that eventually settled the matter quietly out of court.

For the next 13 years Cohn represented Donald in a series of high profile lawsuits. Years later describing his attorney friend and mentor, Trump stated that Cohn was ruthless in his loyalty toward him. Cohn was so enamored by the Queens upstart that at one point he refused to even charge Trump for his legal services. Essentially owning New York with his connections to all the major New York players and moguls including Mayors Abraham Beame and Ed Koch, Cohn became the needed bridge and launching pad for the young, ambitious Donald to expand his real estate interests into prime turf Manhattan and eventually own casinos in both Atlantic City and Florida.

So for most of his life 70-year old Trump has run with the Manhattan and Palm Beach high rolling powerbrokers. In essence, Donald Trump is clearly not an outsider at all to the established East Coast financial banksters. Trump filed for bankruptcy four times yet keeps bouncing back with an estimated current fortune worth $3.7 billion.

Not in this America do you possibly end up the Republican nominee and president-elect if you are truly an outsider. Nor when the financial stakes are so sky high are you truly independent as always at that elevation strings are attached. Both mainstream and alternative media have falsely portrayed Trump as the brash maverick who’s fiercely independent and always his own man, supposedly despised by the ruling elite. This persona and image has been fashioned to give the American public a false illusion that Trump is operating independently from big corporate special interests as a self-made man and champion of the lowly working stiffs.

Hence his appeal to America’s downtrodden, forgotten, disenfranchised working class poor when in reality despite not being the GOP’s first choice (failed cabal dynasty heir Jeb Bush was), nor second choice, Donald Trump nonetheless is every bit an insider with strong ties to the 14^th richest man in America who the last few months has been bankrolling his rise to the presidency. Israel firster Sheldon Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate is also a devout backer of Bibi Netanyahu. Even during Trump’s presentation at the AIPAC conference last March, the closeted insider stated he was neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But right after Adelson committed to his campaign, suddenly Trump was all in on apartheid Israel over Palestinians’ longtime legitimate claims. Instead Trump was pledging to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and remove the two-state solution from the Republican platform. Of course to a standing ovation Trump also promised in that AIPAC speech to tear up the Iran nuke deal on his first day in office. That was more than enough for Adelson to throw his money and weight behind Trump, reportedly up to $100 million to influence the election outcome in favor of this year’s “surprise” winner.

A Rigged Election?

Make no mistake, Donald Trump has always been an insider regardless of his media portrayal as the longshot Beltway outsider suddenly emerging from the pack of wannabes as the GOP frontrunner. Donald Trump may be the elite’s secret Plan B mole covertly supported as the presidential standby when Queen Hillary’s crime scandals proved too much liability. And the rest is history – globalists have always backed both sides to every war just as they back both sides to every presidential race. That way they never lose… control.

Another emerging piece of evidence backing up this reality requires a cursory look at the difference between exit poll numbers and the final vote counts in key swing states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida that proved to be Trump’s crucial electoral margin of victory. The error margin in all these states went from Hillary winning each state according to exit poll numbers but in the final tally losing all those states. The winner take all Electoral College votes in these states alone are enough to have changed the election outcome. In North Carolina the discrepancy between exit poll and final count is 2.8%. In 10 states the margin discrepancy between exit poll and final count swung at least 5% or higher in Trump’s favor, none in Hillary’s. For there to be so much discrepancy between exit polls and final counts that shift so many state results positively for Trump and Republicans in recent elections, it can best be explained by voter machine manipulation.

The blackbox GEMS election management system software that counts 25% of all votes in America minimized Democrat votes by counting a certain percentage as fractions instead of whole numbers, thus fixing the outcome for Trump. Preprogrammed electronic machines installed with the GEMS program have been increasingly utilized in precincts across the nation and exclusively in every precinct in four states by the Republican Party and GOP secretaries of state to steal a growing number of elections this century. Invariably GEMS are skewing results to hand the presidency over to Trump and other Republicans in various races.

Another gaping anomaly raised by veteran journalist-author Greg Palast is a system called Crosscheck whereby Republican state officials have been systematically eliminating large bundles of votes belonging heavily to Democrat voting minorities. As a result, Palast estimates that over a million votes were not tallied in swing states in this year’s election, enough to tip the outcome in Trump’s favor. Mounting evidence confirms that elitist controllers are fixing elections. Despite every election cycle this century clearly showing rising incidence of fraud with both rigged and faulty antiquated paperless trail voting machines, because the system is so pervasively corrupt and costs to remedy the crisis substantial, the political and moral will of our nation to invest in rectifying this egregious problem sis till too lacking. The United States is a pathetically sad joke, no longer having any credibility as a democratic republic because it’s degenerated into a festering lawless cesspool of dog-eat-dog, shameless thieves and robbers.

In any event, as Trump’s biggest influencer, one of the first playbook tactics Roy Cohn taught Trump is the stratagem that your best defense is a potent offense. For all his reckless mouth and arrogant behavior, Donald Trump has used this brutal tactic virtually his entire adult life. It’s no accident that Trump repeatedly made charges that this election is rigged, even refusing to accept the results if his opponent won. And it’s no accident that every mainstream media player got the election predictions completely wrong at 90-98% certainty that Hillary would win. And Of course the Donald was absolutely correct in pointing out that this entire debacle exposing the criminal corruption of the US political system (just like its economic system) is completely rigged. But it appears to have been rigged in the so called “outsider’s” favor, not Hillary’s.

The planet’s rulers forcing their FBI stooge Comey to reopen the Hillary investigation just 11 days prior to Election Day definitely played a part in the final week helping Trump close the alleged gap… especially after it was revealed in alternative press that Bill and Hillary are pedophiles and that both the Clintons as well as Trump and Anthony Weiner whose laptop allegedly contains all this cabal damaging evidence were all frequent flyers on registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express for pedophiliac R & R time on his Caribbean island. It appears that this election has been rigged in favor of Donald Trump to set him up as the elite’s fall guy for when the global economy crashes, blaming him for America’s next great depression that with its tsunami ripple effects will soon be rocking worldwide.

Elite interests very likely busily rigged this election on both sides. Hillary cheated her way to winning the nomination but her team wasn’t quite as skilled a cheaters as Trump’s. As the elites are further exposed, perhaps under increasing pressure and changing global dynamics shifting power, the elites are beginning to turn on each other. We know that the US Empire is headed for a downfall, and Western oligarchs are feeling the global balance of power and control shifting both geopolitically and economically more dramatically away from the West toward the Eastern powers of Russia, China and Iran.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Russian led Eurasian Economic Union have both invited Iran to join, plus China’s New Economic Silk Road corridor as One Belt, One Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the rising BRICS alliance, all of these merging developments reflect a strengthened unity of vast nations consolidating their own power in response to the failed, overextended US Empire aggressions intended to encircle, isolate and weaken both Russia and China.

In the face of the rising East, the Western elite knows its global control is slipping away. And due to its diabolical nature, it will go down fighting, attempting to wreak as much havoc and destruction worldwide as possible. There is no unified monolithic malevolent force but growing competing factions. Perhaps as a result of the ongoing power shift, the Western elite is now splintering. Rockefeller money may well be victoriously aligned with Trump and the Rothschild fortune still backing sore loser Hillary.

Team Trump’s Cabinet and Policymakers

More revealing bad news for us is coming from Trump’s closest team members in the process of selecting individuals to the various cabinet post “choices” and key advisor positions. The quotes are used because those selections aren’t as often made by the president but are selected for him by the same elite that chose him. No doubt it happened with Obama and it’s happening again with Trump. Powerful oligarchs make such good “suggestions” that the president just can’t refuse.

As an example, Trump’s Vice President, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, is a longtime Republican insider and globalist who played a very shady hand during the 2002 anthrax scare that killed five people. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to yet another Bush-Cheney top down inside crime just a year after their 9/11 false flag launching their war on terror, this time using the anthrax letters as their weapon. Falsely blaming Saddam with biological WMD’s, Pence made the preposterous claim that al Qaeda terrorists sent the white poison to two critical Democratic senators that posed the biggest obstacles to getting the pre-9/11 written Patriot Act passed, in effect threatening all members of Congress should they choose to not pass the landmark legislation aimed at crushing America’s constitutional rights in the name of national security.

Without any evidence and echoing Cheney’s terrorist finger pointing, Congressman Mike Pence (right) maintained that Saddam was behind the anthrax attacks, claiming he used a highly potent weapons grade strain untreatable by standard antibiotics. Such detailed leaked disinformation propaganda was completely refuted by all scientific investigators involved, indicating that the first term congressman was eagerly earning his cabal stripes as a co-conspiring insider. Pence was simply playing his scripted role as a minor cog in another big false flag wheel executed by the evil Bush-Cheney gang. And as a result, without even reading the Patriot Act, an intimidated Congress fearing for their lives nearly unanimously signed off on the Patriot Act that like the PNAC neocons’ “new Pearl Harbor” executed the year before, again worked like a charm.

Also as a pro-trade deal, neocon globalist, Pence holds exactly the opposite views from Trump on virtually every major issue. Aside from the TPP and TTIP that Pence is for and Trump’s against, the VP favors the warmongering status quo, strongly opposing both Putin and Assad and calling for a US no fly zone over Syria that amounts to war against Russia.

In all likelihood, the Republican establishment made a deal with Trump that in order for him to become president, he must accept Pence as his running mate. Having a globalist as the next man in charge should Trump suddenly go down doesn’t bode well if Trump actually means what he says and says what he means when he promises to “drain the swamp.” If he actually follows through on making efforts to fulfill his anti-globalist campaign promises that helped get him elected, he risks being murdered just like JFK. If he turns out to be just another skilled con man, bought and sold already, he is playing out his scripted role as yet another Trojan horse puppet used by the planet’s psychopathic rulers.

Similar to the previous pattern where presidents wield less power than their vice presidents as during both the Reagan years with HW in charge and the Bush regime with Cheney calling the shots, Pence could be the globalist operative behind inexperienced Beltway front man Trump who’s already hinting that his New York City ivory Trump Tower may remain his primary residence rather than the actual White House. Another hint of what’s to come is a headline stating that after meeting with Obama, Trump never realized the exhaustive daily duties of a POTUS. Thus, it makes sense that he may soon be delegating his to-do list items to the inside insider Mike Pence. Or that may already be the elite’s arrangement as Trump in his 70’s may just relish playing the front man.

To assist the president-elect in filling his top positions in his administration, Trump has recruited insider lobbyists from Goldman Sachs, Koch (brothers) Industries, Aetna and Verizon as his transition team. Does that sound like he’s draining the swamp? Trump’s rumored cabinet posts and closest advisors don’t get any better, consisting of a cast of neocon has-beens, bootlicking GOP hangers-on and elitist insiders, offering little hope for the home team Americans he pledged to fight for.

In the running for US Attorney General or Homeland Security boss (or Secretary of State) is former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.  (left). Another hopeful for the AG job or any job, potentially the Commerce Secretary is the first and among the only fallen GOP presidential candidates to endorse Trump – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who was slated to lead the White House transition team until Trump perhaps thought twice over blowback from Christie’s infamous Bridgegate scandal that proves he’s a bullying liar. Instead globalist VP Mike Pence will head the transition team.

Former House Speaker, fulltime globalist, failed 2012 presidential candidate (bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson) and Trump cheerleader Newt Gingrich has been talked about as Trump’s Secretary of State.

Another disastrous contender for Secretary of State is a twice neocon Bush-man and former UN Ambassador John Bolton (image right below) who thrives on war.  And considering that Trump claims to be a noninterventionist, this guy’s an interventionist from way back who’s never seen a Third World country he wouldn’t like to bomb.

To gain an edge in his quest for more power, Bolton submitted a piece for the Times of London urging that with UK’s Brexit, UK can work with the Trump administration to expand NATO membership into a global force inviting Israel, Japan, Australia and Singapore to join. Makes sense for a globalist lobbying for control over US foreign policy prepping for World War III against the Eastern powers.

Steve Mnuchin has been mentioned as Secretary of Treasury. Why? Because he is a 17-year Goldman Sachs executive, a globalist central bankster if there ever was one. Another Treasury candidate is notorious bankster  Jamie Dimon, president and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who played a starring role in the 2008 bailout. In the grossest of conflict of interest cases, Dimon was a New York Fed board member while top dog at JPMorgan Chase, helping himself to $391 billion worth of taxpayer bailout money.

Yet another private sector candidate for the Interior Department is 74-year old oilman Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil who will hardly have his eye on protecting America’s vast interior. With shale drilling a top Trump priority, he’s found the right guy to devastate what’s left of our natural environment.

Perhaps strongest consideration for Defense Secretary goes to Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions who has been among Trump’s earliest supporters in Congress and a close Trump advisor throughout his campaign. Though Trump has claimed to be a noninterventionist, he intends to beef up the military forces by adding $55-60 billion a year to the current budget while Sessions favors the existing cap on defense spending.

As Trump’s chief military advisor and confidant, retired Lt. General Michael Flynn (left) who has been a highly visible supporter on Trump’s campaign trail is most likely in line for National Security Advisor. Recall that against General Flynn’s advisement, the former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Flynn outed Obama’s willful decision to back ISIS as Empire’s primary regime change ally against Assad in Syria.

Fresh off announcement that Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, will be Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, the highest ranking employee at the White House where the president lives, suggests that “outsider” Trump’s constantly reported to clash with party establishment must not have been that unfriendly. Or perhaps it was all for show.

The latest from the Trump inner circle is Priebus is already in a “knife fight” with Stephen Bannon (right), former Breitbart News head and Trump campaign chairman, and now his chief strategist, after coming together on their brand news jobs on Sunday, the two are already at loggerheads over who will become the next Secretary of State, John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani, both nightmarish choices for our future.

Have you noticed a consistent pattern here?

Just like Obama’s “choices” were likely from a list handed him from up above, every single one of these individuals on Trump’s list as his closest advisors and policymakers are full fledge elitist insiders.

So can we really expect anything different from the closet insider dubbed “outsider” Trump presidency? Very doubtful because the White House occupant is just a pond who is controlled by the longtime owners of the globalist system.

So don’t get your hopes up too high believing that Trump will be fighting hard for us little people as Washington under Trump is looking more every day like “same as the old boss” and oligarchy business-as-usual.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

La Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái está en camino de pasar de la cooperación en materia de seguridad y defensa, a sumar esfuerzos en los ámbitos económico y financiero. Durante su quinceava cumbre, realizada a principios de noviembre, el primer ministro de China, Li Keqiang, propuso a los miembros de este grupo el establecimiento de un área de libre comercio y un banco regional de desarrollo, con lo cual, aumentaría la influencia de Pekín y Moscú sobre una región que, de acuerdo con uno de los principales geoestrategas de Estados Unidos, terminará por definir el futuro de la hegemonía global.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, quien fuera consejero de seguridad nacional del presidente James Carter, sostuvo en 1997 en su libro “El gran tablero: la supremacía estadounidense y sus imperativos geoestratégicos” (‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives’) que una de las condiciones para que Estados Unidos conservara su hegemonía mundial consistía en impedir, a toda costa, el surgimiento de una potencia desafiante en la región de Eurasia. Hoy en día, Washington no solamente ya no tiene el control sobre esta zona, sino que los chinos están encabezando, junto con los rusos, la construcción de un gran circuito económico y financiero entre todos los países de la región.

Los medios de comunicación occidentales, en su mayoría, ocultaron que a principios de noviembre el primer ministro de China, Li Keqiang, realizó una gira por varios países de Asia central. Li aterrizó en la ciudad de Bishkek (Kirguistán), donde participó en la quinceava cumbre de Jefes de Gobierno de la Organización de Cooperación de Shanghái (OCS). La OCS, que cubre 300 millones de kilómetros cuadrados (aproximadamente el 60% de toda la tierra de Eurasia) y es el hogar de una cuarta parte de la población mundial, está compuesta actualmente por China, Rusia, Kazajistán, Kirguistán, Tayikistán y Uzbekistán. La India y Pakistán se encuentran en proceso de incorporación que, previsiblemente, será concluido en la cumbre de Astaná, a realizarse en junio de 2017.

Aunque en un principio fue concebida bajo una perspectiva militar y de seguridad, en estos momentos la OCS incluye también la cooperación en los rubros económico y financiero. Justamente cuando el comercio internacional registra su peor desempeño desde que estalló la crisis financiera de 2008, para los países que conforman la OCS se ha vuelto una imperiosa necesidad estrechar sus vínculos, tanto en términos comerciales, como de inversión. Para enfrentar la desaceleración económica mundial, es urgente que los países emergentes fortalezcan las relaciones Sur-Sur (entre países de la periferia), con vistas a reducir su dependencia de las naciones industrializadas, hoy hundidas en el estancamiento.

La propuesta del primer ministro de China de establecer un área de libre comercio (‘free trade area’) entre los miembros de la OCS apunta, precisamente, hacia la integración horizontal de las cadenas productivas de la región euroasiática. En un momento en el que China está acelerando la reorientación de su economía hacia el mercado interno para, de este modo, disminuir el predominio de las inversiones masivas y el comercio exterior en su patrón de crecimiento, para el resto de países que conforman la OCS es un asunto de primer orden buscar dar el salto hacia la producción de mercancías de alto valor agregado.

Por otro lado, considero que la OCS debe explorar la posibilidad de sumar esfuerzos con otros proyectos de integración que en la actualidad intentan consolidarse. La eliminación de barreras arancelarias bien puede permitir a los países de la OCS aumentar los flujos de comercio y de inversión de forma sustantiva con aquellos bloques regionales que están conformados por las economías emergentes; por ejemplo, la Unión Económica Euroasiática (UEE, integrada por Rusia, Bielorrusia, Kazajistán, Armenia y Kirguistán) o incluso la Asociación de Naciones del Sudeste Asiático (ASEAN, por sus siglas en inglés).

Es fundamental, en paralelo, que las estrategias de integración económica regional impulsadas por la OCS y la UEE busquen establecer, cuanto antes, alianzas con las zonas de libre comercio que China está impulsando en el Continente asiático, es decir, encontrar puntos de convergencia, verbigracia, con el Acuerdo Económico Comprensivo Regional (RCEP, por sus siglas en inglés). A mi modo de ver, el protagonismo de China en los flujos del comercio mundial proporciona enormes beneficios a los países localizados en Eurasia, sin embargo, no se trata solamente de vender mercancías en uno de los mercados más dinámicos del mundo sino, también, de adquirir bienes a precios mucho más bajos.

Adicionalmente, cabe destacar que a lo largo del encuentro con sus homólogos de la OCS, Li puso sobre la mesa de negociaciones la propuesta de poner en funcionamiento un banco regional de desarrollo así como un fondo especial de crédito, instrumentos que, a su juicio, serán capaces de responder a las necesidades de financiamiento de la región euroasiática. Si se materializan, estas instituciones se sumarían a las entidades financieras lideradas por China, y que se han puesto en marcha durante los años recientes: el nuevo banco de desarrollo de los BRICS (acrónimo de Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica) y el Banco Asiático de Inversiones en Infraestructura (AIIB, por sus siglas en inglés).

Es importante tomar en cuenta que todas estas iniciativas tienen entre sus principales objetivos canalizar el ahorro de los países emergentes hacia el financiamiento de la iniciativa económica y geopolítica más ambiciosa formulada por China en los últimos tiempos: “Un cinturón, una ruta” (‘One Belt, One Road’), una inmensa red de transporte que conectará a los países del Este, Sur y Sudeste de Asia con el Medio Oriente y el Norte de África, atravesando el Continente europeo.

La República Popular China confirma, una vez más, que la integración económica del Continente asiático es una de sus prioridades estratégicas. Aun cuando el Gobierno de Barack Obama lanzó la “doctrina del pivote” el año 2011 –una estrategia de defensa que tuvo por misión contener el ascenso de China como súper potencia–, los líderes de Pekín han logrado, de forma por demás exitosa, consolidar su liderazgo regional. Ahora, todo indica que la advertencia que hizo Brzezinski hace ya casi dos décadas, se ha convertido en una dolorosa realidad para Estados Unidos: la OCS, apoyada de forma preponderante tanto por China, como por Rusia, encabeza la gran transformación de Eurasia…

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

El fundador del Partido Comunista Reunionés, fallecido el 12 de noviembre de 2016, siempre defendió la causa de los desheredados.

Paul Vergès, monumento político de la historia de La Reunión, abandonó este mundo, a los 91 años, tras una larga vida de lucha a favor de los reunioneses a una existencia digna. José Martí, héroe nacional cubano, decía lo siguiente: “La muerte no es verdad cuando se ha cumplido bien la obra de la vida”. Este precepto se aplica a quien defendió hasta su último aliento, en su cama de hospital, la causa de los humildes y de los oprimidos.

Un compromiso precoz 

Paul Vergès nació en 1925 en Tailandia de padre reunionés, Raymond Vergès -fundador del diario Témoignages, alcalde y diputado– y madre vietnamita, Pham Thi Khan maestra. Desde su más temprana juventud, en 1942, se involucra en el combate contra la barbarie nazi en las Fuerzas Francesas Libres del General de Gaulle. Apenas tiene 17 años. [1] En 1944 se lanza en paracaídas a la cabeza de una tropa de resistentes encima de Royan, con el grado de teniente, y toma parte activamente a la lucha por la liberación. Su grupo paga un precio elevado ya que el 25% de los voluntarios pierden la vida. Esta experiencia memorable le conferiría a Paul Vergès un sentimiento de gran confianza. [2]

Hombre de compromisos y de combates, sensible a las injusticias que gangrenan el mundo, Paul Vergès sigue el rastro de su padre y milita a su lado en el Comité Republicano de Acción Democrática y Social, amplia coalición que federa a las voluntades progresistas procedentes de diversas categorías sociales, fundada en 1945 por Raymond Vergès y Léon de Lépervanche. Siguiendo el ejemplo de los mayores, exige el fin del estatus colonial de Isla Reunión y su transformación en Departamento francés con la aplicación de las leyes de la República, de sus derechos y de sus deberes a todo el pueblo reunionés. [3]

Paul Vergès se integra naturalmente el Partido Comunista Francés, una de las principales fuerzas políticas por su compromiso determinado contra la ocupación nazi y su defensa resuelta del progreso social y de la fraternidad entre los pueblos. El joven Vergès se identifica con estos combates y ocupa el cargo de secretario permanente de la sección colonial del PCF. [4]

En 1954, consciente de que el combate que se debe llevar es el de la dignidad de los reunioneses, regresa a la isla y se involucra en la batalla política convirtiéndose director del diario Témoignages. Sus denuncias constantes de las injusticias sufridas por el pueblo reunionés y su lucha permanente por la justicia contribuyen a su popularidad. En 1955 es elegido consejero general de La Reunión. Un año más tarde consigue el cargo de diputado de la Asamblea Nacional. [5]

Fundador del Partido Comunista Reunionés 

Visionario y lúcido, Paul Vergès es consciente que la lucha por la igualdad debe pasar por la creación de una estructura política capaz de federar a las fuerzas populares para llevar a cabo este combate. Decide entonces fundar el Partido Comunista Reunionés en 1959 –del cual será secretario general hasta 1993– que se convertiría en la principal fuerza política de la isla durante cerca de medio siglo. Lanza entonces el llamado por la autonomía de La Reunión, exigiendo el derecho de su pueblo a decidir su propio destino: “Queremos a todo precio que la aspiración a la dignidad, a la responsabilidad de la dirección de nuestro países se concilie con nuestra voluntad de quedarnos en la República Francesa”. [6] Denuncia varias veces los fraudes electorales organizados con el apoyo de las autoridades del Estado y del gobierno de París para impedir que el PCR, que tiene los favores de una mayoría de ciudadanos, consiga el poder [7]

Perseguido por el Estado francés que lo acusa de “atentar contra la integridad del territorio”, Paul Vergès sufre la represión política y se ve obligado a pasar a la clandestinidad el 17 de marzo de 1964. En efecto, en el espacio de tres años, las autoridades lo enjuician 43 veces por delitos de prensa, por reproducir artículos de Le Monde y de L’Humanité sobre la Guerra de Argelia. Su huida, que duraría hasta el 28 de julio de 1966, le confiere una enorme popularidad. Este acto de resistencia a la opresión recibe el apoyo de toda la población reunionesa y el líder del PCR se beneficia del apoyo de todos los sectores. Multiplica las reuniones mofándose de las autoridades que se muestran incapaces de arrestarlo en un territorio de apenas 2.500 kilómetros cuadrados. Incluso participa en todas las reuniones del Comité Central del PCR. Paul Vergès se convierte en el símbolo de la insumisión y contribuye al prestigio de su partido. Tras dos años de clandestinidad decide entregarse a las autoridades. Paul Vergès cuenta con regocijo su visita sorpresa en a la oficina del Fiscal de la República el 28 de julio de 1966:

“Me pregunta: ‘Pero señor Vergès ¿qué hace usted aquí’? Le constesto: ‘Bueno, usted lleva 28 meses buscándome y no me encuentra. Entonces vengo a verlo’. Llama al comisario de policía y le dice: ‘Mándeme un carro inmediatamente y venga usted también’. Oigo entonces al jefe de la policía que contesta lo siguiente: ‘Señor Fiscal, no puedo ir porque hemos preparado una ratonera y vamos a arrestar al señor Vergès’. El Fiscal estalla: ‘¿El señor Vergès? ¡Pero está aquí en mi oficina!”. [8]

Transferido a París, la Corte de Seguridad del Estado decide finalmente pronunciar una sentencia de sobreseimiento. Paul Vergès recuerda el periodo de la clandestinidad con mucha nostalgia: “Fue una experiencia extraordinario porque me permitió conocer La Reunión profunda y ver la solidaridad de los compañeros [9] . Nunca sentí tanto la solidaridad de los reunioneses”. [10]

Por La Reunión y por la justicia 

De regreso a la isla, Paul Vergés retoma el combate político. Al PCR se le prohibió el acceso a la radio y la televisión hasta la llegada al poder de François Mitterrand en 1981. Ello no le impide de ningún modo conseguir importantes victorias electorales. Conquista la alcaldía de Le Port en 1971, la cual conservaría hasta 1989. Paul Vergès transformaría la arquitectura urbana y haría de un territorio compuesto de piedras y espacios secos una ciudad verde con la plantación de más de medio millón de árboles. [11]

Plenamente involucrado a nivel local, Paul Vergès no deja de lado las grandes causas mundiales. Durante la crisis entre la Unión Soviética y China, lanza un llamado a ambas potencias conjurándolas a que pongan de lado su diferendo recordando que la gran prioridad es la lucha del pueblo vietnamita contra el imperialismo estadounidense. Del mismo modo, una vez elegido al Parlamento Europeo, Paul Vergès encabeza una delegación de diputados y viaja a Sudáfrica, estrangulada por el régimen del Apartheid. Indignado por las injusticias que observó, el grupo parlamentario redacta un informe después de la visita y denuncia las exacciones cometidas contra la mayoría de los surafricanos víctimas del sistema segregacionista. Tras esta iniciativa, la Unión Europea decide limitar sus relaciones diplomáticas con el régimen de Pretoria. [12] Con su acción, Paul Vergès da una proyección internacional al PCR y conoce a grandes del mundo como Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh o Mao Tsé-Toung. [13]

Con la llegada de François Mitterrand al poder, la reivindicación de autonomía cede el espacio a la exigencia de igualdad social. En 1987, Paul Vergès y Elie Hoarau, alcalde de Saint-Pierre, renuncian a sus mandatos de diputados en señal de protesta contra la Ley del 31 de diciembre de 1986 que instituye la paridad social para los reunioneses pero no la igualdad plena. Este gesto político refuerza la popularidad del líder del PCR en la isla, quien, con su compañero de luchas, no vacila a renunciar a la comodidad y ventajas de un mandato electoral para defender el principio de igualdad para su pueblo. [14]

En 1996, Paul Vergès es elegido senador y se implica contra el cambio climático. Es uno de los primeros líderes políticos del mundo en alertar contra los efectos devastadores de la acción del hombre sobre el medioambiente. En 2001 es el autor de una ley, unánimemente adoptada por el Parlamente francés, que decreta como prioridad la lucha contra el calentamiento global y que instaura la creación de un Observatorio Nacional sobre los Efectos del Cambio Climático, al cual es elegido presidente. [15] Veinte años después triunfan sus ideas con la adopción del acuerdo mundial sobre el clima de París durante la COP 21 en diciembre de 2015 y que entró en vigor el 4 de noviembre de 2016. [16]

Por otra parte, Paul Vergès preside el Consejo Regional de La Reunión de 1998 a 2010 y sus realizaciones son importantes. En 2000 funda la Agencia Regional de Energía de La Reunión cuyo objetivo es conseguir una autonomía energética sostenible en la isla para 2025, convirtiéndose en el primer político francés que lanza semejante plan en su territorio.

Por otra parte, para aliviar la carretera del Oeste, saturada por el tráfico y los interminables atascos, Paul Vergès construye la carretera de los Tamarins, proeza técnica que permite conectar el norte y el sur de la isla en poco tiempo. Implicado en la protección del medioambiente, hizo plantar medio millón de árboles a la largo de la calle de los Tamarins. En total plantó más de un millón de árboles, algo inaudito en La Reunión [17] .

Del mismo modo, bajo su presidencia, la Región Reunión financia la instalación de 100.00 calentadores de agua solares. En 2010, cuando termina su mandato, hay más calentadores de agua solares en los techos de La Reunión que en toda Francia metropolitana. [18]

En la línea de estas medidas, Paul Vergès había elaborado un proyecto de tranvía/tren eléctrico alrededor de la isla y consigue el financiamiento. El objetivo es reducir la contaminación en La Reunión –causada en un 58% por el tráfico carretero–, facilitar los desplazamientos y proponer una alternativa al coche. Este proyecto fue abandonado en 2010 cuando cambia la mayoría política en el Consejo Regional. [19]

Paul Vergès también se comprometió plenamente en la defensa de la diversidad cultural y de la vida en armonía con el proyecto de la Casa de Civilizaciones y de la Unidad Reunionesa cuya idea fue saludada por eminentes personalidades de todo el mundo. Esta iniciativa no pudo materializarse tras la pérdida de las elecciones de 2010. [20]

Los combates pendientes  

Con su acción política a favor de los mismos derechos para todos, Paul Vergès deja un legado de combates pendientes y causas que defender. La lucha contra la pobreza, el desempleo y las desigualdades siguen siendo prioridades. Hoy sólo el 40% de los reunioneses tiene un trabajo. A guisa de comparación, la tasa es de un 65% en Francia. El PIB por habitante es de apenas 20.000 euros frente a más de 32.000 euros en Francia. El Índice de Desarrollo Humano que se calcula según los tres criterios “salud, educación e ingreso” muestra que La Reunión tiene un retraso de veinte años en comparación con Francia. La pobreza afecta al 42% de los reunioneses. Más del 30% de los habitantes de la isla, o sea más de 160.000 personas, sobreviven de la ayuda social. La juventud, que constituye el futuro de La Reunión, se halla afectada por esta tragedia social ya que el 50% de los jóvenes abandona el sistema escolar sin diploma y el 70% de los jóvenes que dejan el sistema escolar sufren el desempleo y la exclusión. Como subrayó Maximiliano Robespierre en su tiempo, no faltan las riquezas en La Reunión, sólo están repartidas de modo desigual. Así, el 20% de las clases más acomodadas acaparan cerca de la mitad de las riquezas de la isla. Entre las diez ciudades francesas más desiguales en términos de ingresos, nueve son reunionesas. Del mismo modo, entre las seis ciudades más pobres de Francia, cuatro son reunionesas. [21]

La vida cara es una realidad en La Reunión, que depende en más de un 70% de los intercambios con la Unión Europea. Por ello el Estado ha instaurado una sobre-remuneración del 53% para los funcionarios de la isla. En nombre del principio de igualdad, que se encuentra en el corazón de la divisa republicana de Francia, este ajuste financiero debe aplicarse a todos los salarios y a todas las prestaciones sociales, en una palabra, a todos los reunioneses. [22]

La isla también sufre analfabetismo. 116.000 personas, o sea un 23% de los habitantes que tienen entre 16 y 65 años, sobre una población de 840.000, están afectados por esta plaga. Saber leer, escribir y sumar es un derecho inalienable de todo ser humano e indispensable para la plena dignidad de la persona. He aquí otro combate que lega Paul Vergès. [23]

Por fin, la lucha contra el cambio climático sigue siendo una gran prioridad y cae primero en las grandes potencias responsables de la destrucción del planeta. La protección del entorno es una necesidad imperiosa pues de ello depende la suerte de la humanidad entera. Es el deber de cada ciudadano sensibilizar a la opinión pública sobre los peligros de hoy.

Paul Vergès, guía moral del pueblo reunionés, defensor de la identidad y de la cultura reunionesas, marcó para siempre la historia de la isla con su compromiso, sus realizaciones y sus alertas sobre las evoluciones climáticas y demográficas del planeta. Militante de convicciones, a la vez visionario y hombre de su tiempo, fue fiel a sus principios de libertad, de igualdad, de fraternidad, de emancipación y de justicia social. “Al final, cuando uno hace el balance, si puede decir ‘Fui fiel a mis principios y no cedí ante nada’, entonces uno puede decir que ha llenado honradamente su vida”, apunta él. Paul Vergès eligió vincular su destino al pueblo de su isla y uno no se equivoca cuando defiende la causa de los desheredados.

Salim Lamrani

Université de La Réunion

Notas:

[1] Brigitte Croisier, Paul Vergès, d’une île au monde, Paris : Editions L’Harmattan, 1993, p. 175. 

[2] Jean-Marc Collienne, «Entretien avec Paul Vergès. ‘C’est mon histoire’», Réunion Première, agosto de 2013. 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Paul Vergès, «Elections européennes», 1979. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm2JvpoErkM (sitio consultado el 12 de noviembre de 2016). 

[7] Christophe Debuisne & Bernard Gouley, Le Grand Echiquier – Paul et Jacques Vergès : Portraits croisés, RFO, 2007. 

[8] Christophe Debuisne & Bernard Gouley, Le Grand Echiquier – Paul et Jacques Vergès : Portraits croisés, RFO, 2007, op. cit.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Jean-Marc Collienne, «Entretien avec Paul Vergès. ‘C’est mon histoire’», Réunion Première, agosto de 2013, op. cit.

[11] Témoignages, «La gravité de la répression anti-communiste du pouvoir dans les années 1960-70», 2 de octubre de 2013. http://www.temoignages.re/medias/la-gravite-de-la-repression-anti-communiste-du-pouvoir-dans-les-annees-60-70,70782 (sitio consultado el 12 de noviembre de 2016). 

[12] Entretien avec Ary Yée-Chong-Tchi-Kan, 12 de noviembre de 2016. 

[13] Gilles Bojan, Paul Vergès, l’immortel, Paris: Orphie, 2016, p. 190. 

[14] Témoignages, «L’intérêt de La Réunion avant tout», 1 de junio de 2007. http://www.temoignages.re/politique/actualites/l-interet-de-la-reunion-avant-tout,22486 (sitio consultado el 12 de noviembre de 2016). 

[15] Legifrance, «Loi n°2001-153 du 19 février 2001 tendant à conférer à la lutte contre l’effet de serre et à la prévention des risques liés au réchauffement climatique la qualité de priorité nationale et portant création d’un Observatoire national sur les effets du réchauffement climatique en France métropolitaine et dans les départements et territoires d’Outre-mer », 19 de febrero de 2001. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000403686

[16] Gouvernement français, «Entrée en vigueur de l’accord de Paris», noviembre de 2016. http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/entree-en-vigueur-de-laccord-de-paris/ (sitio consultado el 12 de noviembre de 2016). 

[17] Entretien avec Ary Yée-Chong Tchi-Kan, 12 novembre 2016. 

[18] Témoignages, «Bientôt 100 000 chauffe-eau solaires à La Réunion», 28 de septiembre de 2009. http://www.temoignages.re/developpement/energies/bientot-100-000-chauffe-eau-solaires-a-la-reunion,39075 (sitio consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2016). 

[19] Paul Vergès, «Débat : Régionales Paul Vergès 2», 22 de febrero de 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnq8mC4Avds (sitio consultado el 12 de noviembre de 2016). 

[20] Témoignages, «Nouvelle impulsion pour la Maison des Civilisations et de l’Unité Réunionnaise», 10 de noviembre de 2004. http://www.temoignages.re/culture/culture-et-identite/nouvelle-impulsion-pour-la-maison-des-civilisations-et-de-l-unite-reunionnaise,6226 (sitio consultado el 12 de noviembre de 2016). 

[21] INSEE, «Les allocataires de minima sociaux toujours plus nombreux», 2014. http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/reunion/themes/insee-dossier/re_ind_01/re_ind_01_chap9.pdf (sitio consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2016). 

[22] Sénat, «Les DOM, défi pour la République, chance pour la France, 100 propositions pour fonder l’avenir (volume 1, rapport)», 7 de julio de 2009. https://www.senat.fr/notice-rapport/2008/r08-519-1-notice.html (sitio consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2016). 

[23] INSEE, «Compétences à l’écrit», 2011. http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=24&ref_id=20904 (sitio consultado el 13 de noviembre de 2016).

Doctor en Estudios Ibéricos y Latinoamericanos de la Universidad Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, Salim Lamrani es 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

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is heading a controversial campaign against crime, embodied in his “war on drugs” which has led to violence spanning the nation’s troubled urban centers. President Duterte’s comments have ranged from reasonable, to utterly indifferent regarding fears of extrajudicial executions, vigilantism, and very real human rights abuses – opening a door of opportunity for his political opponents both at home and abroad.

President Duterte’s inability to clearly condemn extrajudicial executions and vigilante violence, along with his inflammatory, provocative, even dangerously demagogic statements both invites further abuses, as well as both legitimate and opportunistic criticism of him, his administration, and his policies.

While legitimate criticism is both necessary and justified, it is undermined by disingenuous political opportunism, wielded by hypocrites who only stand to compound the Philippines’ current crisis, not solve it.

America the Humane? 

Among President Duterte’s more opportunistic political opponents is the United States.

While the United States would otherwise be justified and morally grounded in its criticism of President Duterte’s administration, there are some current and past complications that reveal such criticism as stark hypocrisy, crass opportunism, and even the cynical political exploitation of abuse, rather than any genuine attempt to constructively address or stop it. The most recent manifestation of America’s feigned concern regarding the Philippines’ ongoing campaign against accused illicit narcotic dealers was the blocking of a shipment of US-made rifles destined for Philippine police units. Some 26,000 rifles were on order before being blocked by the US Senate based on “concerns about human rights violations.”

These concerns, however, have not prevented the US from selling billions of dollars worth of weapons, including warplanes, munitions, tanks, and helicopters to Saudi Arabia, who is using this vast US-made arsenal to oppress its own people and execute a war of aggression against neighboring Yemen. Saudi Arabia is also admittedly involved in arming and funding terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq, including with US-made weapons – particularly anti-tank TOW missiles. This hypocrisy exposes US “concerns” as merely politically motivated, designed to put pressure on Manila in an effort to reassert US influence over the Southeast Asian state. Not only has the US previously enjoyed greater influence over the Philippines since the end of World War II, but before the war, and for half a century, the United States literally controlled the Philippines as a US territory. It seized the Philippines in a bloody 1899-1902 war that claimed the lives of over a quarter of a million people (some sources estimate over half a million), and initiated an occupation marked by brutality, oppression, and torture, including the introduction of water boarding (then called “water curing”) conducted by the US as a means of attitude adjustment for local Philippine leaders.

It is ironic and telling that both water boarding and attempts by the US to maintain influence over the Philippines both persist to this day. Attempts by the US to predicate its desire to control Manila on “concerns about human rights violations” not only is bitterly ironic, it undermines those genuinely attempting to expose and stop real abuses taking place amid the Philippines’ current crisis. President Duterte has been able to insulate himself from criticism precisely because of US hypocrisy and meddling. Had independent, local activists and media platforms – networked with regional and international organizations – attempted to expose and rein in President Duterte’s anti-crime campaign, it would have been immeasurably more difficult to dismiss the facts and continue with impunity. The US has in essence discredited genuine human rights concerns by hijacking them for self-serving political objectives.

Extrajudicial executions, vigilante violence, and President Duterte’s indifference, even defense of both, needs to be opposed – but by the people of the Philippines – not disingenuous, exploitative, and self-serving foreign interests who are not only notorious human rights abusers today – worldwide – but who have carried out campaigns of extermination, torture, and human rights abuses in the Philippines itself, as a foreign conqueror and occupier.

For President Duterte, it is more than possible for him to lead a more dignified and just campaign against criminals operating across the Philippines. Nations like Singapore have used stern, popular, but legitimate judicial measures to rein in the drug trade and organized crime, so can the Philippines. Doing so would close this door of opportunity President Duterte himself opened to the Americans, and leaves open with his current policies.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

If completed, 450,000 barrels of fracked oil will be delivered through the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) daily over 1,168 miles – through North and South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois.

It’ll environmentally damage sacred Standing Rock Sioux Tribe ancestral lands, communities, farmland, wildlife habitat, and other sensitive areas.

Certain spills will pollute the landscape and drinking water, harming public health and well-being. Construction was authorized without public involvement and adequate environmental review.

Following Trump’s election, Greenpeace issued a statement, saying “President Obama still has the ultimate say in deciding whether the Dakota Access pipeline moves forward, and water protectors and allies will continue to fight to ensure it is defeated quickly.”

“There is no doubt that Donald Trump poses an immediate threat to our climate and will try to fast track this and other fossil fuel projects across the country.”

“This is all the more reason for President Obama to step in immediately to stop the pipeline once and for all. We will not allow Donald Trump to set back all of the progress we have made on climate.”

“We will not let his administration’s cynical dismissal of the biggest challenge of our time deter us from standing up ferociously against the influence of the fossil fuel industry.”

Over 25 environmental and other organizations wrote Nigel Beck, Equator Principles Association chair, representing large banking and other investors financing DAPL, saying in part:

“The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project.”

The letter urged an “immediate halt to the construction of the pipeline and all associated structures, until all outstanding issues are resolved to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.”

On Tuesday, nearly 200 anti-DAPL protests occurred nationwide, a Day of Action, calling for the project to be halted.

According to Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) spokesman Dallas Goldtooth, “(t)he purpose is to elevate and encourage the Army Corps to exert its power to stop this pipeline.”

On Monday, the Interior Department Department delayed deciding on whether to grant an easement for tunnel construction under Lake Oahe, a vital area water resource.

Energy Transfer Partners seeks it, the main DAPL backer. According to Phillips 66, a pipeline investor, construction is 85% completed, the remaining portion to traverse Standing Rock Sioux Tribal land and tunnel construction beneath Lake Oahe.

A November 15 #NoDAPL Day of Action memo said “(t)he Army Corps fast-tracked the Dakota Access Pipeline without proper consultation, and as a result, bulldozers are approaching Standing Rock as we speak.”

“But with coordinated, massive demonstrations across the country, we’ll make it clear that this powerful movement will not allow the sacrifice of Indigenous rights, our water, or our climate.”

Energy Transfer Partners CEO Kelcy Warren said he’s “100%” certain about Trump OKing the pipeline’s completion. “We will get this easement, and we will complete our project,” he added.

The company’s stock price increased 15% in value the day after Trump’s election. His energy plan calls for more fossil fuel production, more fracking and fewer regulations – assuring greater environmental damage than already.

Lucas Oil founder Forrest Lucas and “drill, baby, drill” former Alaska governor/John McCain 2008 running Sarah Palin are on Trump’s short list for interior secretary.

The DAPL battle is far from over, perhaps boiling over once Trump authorizes it. He vowed to rescind Obama’s climate policies and approve Keystone XL pipeline construction, another hugely controversial project, risking enormous environmental damage.

If approved, it’ll traverse 1,661 miles from Alberta, Canada to Port Arthur, TX – transporting toxic tar sands oil from Western Canada to refineries on America’s Gulf coast.

It’ll be situated on environmentally sensitive land in six states, affecting waterways and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the world’s largest, supplying about 30% of America’s irrigation ground water.

Big Oil wants it. So does Trump. From all indications, he’s no friend of the earth.

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.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has unleashed a series of tweets calling for a “state of emergency” to be declared and for the ongoing anti-Trump protests to be violently “quelled” by the military.

On Friday, Clarke wrote on Twitter: “How to stop riots. 1) Declare state of emergency. 2) Impose early curfew. 3) Mobilize Nat Guard. 4) Authorize ALL non lethal force. 5) Tear gas [sic].”

The significance of this rant is relatively plain. This is a proposal for the imposition of martial law and the complete lockdown of American cities in which anti-Trump protests continue to take place. Clarke’s language recalls the extraordinary Boston lockdown of 2013, in which the population was ordered to “shelter in place” while militarized police units conducted house-to-house searches. Curfews were also used as part of efforts to suppress the protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, following the killing of Michael Brown.

The phrase “ALL non-lethal force” (and the capitalization for emphasis) signifies a bloodthirsty eagerness to inflict violence against anti-Trump protests: rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, tasers, punches, kicks, and baton strikes.

Clarke is a celebrity sheriff known for taking provocative far-right positions while posturing, strutting, and preening for the cameras in his police uniform. He is one of two candidates being considered for the post of director of the Department of Homeland Security in the Trump administration, according to Politico. The post is currently occupied by Jeh Johnson.

The other candidate named by Politico is also a celebrity sheriff: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who made a name for himself through the flagrantly racist and discriminatory treatment of immigrants and provocative defiance of court orders to stop.

Many people in the US were introduced to Clarke for the first time when he delivered a fascistic rant—in a black uniform, decorated with various badges and ribbons—at Trump’s Republican National Convention in July.

This speech featured Clarke shouting “Blue lives matter in America” into the microphone, while the audience chanted “U-S-A, U-S-A.” Clarke went on to define Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street protests as illegal and illegitimate, describing them as “anarchy.”

On November 9, Clarke wrote on Twitter: “These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people.” The irony of the phrase “the will of the people” is lost on Clarke, under conditions where Trump received roughly a quarter of the votes of eligible voters and lost the popular vote.

On November 11, Clarke wrote: “These riots are not protest [sic] and should be quelled quickly. These goon anarchists do not believe in the US Constitution or the rule of law.”

This drivel is coming from the supposed chief “law enforcement officer” of an entire county, who is being considered for a senior position in the Trump administration. It provides a glimpse of the pseudo-legal categories that will be invoked to suppress opposition once president-elect Donald Trump takes office. Demonstrations are labeled “riots.” Protesters are labeled “goon anarchists.” The “rule of law” is redefined as “the majesty of Trump,” such that anyone who does not “believe in” it is not entitled to democratic rights.

One hesitates to engage in any serious legal analysis of the positions of celebrity provocateurs like Clarke, but it must be said all the same that Clarke’s conception of the “rule of law” turns the classical idea into its opposite. From a democratic legal standpoint, protests are entirely consistent with the “rule of law” and are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which expressly prohibits any restriction on “the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If anything, it is figures like Clarke that “do not believe in the US Constitution or the rule of law.”

The use of a unilaterally declared “state of emergency” to suppress protests is a tactic familiar to anyone who has studied the history of the 20th century’s most authoritarian regimes. The essential formulation of this doctrine was provided by Nazi “crown jurist” Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). Under Schmitt’s infamous “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand) doctrine, the government can invoke a national emergency to override all democratic rights and disregard the rule of law. More recently, this formula has been invoked in France to crack down on all expressions of oppositional political sentiment. (See: “The state of emergency and the collapse of French democracy”)

With respect to Clarke’s proposal to call in the National Guard, as a historical and legal matter, the use of the national military to suppress domestic protests is illegal. While examples can be provided of its violation by a long line presidents, this principle dates back to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and nominally remains in effect.

It is worth noting that in 2007, the federal legislature attempted to legalize the suppression of protests using the military. Section 1076 of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies,” included the following language:

“The President may employ the armed forces … to… restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when … the President determines that … domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order… or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such … a condition … so hinders the execution of the laws … that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law … or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

This language was repealed in 2008, to be replaced in 2011 with the Obama administration’s vague and equally ominous formulation that the military can be used domestically to target any “person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

Clarke’s Twitter rants are so full of legal non-sequiturs that one does not know where to begin or end. Under existing law, the police are only authorized to use force in self-defense or when it is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to overcome resistance to lawful objectives. Therefore, it makes no sense to employ the phrase, “Authorize ALL non lethal force.” Even within the existing American legal system—which is already weighted dramatically in favor of the police—a government official cannot “authorize” a violent attack on a protest.

While Clarke rants now about the “goons” who have no respect for the “rule of law,” he struck a different tone when Trump appeared to be down in the polls. On October 15, three weeks before the election, he wrote: “It’s incredible that our institutions of gov, WH, Congress, DOJ, and big media are corrupt & all we do is bitch. Pitchforks and torches time [sic].”

So much for the rule of law!

Clarke’s response to the election of Trump was an effusive series of tweets like the following: “God truly does love America to not have allowed evil to triumph over good. Our prayers have been answered!” And: “Ding, dong the witch DEAD! President elect Donald Trump has prevailed!”

Clarke’s twitter feed is a relentless parade of right-wing nostrums, amalgams, and provocations. In one tweet, he wrote, “Black Lies [sic] Matter will join forces with ISIS to being [sic] down our legal constituted republic [sic].” In another, he described the protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri as “vultures on a rotting carcass.” One wonders how much time Clarke actually spends on his official duties versus on his Twitter account. It is a scandal that he has been permitted to collect a sheriff’s salary for so long while basically functioning as a professional internet troll.

In the final analysis, Clarke’s eagerness to inflict violence on anti-Trump protesters—and the fact that he is nevertheless being considered for a post in the Trump administration—reflects the homicidal class hostility with which the political establishment views any form of opposition to its policies or its rule. It confirms the analysis made by the World Socialist Web Site that the so-called “war on terror,” together with the militarization of the police, were never about protecting the American population from harm. Instead, these policies—implemented relentlessly through both the Bush and Obama administrations—were designed to build up the framework of a police state and abrogate democratic obstacles to authoritarian rule. These are tools the incoming Trump regime is now itching to deploy against any opposition to its unpopular policies.

Donald Trump must decide – and decide quickly – whether he wants to be a great U.S. President or a robo-signature machine affixing his name to whatever legislation comes from congressional Republicans and a nodding figurehead acquiescing to more neoconservative foreign policy adventures.

Or, to put it in a vernacular that Trump might use, does he want to be “Paul Ryan’s bitch” on domestic policies? And does he want to surrender his foreign policy to the “wise guys” of Washington’s neocon establishment.

Donald Trump speaking with supporters in Phoenix, Arizona. June 18, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

Trump’s problem is that he has few fully developed ideas about how to proceed in a presidency that even many of his close followers did not expect would happen. Plus, over the past few decades, the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks have marginalized almost every dissenting expert, including old-line “realists” who once were important figures.

So, the bench of “confirmable” experts who have dissented on neocon/liberal-hawk policies is very thin. To find national security leaders who would break with the prevailing “group thinks,” Trump would have go outside normal channels and take a risk on some fresh thinkers.

But most mainstream media accounts doubt that he will. That is why speculation has centered on Trump settling on several neocon retreads for Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, such as former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former CIA Director James Woolsey and ex-National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, all staunch supporters of George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq War which Trump has denounced.

‘Team of Rivals’

If Trump is guided in that direction, he will make the same mistake that President Barack Obama made during the 2008 transition when Obama was seduced by the idea of a Lincoln-esque “Team of Rivals” and staffed key top national security jobs with hawks — keeping Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates, hiring Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leaving in place top generals, such as David Petraeus.

That decision trapped the inexperienced Obama into a policy of continuity with Bush’s wars and related policies, such as domestic spying, rather than enabling Obama to achieve his promised “change.”

Faced with powerful “rivals” within his own administration, Obama was maneuvered into an ill-considered “counterinsurgency” escalation in Afghanistan in 2009 that did little more than get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed along with many more Afghans.

Secretary Clinton also sold out the elected progressive president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, when he was ousted in a coup in 2009, signaling to Latin America that “El Norte” hadn’t changed much.

Then, Clinton sabotaged Obama’s first attempt in 2010 to enlist the help of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to work out a deal with Iran on constraining its nuclear program. Clinton favored an escalating confrontation with Iran along the lines dictated by Israeli hardliners.

Clinton and the other hawks succeeded in thwarting Obama’s will because, as Gates wrote in his memoir Duty, Gates and Clinton were “un-fireable” in that they could challenge Obama whenever they wished while realizing that Obama would have to pay an unacceptably high price to remove them.

As clever “inside players,” Gates, Clinton and Petraeus also understood that if Obama balked at their policy prescriptions, they could undercut him by going to friends in the mainstream news media and leaking information about how Obama was “weak” in not supporting a more warlike approach to problems.

Obama’s Real Weakness

Yet, by failing to stand up to this neocon/liberal-hawk pressure, Obama did make himself weak. Essentially, he never got control of his foreign policy and even after the Gates-Clinton-Petraeus trio was gone by the start of Obama’s second term, the President still feared angering Washington’s foreign policy establishment which often followed the heed of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

President Barack Obama stands with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the President’s official arrival ceremony in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Obama was so worried about Israel that, at the apex of his power after winning reelection in 2012, Obama went on a several-day trip to visit Netanyahu in a craven attempt to show his love and obeisance to Israel. Obama took similar trips to Saudi Arabia.

Still, that was not enough to spare him the wrath of Netanyahu and the Saudi royals when Obama finally pushed successfully for an Iran nuclear deal in 2014. Netanyahu humiliated Obama by accepting a Republican invitation in 2015 to speak to a joint session of Congress where he urged U.S. lawmakers to repudiate their own President.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia demanded and got new concessions from Obama on arms sales and his grudging support for their proxy war in Syria as well as their direct aerial bombardment of Yemen – both part of a Sunni Wahhabist sectarian strategy for destroying Shiite-related regimes. (The Sunni/Shiite clash dates back to the Seventh Century.)

Indeed, the little-recognized Israeli-Saudi alliance targeting the so-called “Shiite crescent” – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Iran – is at the heart of what has been driving U.S. policy in the Middle East since the 1990s.

And, if President-elect Trump wants to truly reverse the downward spiral of the United States as it has squandered trillions of dollars in futile Mideast wars, he will have to go up against the Israeli-Saudi tandem and make it clear that he will not be manipulated as Obama was.

Saudi King Salman bids farewell to President Barack Obama at Erga Palace after a state visit to Saudi Arabia on Jan. 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Facing down such a powerful coalition of Israel (with its extraordinary U.S. lobbying apparatus) and Saudi Arabia (with its far-reaching financial clout) would require both imagination and courage. It would not be possible if Trump surrounds himself with senior advisers under the thumb of Prime Minister Netanyahu and King Salman.

So, we will learn a great deal about whether Trump is a real player or just a pretender when he selects his foreign policy team. Will he find imaginative new thinkers who can break the disastrous cycles of Mideast wars and reduce tensions with Russia or will he just tap into the usual suspects of Republican orthodoxy?

Sunlight on the Swamp

Trump could also show his independence from Republican orthodoxy by recognizing that government secrecy has gone way too far, a drift into opacity that dates back to Ronald Reagan and his reversal of the more open-government policies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Trump says he wants to “drain the swamp” of Washington, but to do that first requires letting in much more sunlight and sharing much more information with the American people.

For starters – assuming that the timid Obama won’t take the risk – President Trump could pardon national security whistleblowers who have faced or could face prosecution, such as Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling and Edward Snowden.

That could be followed by an executive order forbidding excessive secrecy inside the federal government, recognizing that “We the People” are the nation’s true sovereigns and thus deserve as much information as possible while protecting necessary secrets.

Trump could show he means business about respecting average American citizens by sharing with them U.S. intelligence assessments on key controversies, such as the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria and the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. [See here and here.]

The Obama administration has engaged in selective release of information about these mysteries to manipulate U.S. public opinion, not to inform and thus empower the American people. Trump could go a long way toward restoring public trust by renouncing such tricks.

He also could save many billions of dollars by shutting down U.S. propaganda agencies whose role also is to use various P.R. tricks to shape both foreign and domestic opinion, often in the cause of “regime changes” or “color revolutions.”

Trump could shut down the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy, return the U.S. Agency for International Development to its legitimate purpose of helping poor countries build schools and drill wells, and shutter the trouble-making National Endowment for Democracy.

By steering the world away from the New Cold War with nuclear-armed Russia, Trump could not only help save the future of mankind, he could save trillions of dollars that otherwise would end up in the pockets of the Military-Industrial Complex.

FDR or Coolidge?

Regarding domestic policy, some Republicans expect that Trump will simply sign off on whatever Ayn-Rand-inspired legislation that House Speaker Ryan pushes through Congress, whether turning Medicare into a voucher program or privatizing Social Security.

President Franklin Roosevelt

In this area, too, Trump will have to decide whether he wants to be a great president in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt or someone more of the caliber of Calvin Coolidge.

Trump also must face the reality that he has lost the popular vote by a rather significant margin – almost a million votes in the latest tallies – and thus only has the presidency because of the archaic Electoral College. In other words, he lacks a real mandate from the people.

When confronted with a similar situation in 2000, George W. Bush chose to pretend that he had a decisive mandate for his right-wing policies, shoved them down the Democrats’ throats (such as his massive tax cut mostly for the rich that wiped out the budget surplus), and eventually saw his failed presidency sink into bitter partisanship.

Republicans will surely urge Trump to do the same, to ignore the popular vote, but he might do well to surprise people by looking for overlapping areas where Democrats and Republicans can cooperate.

For instance, many Democrats fear that Trump will undo the difficult progress made on climate change over the past eight years. After all, Trump has voiced doubts about the scientific consensus on the existential threat posed by global warming.

But Trump also wants to invest heavily in America’s infrastructure (plus he has vowed to help the inner cities). So, there’s potential common ground if Trump were to launch a major program to create a world-class mass transit system for urban and suburban areas.

Trump might even turn to one of his critics, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for Transportation Secretary with instructions to study mass transit in Japan and Europe and implement a similar system in the United States, quickly. Besides creating jobs and improving life for urban dwellers (who largely supported Hillary Clinton), quality and fast mass transit could get millions of Americans out of their cars and thus help in the fight against global warming, too.

To demonstrate a willingness to reach across the aisle on such important issues, Trump might even consider offering Energy Secretary to Al Gore.

But such bold steps would require Trump to have the courage and creativity to go against the Republican “playbook” which calls for a zero-sum game against the Democrats.

Whether Trump has such courage and foresight is the pressing question of the moment. Will he go for true greatness (both for himself and America) or will he be content to have his name and face on one of those place mats showing the 45 U.S. Presidents?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Post-election comments on Middle East policy last week by President-elect Donald Trump and one his campaign advisers have provoked speculation about whether Trump will upend two main foreign policy lines of the Obama administration in the Middle East.

But the more decisive question about the future of US policy toward the region is whom Trump will pick for his national security team – and especially whether he will nominate John Bolton to become secretary of state.

Bolton, one of the most notorious members of Dick Cheney’s team plotting wars in the George W Bush administration, would certainly push for the effective nullification of the main political barrier to US confrontation with Iran: the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal.

Personnel is policy

Trump created a minor stir by giving an interview to the Wall Street Journal last Thursday in which he reiterated his criticism of the Obama administration’s involvement in the war against Syria’s Assad and supported cooperation with Russia against the Islamic State group.

And a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser once connected with an extremist sectarian Christian militia in Lebanon named Walid Phares suggested in an interview with BBC radio that Trump would demand that Iran “change [a] few issues” in the agreement and that “the agreement as it is right now… is not going to be accepted by a Trump administration”.

The significance of that interview, however, is very unclear. Trump himself had avoided threatening such a move during the campaign, denouncing the nuclear agreement as “disastrous” but avoiding any pledge to renounce it as his Republican rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio had done. In his speech to AIPAC, Trump thundered against the agreement but promised only to enforce it strictly and hold Iran “accountable”.

Trump has consistently embraced the long-standing official US animosity toward Iran, but thus far he has given no indication that he intends to provoke an unnecessary crisis with Iran.

In any case, Trump’s own views will only be the starting point for policymaking on Syria and Iran. His national security team will have the power to initiate policy proposals as well as effective veto power over Trump’s foreign policy preferences.

That is why Trump’s choices of nominations for the top positions on national security will certainly be the crucial factor in determining what policy lines ultimately emerge on those issues – and why the real possibility of Bolton’s nomination as secretary of state now represents the greatest threat to international peace and security.

Obama’s Afghanistan problem

Barack Obama became president with a firm intention to get US combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months as he had promised during the campaign. But in his very first meeting with Centcom Commander General David Petraeus, Secretary of Defence Robert M Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen in late January 2009, Petraeus and his two allies pressed Obama to back down on his pledge, arguing that it wasn’t realistic.

In the end, Obama accepted a scheme devised by the military and Pentagon officials under which combat brigades remained in Iraq, long after the August 2010 Obama deadline for their withdrawal with no reduction in combat capability. They were simply given additional tasks of advising and assisting Iraqi military units and renamed “advisory and assistance brigades”.

Later in 2009, Obama’s national security team, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pushed for a major US military escalation in Afghanistan in 2009-2010. Obama didn’t buy the arguments by Petraeus, Gates and Mullen for a huge increase in US troops in Afghanistan. He and Vice President Joe Biden argued that the implosion of Pakistan was a much bigger problem than Afghanistan and that there was no evidence of a threat that al-Qaeda would return to Afghanistan.

But the war coalition leaked a story to the press that the White House was ignoring a new intelligence assessment that the Afghan Taliban would invite al-Qaeda back into the country if they won the war.

In fact, the intelligence community had produced no such assessment, but the proponents of a big counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan were demonstrating their power to use the media to raise the political cost to Obama of resisting their demand.

Obama gave in on the additional troops, again imposing a deadline for their withdrawal, and the US is still engaged in a losing war in Afghanistan seven years later.

Bombing Iran

Those largely unknown episodes underline just how vulnerable Donald Trump will be as president to pressures from his national security team to support policies with which he may disagree – unless he chooses people who agree with his policy preferences.

But Trump has a peculiar problem in that regard. He has already alienated virtually the entire Republican Party national security elite by attacking sacred cows such as NATO, and he has been boycotted by the corps of senior officials from the George W Bush administration – except for Bolton.

Although Bolton is best known as US ambassador to the UN during the George W Bush administration, it was in his previous role as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security from 2001 through 2004 that he played his most important role in US foreign policy.

Although the story was never covered in the corporate news media, I have recounted in my history of the Iran nuclear issue how Bolton, with the full approval of Vice President Dick Cheney and in coordination with Israel, began in 2003 to implement a strategy aimed ultimately at manoeuvring the US into a military confrontation with Iran. The strategy relied on the accusation that the Islamic Republic was carrying out a covert nuclear weapons programme.

Bolton and Cheney failed to get their war with Iran, and Bolton was moved to the UN in the second Bush term. But Bolton has never stopped talking about the need for the US to bomb Iran. In a New York Post opinion piece on 14 November, he called on Trump to “abrogate” the nuclear agreement on his first day in office. He wants to be secretary of state in order to pursue just such a policy, and he is under serious consideration, according to news reports last week.

Threat of war

If Bolton were nominated as secretary of state, it would be an open invitation for more plotting of schemes within the Trump administration for the war against Iran that Bolton still craves.

Bolton would not necessarily prevail in pushing for a direct military confrontation with Iran over the nuclear issue because the US military would probably exercise its veto over any policy that risks war with Iran.

But he could, nevertheless, provoke a crisis with Iran by subverting the agreement itself. He would begin by trying to get Trump to stop using his presidential waiver power to carry out its provisions on lifting sanctions against Iran.

Under normal circumstances, Bolton would never have a chance to reprise his role as war provocateur, but the political circumstances today are anything but normal. There is a very real danger that the Trump transition team will turn to him because it sees no alternative among the usual suspects.

The only alternative is to turn to a seasoned diplomat who has not served in senior national security positions in a Republican administration. And if the choices for other top positions are not determined to avoid the kind of confrontation that Bolton would try to provoke, he could conceivably succeed.

So the disintegration of the political order controlled by the old Democratic and Republican party elites could spawn new threats of war unless Trump and his advisers are clever enough to see the need to avoid them in their choices of national security officials in the coming days.

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

Here are 5 stunning facts about the 2016 election …

(1) The Clinton Campaign Promoted Trump as a Republican Candidate

Team Clinton promoted Donald Trump as a Republican candidate … because they thought he’d be easy to beat:

(2) Sanders Had a Better Chance of Beating Trump … But the Democratic Establishment Sabotaged Him

Polls showed that Bernie Sanders might well have beaten Trump.  Not only did Sanders score much higher in likeability than Clinton, but many moderate voters actually preferred Sanders.

Remember, Sanders (like Trump) created a tremendous amount of excitement, with massive turnout at his rallies.  Clinton didn’t.

Clinton lost because Democrats stayed home … because they weren’t excited about her.

But leaked emails show that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) did everything it could to help Clinton and  sabotage Sanders.  After the leaks, the DNC was forced to issue a formal apology:

On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email.

The Hill notes:

Progressives believe the Democratic establishment is responsible for inflicting Donald Trump upon the nation, blaming a staid corporate wing of the party for nominating Hillary Clinton and ignoring the Working Class voters that propelled Trump to victory.

Liberals interviewed by The Hill want to see establishment Democrats targeted in primaries, and the “Clinton-corporate wing” of the party rooted out for good.

***

There is talk among some progressives, like Bill Clinton’s former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, about splitting from the Democratic Party entirely if they don’t get the changes they seek.

“The Democratic Party can no longer be the same, it has been repudiated,” Reich said on a conference call with members from the progressive grassroots group Democracy for America.

“This has been a huge refutation of establishment politics and the political organization has got to be changed…if the Democratic Party can’t do it, we’ll do it through a third party.”

(3)  Trump Took the Overwhelming Majority of U.S. Counties

As shown in this map (click on “Results By County”) from the San Francisco Chronicle, Trump won the overwhelming majority of American counties:

Islands of Blue In a Sea of Red

So while Clinton won the popular vote – since the Northeast, California and a couple of other large metropolitan districts went for  Clinton – most areas of America did not.

(4) The Numbers Show that Trump Did NOT Win Because of Racism and Sexism

While Clinton supporters frequently assume that Trump supporters are all racists and sexists, the numbers show that this is NOT TRUE.

(5) So Why DID Trump Win?

So why did voters elect Trump?

Because – just like the Brexit voters – they’ve rejected globalism.

The likely shape of British foreign policy post-Brexit is slowly emerging five months on from the 23 June referendum, and the picture is extremely concerning from any ethical viewpoint. Britain is on course to ignore human rights in its foreign policy even more than in the recent past. And, if recent speeches by military leaders are anything to go by, it is even threatening to increasingly use its global military power to secure its financial and economic interests.

The past few months have seen a striking rise in the tempo with which British ministers are seeking to sell arms and do trade deals with the unelected, authoritarian regimes of the Arabian Gulf. In September, Theresa May hosted the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Al Thani, saying that his country was a ‘natural partner’ of the UK which was seeking to promote investment and ‘defence’ (i.e., arms exports). The meeting followed Defence Secretary Michael Fallon hosting Qatar’s Defence Minister to discuss joint military training in which Fallon also announced the creation of a new Deputy Defence Attaché role in Qatar ‘which will ensure strong and continued defence engagement’.

Last month, Theresa May also hosted the King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa, notorious for his country’s brutal crackdown on dissidents and the Shia community. The Prime Minister reiterated the UK’s ‘firm commitment to the security of the Gulf’ – government code for continuing support for the regime. Royal visits have also been made to Oman and the United Arab Emirates and the government has reaffirmed its commitment to building two new military bases in Bahrain and Oman.

Meanwhile, Britain has struck an extraordinary new special relationship with the military rulers of Egypt, who overthrow a democratically-elected government in 2013. In August, Theresa May spoke with Egyptian military ruler General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and ‘discussed a new chapter in bilateral relations between the UK and Egypt’. Since late 2015 numerous ministerial meetings have been held to promote military cooperation.

These repressive states do what Whitehall wants in the post-Brexit world: they buy our arms, house our weapons, support our power projection, and invest in the UK, all unencumbered by democratic distractions at home.

It is not just the Arab states in the Gulf that British elites are cultivating afresh. So too Israel. Brexit ‘creates a real opportunity for Israel and the UK to work even more closely together’, the UK’s ambassador, David Quarrey, said in Tel Aviv last month. ‘With Israel I see the opportunity for closer cooperation on trade, investment, technology, science and security’, Quarrey said. While UK rhetoric continues to criticise Israeli settlement building in the occupied territories, it applies no real pressure to bring this about. Rather, it is increasing arms exports: in the three months from April-June this year, the UK exported a massive £65 million in military equipment to Israel compared to £9.5 million in the whole of 2015.

The indication is Britain will promote arms exports post-Brexit even more vigorously than in the recent past – not an easy goal given Britain’s existing status as the world’s second largest arms exporter. The reason is that Ministers appear to regard arms exports as part of the UK’s newly-found ‘engaging with the world’. Equally worrying is that the government has not even indicated that, after leaving the EU, it will remain bound by the (already embarrassingly weak) EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

Since June, the government has been constantly highlighting its plan to increase the military budget every year until the end of the decade. It is also engaged in a massive £178 billion military re-equipment programme – a project that does not sit easily with ‘austerity Britain’ – and is constructing two large aircraft carriers, the largest ships ever in the Royal Navy, to increase Britain’s ability to project force around the world. All these factors are seen by Ministers as evidence of Britain’s re-engagement with the post-Brexit world.

Britain’s increased power projection capability looks even more worrying in light of two remarkable speeches recently given by the head of the Royal Navy, the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones. In a speech to an audience in Washington last month, Jones said, in reference to the Gulf region in particular:

‘Now that our Government seeks to extend the UK’s economic partnerships post-Brexit, the Royal Navy stands ready once again to be melded and aligned for best effect with our nation’s growing global ambition’.

Jones went on to infer that Britain’s possession of Trident nuclear weapons, which are of course housed by the Navy, is a signal of Britain’s new role in the world. He said:

‘This continued investment [in the Navy] is a powerful sign that far from being a diminished nation, withdrawing from the world, the United Kingdom has both the intent and the means to protect our interests, shoulder our commitment and support our partners across the globe’.

In July, Jones delivered an equally remarkable speech to representatives from the City of London at the Mansion House. Jones noted ‘Britain’s continuing, and indeed growing, position of global maritime leadership’ and the government’s commitment ‘for the work of the armed forces to more closely support the UK’s own prosperity’. He went on to say that the Navy, ‘at the height of Empire and beyond…has always been the guardian of maritime trade’, noting that ‘it was naval power that opened China and Japan to Western markets’ – referring to the brutal British conquest of China. Then Jones added:

‘Now, as the government looks to extend the UK’s economic partnerships, as signified by the creation of a new Department for International Trade in the last two weeks, the Royal Navy’s role in supporting prosperity rises to the fore once more.’

At the same time Jones highlighted Britain’s new ‘carrier strike’ capability: ‘The introduction of the first of two new aircraft carriers into the Royal Navy next year is a huge opportunity for the UK to signal its continuing ambition in the world’.

The meaning of this from the rest of Jones’s speech is clear – the head of the Royal Navy is seriously saying that British sea power and military force will protect and enhance British financial and commercial interests, including those of the City of London, especially in Asia. This is a clear exposition of the return of imperial gunboat diplomacy that Britain may be envisaging in the post-Brexit world.

Follow Mark Curtis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markcurtis30

A council of Native American leaders has offered partial amnesty to the estimated 220 million illegal white immigrants living in the United States.

The “white” problem has been a topic of much debate in the Native American community for centuries, and community leaders have decided the time has come to properly address it.*

Daily Currant reports, “At a meeting of the Native Peoples Council (NPC) in Albuquerque, New Mexico yesterday, Native American leaders considered several proposals on the future of this continent’s large, unauthorized European population.

The elders ultimately decided to extend a pathway to citizenship for those without criminal backgrounds.”

“We are prepared to offer White people the option of staying on this continent legally and applying for citizenship,” explains Chief Wamsutta of the Wampanoag nation.

“In return, they must pay any outstanding taxes and give back the land stolen from our ancestors.

“Any white person with a criminal record, however, will be deported in the next 90 days back to their ancestral homeland.

Rush Limbaugh will be going to Germany. Justin Bieber will depart for Canada.

And the entire cast of Jersey Shore will be returning to Italy.”

Illegal white immigration has been rapidly increasing for nearly 400 years from the European countries of France, Spain and England.

These illegals have ravished the land and colonized areas occupied by the natives.

Some white supporters claim the immigrants are a blessing, arguing that they take all of the menial white-collar jobs that the natives don’t even want.

‘What native would want to have a cushy salary and a corner office as an accountant, or the excess of power as senator or fortune-500 CEO,?’ they claim.

Others are not so forgiving.  “Why can’t we just deport all of the Whites back to Europe?” asks Ité Omácau of the Lakota people.

“They’re just a drain on our economy anyway. They came over here to steal our resources because they’re too lazy to develop their own back home…

I can’t believe we’re just going to let them pay a fine. They should get to the back of the line like everybody else — behind the Mexicans.”

*For the offended… this is satire.

Multiple media reports that former New York City Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is president-elect Donald Trump’s top choice for secretary of state have provided further indication of the extreme right-wing and militarily bellicose character of the incoming US administration.

A senior Trump campaign official told the Associated Press Tuesday that Giuliani was the favorite for the post, while indicating that the equally right-wing and militaristic former US ambassador to the United Nations under the administration of George W. Bush, John Bolton, was also in the running.

The fact that these two—both adamant supporters of every US war over the past quarter century—are the front-runners for the top foreign policy position in the incoming Republican administration gives the lie to Trump’s pretensions on the campaign trail that he was somehow opposed to recent US military interventions and “nation building.”

Trump’s phony claims that he had been against the Iraq war were meant to appeal to popular hostility to the endless US military interventions with which his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton was so clearly identified. At the same time, however, he repeatedly advocated a major increase in US military spending and a modernization of Washington’s nuclear arsenal.

His “America First” rhetoric and promotion of economic nationalism go hand-in-hand with a further escalation of a US campaign of global military aggression that has brought the planet ever closer to a third world war.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the former New York mayor is openly pushing for his own appointment. Giuliani, the newspaper said, “suggested several times that he would be interested in the [secretary of state] post” during remarks delivered Monday to the Wall Street Journal CEO Council in Washington, a gathering billed as an “unparalleled opportunity for business leaders to learn the myriad implications of the biggest change in Washington in many years.”

In his remarks, Giuliani insisted that the so-called war on ISIS would be the administration’s first priority, making clear that the global “war on terror” that has been used to justify wars throughout the Middle East and Central Asia will continue. The former New York mayor, who has never tired of waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 to promote his own political and personal fortune and to obscure the rampant corruption that characterized his administration, is heavily invested in this policy, though he has played no role in its implementation.

Asked about Trump’s demands for ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran, Giuliani replied, “You have to set priorities. So if the priority is, let’s eliminate ISIS, maybe you put that off a little bit. And you get rid of ISIS and then get back to that.” In other words, a new US war with Iran remains on the agenda of the incoming administration. During his run for the presidency in 2008, Giuliani said that the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear program could not be taken “off the table.”

And, while Trump has spoken in vague terms of a rapprochement with Russia—and was repeatedly denounced from the right by the Democrats as a puppet of Vladimir Putin—Giuliani sounded a more threatening tone toward Moscow, suggesting military confrontation as a means of shifting relations with Moscow.

“Russia thinks it’s a military competitor, it really isn’t,” Giuliani said. “It’s our unwillingness under Obama to even threaten the use of our military that makes Russia so powerful.”

While Giuliani has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, he is a prominent Trump loyalist and a longtime proponent of police state methods of rule. During his tenure as mayor, he was identified with a repressive “stop and frisk” program—later ruled unconstitutional—that turned virtually every minority and working class youth in the city into a suspect and resulted in a series of egregious police murders of innocent victims like Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond that he vehemently defended.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he proposed that mayoral elections in New York be called off and that he be granted a new unelected term as the only man capable of confronting terrorism. More recently, he has suggested that the anti-Trump demonstrations that have swept the country should be met with police repression.

His apparent principal rival for the secretary of state post, John Bolton, is every bit as reactionary and a pathological supporter of unilateral US military aggression. Barely a year and a half ago, Bolton penned an opinion piece for the New York Times titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” His prescription was for intensive bombing followed by “regime change.”

Bolton rose to prominence in Republican circles after serving as a lawyer in the George W. Bush campaign’s successful operation to steal the 2000 election by halting the vote count in Florida.

He was an advocate of a US war for regime change in Iraq at least since 1998. In 2002, he was the State Department’s undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, playing a key role in preparing the war of aggression against Iraq the following year by promoting the lies that Saddam Hussein was developing “weapons of mass destruction” and preparing to hand them over to Al Qaeda.

Bolton, described by one of his former colleagues at the State Department as “the quintessential kiss up, kick down kind of guy,” was named ambassador to the United Nations in an August 2005 recess appointment by the Bush administration that was meant to serve as a deliberate provocation toward the UN, for which Bolton had repeatedly and publicly declared his contempt.

Both Giuliani and Bolton—like president-elect Trump—have defended the use of torture by the Pentagon and the CIA at Guantanamo, Bagram Air Base and black sites around the world.

The discussion of a possible appointment of either Giuliani or Bolton as the face of US foreign policy is every bit as revealing as the naming Sunday of the outright fascist Steve Bannon as Trump’s chief White House strategist. While not indulging in the open politics of white supremacy and anti-Semitism that has characterized Bannon’s stewardship of Breitbart News, these are unquestionably among the most reactionary and discredited figures in American politics.

When an appointment would be announced was far from clear late Tuesday, with reports of the Trump transition team in a state of utter disarray and beset by bitter internecine conflicts. Former Michigan Republican congressman Mike Rogers, who was brought in to advise Trump on national security and was thought to be a possible nominee for CIA director, has been pushed out of the transition process, following the earlier purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who was hastily replaced by vice president-elect Mike Pence as head of the overall transition operation.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the expulsion of Christie and his allies was carried out in apparent “retaliation for Christie’s role as a US prosecutor in sending [Trump’s son-in-law Jared] Kushner’s father to prison” when he was a federal prosecutor.

Christie’s ouster effectively placed the transition on hold as far as the Obama administration is concerned as the New Jersey governor was the signatory of a document establishing the framework for the process.

The chaos and divisions within the Trump camp were also spelled out in an about-face by a former Republican national security official, Eliot Cohen, who had previously led similar figures in denouncing Trump as unfit for the presidency. In an open letter published last week in the American Interest, he argued that a Trump presidency “may be better than we think,” and that checks and balances and bureaucratic inertia would restrain the incoming administration.

In a tweet early Tuesday, Cohen wrote:

“After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming ‘you LOST!’ Will be ugly.”

This disarray within the Trump camp stands in stark contrast to the obsequious bowing of President Obama and leading Democrats, including purported “progressives” Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, to the billionaire president-elect. Under conditions of continuing nationwide protests, they have effectively renounced any opposition to what is shaping up to be the most right-wing administration in US history, brought to power against the expressed will of the majority of the electorate.

Jad-Nasr lebt in Syrien. Er ist 29 Jahre alt und hat einen Master-Grad in Englischer Literatur. Manchmal benutzt er seine beachtlichen Talente, um hohen Würdenträgern, wie dem Großmufti, als Übersetzer zu dienen. 

Er trägt auch eine Narbe von einer Schußverletzung auf seiner Brust und erhält Morddrohungen. Er sagt, daß Terroristen auf ihn geschossen haben, weil sie die Wahrheit nicht hören wollen. Vermutlich bevorzugen die Terroristen ihre eigene Version der “Wahrheit”, wie sie von den Wahabiten – die al Jazeera und Safa TV unterstützen – ebenso wie die von den Mainstream-Medien verkündete, diktiert wird.

Jads Geschichte ist unerfreulich, und sie beleuchtet, was Syrer tagtäglich zu erleiden haben. Er sagt, daß sein Bruder im letzten Jahr verschleppt wurde, und daß die Terroristen ihn gefoltert und ihm die Knie zerstört haben. Nun kann er nicht mehr laufen. Auch hat er mir erzählt, daß sein Cousin, der bei der Syrisch-Arabischen Armee gedient hat, sein Bein verloren hat, als wahabitische Selbstmordattentäter sein Militärfahrzeug angegriffen haben. Ein weiterer Cousin wurde im Jahr 2012 verschleppt und ist noch immer in Gefangenschaft.

Die Terroristen haben ein Talent für Entführungen. Nasr erklärt, daß sie bei einer Operation falsche Flagge-Taktiken angewendet haben, um schließlich tausende syrische Soldaten bei Douma in Syrien gefangenzunehmen.

Die Terroristen zeigen ihre Verteidigungstaktiken gern. Einer ihrer Favoriten besteht in der Verwendung von Gefangenen als menschliche Schutzschilde. Nasrs Aussagen und Videos beweisen, daß entführte Individuen in Käfige gesteckt und als menschliche Schutzschilde in Stadtvierteln verwendet werden. Unnötig zu erwähnen, daß die Terroristen bei der Eroberung von Städten oder Stadtvierteln ebenso menschliche Schutzschilde verwenden, und die Syrisch-Arabische Armee (SAA),trägt beim stattfindenden Häuserkampf enorme Risiken.

Den Luxus der Vereinigten Staaten zum Beispiel, die das irakische Falluja mit Bombenteppichen in Schutt und Asche gelegt haben, besitzt die SAA nicht, da sie um jeden Preis vermeidet syrische Zivilisten zu töten.

Die Terroristen kontrollieren eroberte Gebiete mit unaussprechlicher Barbarei. Ein Zeuge des Massakers in Adra beschrieb die Szene mit folgenden Worten:

Die Rebellen begannen die Regierungsgebäude und die Polizeiwache anzugreifen, wobei alle Polizisten, wegen der hohen Anzahl der Angreifer, nach einem nur kurzen Zusammenstoß getötet worden sind. Sie (die Angreifer) begaben sich dann zum Kontrollpunkt am Rand der Stadt, bevor sie sich zur Klinik aufmachten, wo sie jemand vom Klinikpersonal köpften und seinen Kopf auf dem Marktplatz befestigten. Dann schliffen sie seinen Körper vor die Einwohner, die sich versammelt hatten, um zu sehen was passiert war. Bäcker, die sich geweigert haben ihre Maschinen abzugeben, wurden in ihren eigenen Öfen geröstet. Kämpfer von Jabhat al-Nusra und der islamischen Front gingen mit einer Namensliste von Haus zu Haus, und niemand der Entführten wurde seitdem wiedergesehen.

Würde die Syrische Armee versuchen in Adra zu einzudringen, würden die Jihadisten vor den Augen der Soldaten Frauen und Kinder der 20.000 Gefangenen von Hausdächern werfen.

Nasr hat von den Lügen gesprochen, die von den Imperialisten verbreitet und von vielen geglaubt werden. Er sagt, daß Polizei und Sicherheitspersonal in den ersten drei Wochen der so genannten “Revolution” befohlen worden ist keine Waffen zu tragen. Während dieser Zeit wurden 15 seiner Freunde von den so genannten “friedlichen Demonstranten” getötet.

Diese Schilderung wird von dem Friedensaktivisten Janice Kortwright bestätigt, der schreibt:

Die Medienlügen über Syrien…waren unumschränkt…und ich denke, daß die Leiter der Medien wegen Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit für die einseitige Falschdarstellung seit Beginn des Syrien-Krieges, vor Gericht gestellt werden sollten. Schon vorher…wurde der gesamte “Arabische Frühling” vom Westen, unter der Verwendung von “Jihadisten” (bezahlte Söldner, Kriminelle und gehirngewaschene Radikale) orchestriert, um einen “Neuen Mittleren Osten” unter westlicher Herrschaft zur Kontrolle über Bodenschätze zu schaffen. Dieser Soldat, den wir in Damaskus interviewt haben, ist ein persönlicher Held und Freund. Ein Freund, dem ich mein Leben anvertraut habe und es jederzeit wieder tun würde.

Er war im März 2001 einer der Soldaten in Daraa (wo und als die Gewalt in Syrien ausgebrochen ist). Dies ist sein Bericht, und der entspricht vielen anderen Berichten aus erster Hand über die Geschehnisse dort.

Das Leben eines syrischen Soldaten ist so hart. Ein von den VS, den Saudis oder von Katar bezahlter Terrorist erhält 300 oder 400 Dollar monatlich. Ein syrischer Soldat bekommt ein Zehntel dessen. Sie bekämpfen einen Gegner, der oft unmenschlich ist. Ich weiß von einem Soldaten der in Stücke geschnitten worden ist, während seine terroristischen Geiselnehmer seinen Vater am Telefon hatten, der die Qualen seines Sohnes hörte.

FALSCH: Der Syrien-Krieg begann als Präsident Assad friedliche Proteste brutal unterdrückte.

RICHTIG: Der Syrien-Krieg wurde tatsächlich seit 2005 von den Vereinigten Staaten geplant. Den syrischen Soldaten und Polizisten war es nicht einmal erlaubt ihre Waffen zu tragen, bis die “friedlichen Demonstranten” einige Hundert Polizisten und Soldaten geschlachtet hatten.

Kortright hat einen syrischen Soldaten interviewt, der die (unbewaffneten) Soldaten und die fatalen Erlebnisse mit den ausbrechenden, vom Ausland orchestrierten Aufständen mit folgenden Worten beschrieb:

Soldat: Ich weiß nicht, wir haben ihnen nicht in die Augen gesehen. Mein bester Freund wurde angeschossen und daher fühlte ich Trauer und Zorn. Ich fühlte Zorn, weil wir in einen Hinterhalt gelockt worden sind, und da alles was wir hatten Stöcke waren, konnten wir uns nicht verteidigen. Wir mußten rennen, und sie schossen auf uns, wie auf Vögel. Und die Demonstranten blockierten sämtliche Eingänge zu uns, uns zu diesem Zeitpunkt kein Krankenwagen erreichen konnte. Ich nahm meinen Freund, und alles was dann für uns zählte, war unser Leben zu retten bis wir in Sicherheit waren. Während wir rannten, sahen wir unsere Freunde von der Zivilpolizei vor unseren Augen getötet oder angeschossen werden.

Ähnlich enthüllt der investigative Journalist, Rick Sterling, die Propaganda, daß “Assat sein eigenes Volk ermordet” in seiner Beschreibung vom Ausbruch der gewaltsamen Proteste:

In Wahrheit gab es von Beginn an eine gewalttätige Gruppe. Bei den ersten Protesten, in Deraa, wurden sieben Polizisten ermordet. Zwei Wochen später gab es ein Massaker an 60 Sicherheitskräften in Deraa.

Dieselben “friedlichen Demonstranten” waren die Speerspitze der vom Westen orchestrierten “Regime Change”-Operationen, in denen die Muslim-Bruderschaft und ausländische Agenten eine zentrale Rolle spielten. Der “Arabische Frühling” war von Beginn an eine ausländische Geheimdienstoperation.

Kürzlich erschienene Berichte gehen davon aus, daß derzeit etwa 100 Länder über Syrien herfallen. Verbunden mit den legalen Interventionen der “Achse des Widerstands” und den illegalen Kriegsverbrechen der Nato und ihrer Verbündeten bedeutet das, daß der schmutzige Krieg gegen Syrien sich zunehmend zu einem Weltkrieg entwickelt.

Alle von uns, die immer noch an die Kriegslügen glauben, ermöglichen es den Imperialisten uns in das Undenkbare zu stoßen.

Dieser Text ist eine aktualisierte und erweiterte Version von:

Voices from Syria: “Die VS-unterstützten Terroristen kontrollieren besetzte Gebiete mit unaussprechlicher Barbarei”

http://wunderhaft.blogspot.ca/2016/11/voices-from-syria-widerlegt-westliche_34.html

Quelle: http://www.globalresearch.ca/voices-from-syria-refute-western-propaganda-us-nato-supported-terrorists-involved-in-countless-atrocities/5556777
 

President-Elect Donald Trump and “The Deep State”: Vote Rigging by Both Sides… Key Appointments

By Peter Koenig, November 15 2016

The elections may have been rigged, probably by both sides, as the elusive elite, or what’s also called the ’Deep State’, may be divided. It looks like the better ‘rigger’ emerged as the winner. The final popular vote count indicates a slight advantage of Hillary over Trump. Never mind, the system was purposefully designed un-democratically in the 18th Century by the Founding Fathers, who never really had the intention to create a truly democratic United States of America of equal rights for all.

The Trump Administration’s “Alternative Right”: The Swamp Deepens…

By Tony Cartalucci, November 15 2016

The so-called “alternative right” is at least posing as holding its breath over the prospects of Bush-era Neo-Conservative John Bolton being appointed as US Secretary of State. However, with the appointment of Breitbart’s Steven Bannon as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor of the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, Bolton and his Neo-Conservative agenda already has a solid foot in the door.

Fantasies of Impeachment and Protest: Continued Media Misreadings of Donald Trump

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 15 2016

In an age where many pundits and pollsters ought to be put out to an ignoble pasture, predictions and astrology gazing on the US election continues.  While he did have a better sense of this election than most, actually predicting the result, Michael Moore has decided to essentially ignore it except in the negative.

Proxy “War of Words” between NATO and Russia at the UN Security Council

By Carla Stea, November 15 2016

NATO’s preparation for, and provocation of war with Russia is evident in these UN Security Council meetings. This brinksmanship is a game of “chicken,” or, perhaps this perilous activity can be more aptly described as NATO’s game of “Russian Roulette” with the lives of all humanity.

Trump’s $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan: Another Privatization Firesale? Lincoln Had a Bolder Solution

By Ellen Brown, November 15 2016

Donald Trump was an outsider who boldly stormed the citadel of Washington DC and won. He has promised real change, but his infrastructure plan appears to be just more of the same – privatizing public assets and delivering unearned profits to investors at the expense of the people. He needs to try something new; and for this he could look to Abraham Lincoln, whose bold solution was very similar to one now being considered in Europe: just print the money.

The elections may have been rigged, probably by both sides, as the elusive elite, or what’s also called the ’Deep State’, may be divided. It looks like the better ‘rigger’ emerged as the winner. The final popular vote count indicates a slight advantage of Hillary over Trump. Never mind, the system was purposefully designed un-democratically in the 18^th Century by the Founding Fathers, who never really had the intention to create a truly democratic United States of America of equal rights for all.

The current electoral system favors vote manipulation especially in Swing States, where popular votes can relatively easily be suppressed or switched by an electronic ‘glitch’.

Such voter frauds, we now know, have happened in 2000, when George Bush ‘won’ in Florida over Al Gore – eventually through a Supreme Court decision – and the same in 2004 (Ohio), when again George Bush won over John Kerry, through electronic fraud and predominantly black voter suppression. After 8 years of Bush – enough was enough.

The deep state needed a new candidate – one that will have the trust of the American people, one who was smart and colored and had charisma – but no backbone. Never mind the latter point.

People didn’t know until it was too late. Obama’s mandate was enhanced by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, before he even knew how many additional wars were already planned for him to carry out, aside from Afghanistan and Iraq. Today he literally boasts to be involved in seven wars around the globe and sold more weapons than any previous president to so-called allies and proxy fighters like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. More wars and conflicts are in the cooker, for sure. But will Trump abide by those plans?

The mainstream media are doing a terrific job in manipulating peoples’ minds with lies after lies after lies. The wars Washington is involved in are all ‘good’ for ‘national security’; they are diverting a threat to the US of A and defending American interests, whatever these are. Nobody asks. But if Washington, the NYT and the WashPost says so, it must be true.

The 2016 elections were rigged in favor of Donald Trump, as illustrated by Greg Palast, investigative reporter for Rolling Stone and BBC.().

On the other hand, election fraud took place by the Clinton clique against Sanders in the Democratic Primaries, to the point where the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had to resign. Without that vote-swindle, Mr. Sanders would have been the Democratic candidate confronting Donald Trump. Among many assertions that the elections were rigged in  favor of Hillary is a Stanford University study.

But never mind election fraud, it has become a common game in our shamelessly corrupt western ‘system’, and it will stay that way, until ‘somebody’ will change it.

Since the system works in favor of the establishment, and more importantly in favor of the Deep State – there is little chance something significant will change, to make the USA a true democracy in the foreseeable future.

It is not only election fraud that has made Trump the winner. It is the people, who again are sick and tired of being lied to, of broken promises, of declining purchasing power of their paychecks, of unemployment which in reality is hovering around 22% – 25%, when official government’s statistics talk about 5%, of outsourcing American jobs, of spending their tax money on foreign wars instead of fixing the decaying US infrastructure, of bailing out big banks that have speculated themselves into bankruptcy thanks to Bill Clinton’s (Hillary’s husband) banking deregulation of the 1990s, of a fake health insurance, named Obama-Care after its creator that is unaffordable for about 40 million people and serves only the pharma and medical industry, and of ever-mounting unpaid student debt.

In addition they, the 99.99%, of which an ever growing majority of disenfranchised workers – are being told by the MSM that:

• China and India are stealing their jobs, when in fact, US corporations are shamelessly increasing their profit margins by outsourcing American jobs to China and India – and many more places around the globe;
• Russia and Venezuela are national security threats, therefore US involvement aiming at ‘regime change’ is necessary;
• a costly build-up of NATO forces in Europe is necessary to confront the Russian menace – and-so-on.

Yes, security has a cost and you, the American people have to know this. NATO bases have doubled since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, despite US contrary promises to Russia in 1991, from 14 to 28 – and counting. Nobody talks about the unnecessity of NATO in Europe since the Cold War ended, also in 1991 – only your new President, Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump not only questioned US funding for NATO, but questioned the sense of NATO all together. Mr. Trump wants partners not enemies which Washington ‘has to’ fight for security reasons. Peace is the best security – and peace is also the best approach for international trade.

The President-elect talked about renegotiating or even ripping apart NAFTA, the nefarious US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that was imposed by Bill Clinton in 1994 and made hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers jobless, closing tens of thousands of small farms in Mexico, since they could no longer compete with highly subsidized corn, wheat and other agricultural crops from the US. But that’s not the reason why Trump wants to scrap the agreement. He has seen that Mexico adapted its economy around NAFTA with cheap manufacturing labor, presumably taking American jobs away.

The new President also vouched to step back from the trans-Atlantic (TTIP, TiSA), trans-Pacific (TPP) trade agreements. What a relief that would be for the hundreds of millions if not billions of people in the world, freeing themselves (for now) from the fangs of the globalized corporate and banking NWO octopus.

Of course, not for the unelected elite-vassal-dictators in Brussels. But who cares about them. This system will have to fall anyway, sooner or later. BREXIT maybe the trigger – and others may follow in the coming year, with elections in 2017 in France and Germany expected to bring radical changes; if they are not stolen by the new method of choice, a parliamentary coup, like the recent one in Spain. and earlier this year in Brazil.

Sovereignty of equal partners is prosperous for everybody, not just an elite. The new President wants to bring jobs back to America, putting the brakes on globalization. He wants to rebuild American infrastructure and create 25 million jobs in 10 years, and levy taxes on manufactured goods imported from abroad, when they could be produced internally.

Mr. Trump is also highly controversial when he talks about building a border wall between Mexico and the US to keep out ‘criminal illegal Hispanic immigrants’, when he projects transferring the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, or when he says he wants to keep Moslems out of the country. Many of his racist declarations put a spanner in his otherwise progressive wheels.

Nevertheless, Trump’s bold and fearless accusations of the deep state attract the average disillusioned citizen to vote for the changes he proclaims.

Is it perhaps possible that this strong language against a well-enshrined establishment was part of a ruse of the establishment, to trick people into believing ‘change is coming’?

(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYozWHBIf8g)

“I pledge that I will be President for all Americans”, was Trump’s opening statement at his acceptance speech.

How hollow does it sound, when you remember that Obama said exactly the same thing in 2008. That’s not all of the campaign emptiness. Do you still remember the tens of millions of people crying for joy and hope for a better life and a better world (after the Bush disaster), when Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009 and proclaimed time and again, his campaign slogan, “Yes, We Can”? Today, it’s the same game. Yes, We Can, has become Trump’s “We will Make America Great Again”.

Both slogans are suggesting great but unspecified ‘changes’; the illusion that things may turn for the better. Is it imaginable that the same Masters of the Universe came up with a new slogan, also meaning unspecified change – and new illusions that things may change for the better, for all those people who are at the verge of giving up every tiny bit of hope? Is it conceivable that the same Deep State invented both slogans, so to renew the forgetful people’s faith in a better world, in a more responsive government, at least for the first two years or so, until reality kicks in again? Yes, it is entirely in the realm of the possible, actually, it is very probable.

And thus, the oligarchs have gained some more time towards reaching Full Spectrum Dominance of the world, as is so clearly pointed out in the highly active and current PNAC (Plan for a New American Century), which used to be called Pax Americana, named after Pax Romana, of which we know in retrospect that it spanned the 300 to 400 most bloody war years of the Roman Empire, before it collapsed from within.

The universal string-pullers, the Deep State, are just spreading new hope, new illusions for continuous fooling the people into believing what is not, while in parallel the fear-mongering by false flags and by the paid presstitute MSM continues. In reality, they, the ever-poorer common people, the growing number of victims of a neo-fascist economy, have to be kept dancing on their toes, between hope and despair. Was Hillary used as a public pulse-taker, as a mere make-believe puppet; make-believe that we are living in the greatest democracy money cannot buy?

Wait and see would normally be a safe omen. Give him, Mr. Trump, the benefit of the doubt, but stay alert. For now, let’s just have a look at what happened since the elections – concessions from Trump (keep part of Obamacare), as well as a long list of potential high level cabinet appointees and staff that may accompany his Presidency.

It doesn’t look promising.

His top choices for Treasurer are Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, or Steve Mnuchin, his finance chairman and former Goldman Sachs exec. They don’t bode well for moving away from the banking oligarchy, as Mr. Trump promised during his campaign.

Others of his top cabinet choices include ultra-neocon reactionaries, such as, for Secretary of State, Newt Gingrich, the neocon ex-House speaker who was even in Trump’s top choice as running mate; and John Bolton, Zionist and former United States ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush.

The former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani, may be slanted for attorney general.

Here is the full list of Trump’s top position candidates, as published today by the New York Times –

Sourcee  New York Times 

What can we conclude regarding Trump’s List? 

Trump doesn’t seem to want to move away from neoliberals and Zionists, as he made people believe during his campaign.

Then comes the perceived bombshell, the earthquake, some even call it the Tsunami of Trumps election, against all expectations. The western intellectuals, or rather wannabe intellectuals – can’t get around to it, that ‘democracy’ may have won, against their deepest expectations, of course, bought MSM instilled expectations.

It played them a trick. How naughty. Did the left and the right ‘well-educated’, those living in their sanctuaries and soft cocoons, those that make it to the statistics and polls, really have no clue, how average Mr. and Mrs. Smith feel? How they make ends meet every day, every month? – There is no left or right anymore; the same as there is no real difference between republicans and democrats. They are all embedded under the umbrella of a globalized fascist economy.

Are the ‘surprised people’ so detached or naïve that they can’t see an increasingly non-silent majority, suffering year-in, year-out from the oligarchic supremacy, getting angry at the ‘system’ that keeps abusing them, for the best part of four decades now? – It’s the same people and media pundits, who appeared to having been surprised at BREXIT. For those who are still surprised about BREXIT, I highly recommend Ken Loach’s outstanding movie, I Daniel Blake , awarded with Canne’s ‘Palme d’Or’ 2016.

(trailer: https://www.theguardian.com/film/video/2016/jun/15/i-daniel-blake-trailer-ken-loach-palme-dor-winner-video)

It’s never too late to wake up and get involved.

Actually, that’s all that counts for people to step out of their comfort zone and fight alongside the 99.99%. We just might grow into a critical mass that can actually bring about a sea change for society and Mother Earth, with or without Mr. Trump.

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

This conference is being held at a critical juncture in the world movement against capitalism and imperialism. The only solution for the suffering and exploited masses of working and oppressed people is socialism. Our organizational and ideological efforts during this important period in history could determine the position we will occupy in the emerging phase of the class struggle domestically and internationally.

With the limited time that we have to discuss and analyze our work in the state of Michigan as well as around the country, it is essential that the case of political prisoner Rev. Edward Pinkney must be reviewed. Pinkey is a longtime fighter in the Southwest region of the Michigan where the restructuring of capitalist production has rendered cities such as Benton Harbor to extreme poverty and exploitation. Through the Black Autonomy Network Community Organization (BANCO), Pinkney and his followers have been waging a monumental campaign against the racist impunity of the Berrien County Courts, the previous imposition of emergency management along with the gentrification of public areas and communities in the interests of capital.

In December of 2015, we held a National Organizing Conference to Save Rev. Pinkney which was attended by people from several states. The gathering pledged to intensify our work to prevent what Pinkney himself, and others, felt were direct threats on his life. As a result of our work some of the elements within Marquette Branch Prison were pushed back and Pinkney has been transferred to Muskegon much closer to his family and supporters.

The plight of Pinkney is reflective of the racist nature of the justice system throughout the state of Michigan. Motions for bond pending the outcome of the appeals process, the appeal itself and other legal efforts were all denied by the courts. This illustrates clearly that legal methods, although utilized, cannot be relied upon for the freedom of our fighters or to win any semblance of justice for the working class and the nationally oppressed.

Nonetheless, there is resistance developing inside the prisons in Michigan and across the U.S. A national strike was held in September and the level of consciousness among the imprisoned nation, as Mumia Abu-Jamal refers to it, is reaching new heights. In many ways the situations inside the prisons represent increasing degree of repression meted out to the masses by the capitalist system which has exhausted any hope for a decent and productive life for growing numbers of people within in the U.S.

The Failure of Bourgeois Democratic Institutions

Two-and-a-half years ago through the Moratorium NOW! Coalition and the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI) we issued an appeal to the United Nations  Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) at the height of the illegally imposed emergency management and forced bankruptcy. We, along with other organizations across the U.S., as part of the U.S. Human Rights Network (USHRN), addressed our appeal both directly to the UNHRC in Geneva as well as through the USHRN which annually participates in the UN Committee to Eliminate Racism and Discrimination (CERD) review process.

In a section of this appeal entitled “The Favoring of the Banks and Corporations During the Bankruptcy Process”, the document reads: “It is the contention of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition and MECAWI, that the egregious policies of the banks and corporations are responsible for the underdevelopment and impoverishment in the City of Detroit. The targeting of Detroit and other majority African American municipalities in the U.S. by banks has been well-documented in numerous legal actions where financial institutions have agreed to pay billions of dollars in damages not necessarily to the victims of such actions but to the federal and state governments.”

This same report continues noting that: “Resources which should be utilized to keep people in their homes who have been subjected to predatory lending, as well as the payment of restitution and reparations to communities negatively and disproportionately affected by the actions of unscrupulous banks, has not taken place. In the State of Michigan over $500 million allocated through the so-called “hardest hit” program to assist distressed homeowners have not been utilized to prevent mortgage or tax foreclosures. These same funds however now, are being utilized to identify homes to be torn down, many of these houses and small businesses were abandoned as a direct result of the predatory actions of the banks. A Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA) has been established and is currently seizing thousands of homes and vacant lots without any consultations with residents of the affected neighborhoods in Detroit.”

Moreover, in disregard of the elementary civil rights ostensibly granted to African people in the aftermath of the Civil War, the document emphasizes: “The 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by an act of Congress in 1870 was designed to grant the right to vote to the former enslaved Africans. Despite the nullification of the statewide vote in December 2012 against emergency management, the U.S. Justice Department and the White House are apparently collaborating with State of Michigan officials by fostering the blatant violation of the 15th Amendment along with the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”

We also noted for the record submitted to the UNHRC stressing: “An appeal to the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013 by several elected political officials requesting the intervention of the federal government in reviewing the denial of the right to vote and due process as protected under the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, and other acts of Congress including Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws, has gone unanswered. In addition to the legal brief submitted to the federal bankruptcy court by the Obama administration in support of the emergency management and forced bankruptcy of Detroit, the administration has endorsed the privatization of the administration of federal grants which had been previously handled by the City of Detroit departments and employees. The expropriation of these federal grants from the City of Detroit and turning them over to private foundations located outside the City has resulted in the termination of employees and departments that previously administered such grants where employees paid into the pension systems that are now under attack by the emergency manager.”

In light of these excesses carried out against the people of Detroit and the state of Michigan, the Democratic Party had the audacity to campaign among the masses requesting that they go out and vote in large numbers for their candidates seeking election as president and vice-president in the recently-held national poll. Under such conditions the people know based upon their own experiences that there are no fundamental differences between the Democratic and Republic parties. We need a party of the working class and the oppressed that can speak in its own name and organize for the total overthrow of the racist capitalist and imperialist system, for the realization of national liberation and socialism.

The Struggle Continues: Housing, Water and Jobs Are Human Rights

Over the last two years we have been waging a monumental struggle against massive tax foreclosures and water shut-offs. Through our coalition efforts we have forced the Wayne County Treasurer to enact several moratoriums on property tax foreclosures which are a direct result of the predatory actions of the banks. Tens of thousands have been allowed to make payment arrangements on these usurious tax assessments which are in themselves illegal.

Based upon our efforts, the Michigan ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and other entities have filed a class-action lawsuit aimed at winning a moratorium through the courts on property tax foreclosures, noting that these state actions are a violation of the 1968 Fair Housing Act. We are demanding that the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds be utilized for their intended purpose which is to keep people in their homes through the payment of delinquent property taxes and inflated water bills.

We have forced an upcoming meeting with the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) demanding that they rewrite the regulations for allocating funds in Detroit and Wayne County for the aforementioned purposes. The corruption of the DLBA and the comprador Duggan city administration is an open book for all to see at this point.

We will continue our efforts aimed at building a revolutionary response to national oppression and rapacious capitalism at the upcoming March 25, 2017 party conference in Detroit. Next year represents the 50^th anniversary of the heroic African American working class rebellion in Detroit. It is imperative that the actual history of these important struggles be told from the perspective the people.

In an age where many pundits and pollsters ought to be put out to an ignoble pasture, predictions and astrology gazing on the US election continues.  While he did have a better sense of this election than most, actually predicting the result, Michael Moore has decided to essentially ignore it except in the negative.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Moore took another stab at reading the future.  “Here’s what’s going to happen, this is why we’re not going to have to suffer through four years of Donald J. Trump, because he has not ideology except the ideology of Donald J. Trump.”

The thesis is not entirely credible, but Moore layers it with the rationale of narcissism.  As in ancient Rome, imperial ego eventually leads to downfall.  Being “so narcissistic where it’s all about him, he will, maybe unintentionally, break laws.  He will break laws because he’s only thinking what’s best for him.”  Shades of Richard Nixon here: if the US President does it, it must be legal.

Others focus on the internal dynamic of the Republican Party. Within the structure of the organisation lie kingmakers and potential assassins (in the political context).  For historian Allan Lichtman, another who found his prediction on a Trump victory vindicated, the Achilles heel was infuriating unpredictability.

Republicans “don’t want Trump as president, because they can’t control him. He’s unpredictable. They’d love to have [Mike] Pence – an absolutely down-the-line, conservative, controllable Republican.”

The road then, for error, is paved.  With the swords ready to be unsheathed at any given moment to strike down the newly elected president, Trump may well give grounds for doing so.  Lichtman was “quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.”

A call to arms has been issued.  “We are going to resist, we are going to oppose,” promised Moore with solemn conviction to MSNBC.  “This is going to be massive resistance.  Women are calling for a million women march on the Inauguration Day, and there is going to be the largest demonstration ever on Inauguration Day.”

Protests have taken place in metropolitan centres across the United States, more as symptoms of shock than coherence.  Never mind the fact that the inauguration is still to place, or that a Trump cabinet has yet to form.  No matter, because according to Moore, all Trump needed to do was nominate Rudy Giuliani as attorney general “and things like that – or his Supreme Court.”

Waiting for the proof in the long baked pudding is something Trump’s opponents will not do.  Being of a certain America they disapprove of, nothing less than the president-elect’s removal is warranted.  Not that doing so would effectively muzzle the very voters who had, legitimately, staked a claim in wishing to be heard in the White House.

The looming question here, and one noted by Trump at stages since the election, is the extent such a massive movement against him is being shaped.  Are these protests the natural, organic product of outrage in the electorate, or being cultivated by the professional activist class?  Many Republicans certainly claim that to be the case, though closer scrutiny of that claim is warranted.

USA Today (Nov 12) considered the issue, and ran with the story that the protestors were varied, reflecting the varieties of backgrounds in the United States. “They come from all ages and walks of life, unflinching and determined to be heard.”

Well, not quite all – the Trump supporter and voter are considered refuse best ignored by the likes of the Socialist Alternative, the ANSWER Coalition and MoveOn.org.  The focus here is not on dialogue or discourse but shouting down and the reverberations of the echo chamber.

Such stances tend to provide slanted views about the way such protest movements develop. For one thing, it ignores the obvious role of crafting, management and instigation.  Ben Wikler, Washington director for MoveOn, might well speak of “an enormous outpouring of spontaneous energy and concern,” but this does not detract from how that spontaneity is, in fact, being managed.

Yong Jung Cho, introduced in the USA Today article without comment (spontaneity needs no questioning), is an activist for the 350 Action Campaign Coordinator, a point noted in a February 2016 email from the Podesta files released by WikiLeaks.

New fault lines in Trump’s America have developed.  Genuine peaceful protest and concern is being submerged in accusations of organised disruption, a point which has made Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, call upon the calming advice of President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton herself, and Bernie Sanders.

Trump has provided a vigorous, aggressive shake to the establishment.  The tremors are still being felt in the frail body politic.  For those who opposed, and ignored Trumpism altogether, forms of denial have taken even deeper root.  They have little interest in bringing the Trump voters into the fold, let alone idly waiting for a transition period to unfold.  Their tactic has now become one of uncivil disobedience ahead of the inauguration, effectively a challenge about the very idea of legitimacy in the United States.

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

The Euro is murdering the nations and economies of the EU quite literally. Since the fixed currency regime came into effect, replacing national currencies in transactions in 2002, the fixed exchange rate regime has devastated industry in the periphery states of the 19 Euro members while giving disproportionate benefit to Germany. The consequence has been a little-noted industrial contraction and lack of possibility to deal with resulting banking crises. The Euro is a monetarist disaster and the EU dissolution is now pre-programmed as just one consequence.

Those of you familiar with my thoughts on the economy will know I feel the entire concept of globalization, a term which was popularized under the presidency of Bill Clinton to glamorize the corporativist agenda that had just come into being with the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994, is fundamentally a destructive rigged game of the few hundred or so giant “global players. Globalization destroys nations to advance the agenda of a few hundred giant, unregulated multinationals. It’s based on a disproven theory put forward in the 18th Century by English free trade proponent David Ricardo, known as the Theory of Comparative Advantage, used by Washington to justify removing any and all national trade protectionism in order to benefit the most powerful “Global Players,” mostly US-based.

The faltering US project known as Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership or the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, is little more than Mussolini on steroids. The most powerful few hundred corporations will formally stand above national law if we are foolish enough to elect corrupt politicians that will endorse such nonsense. Yet few have really looked closely at the effect that surrender of currency sovereignty under the Euro regime is having.

Collapse of Industry

The nations of what today is misleadingly known as the European Union follow a concept ratified by a then-far-smaller number of European members–twelve versus 28 states today–of what had been the European Economic Community (EEC). A European version of giganto-mania appeared during the EEC Commission presidency of French globalist politician Jacques Delors when he unveiled what was called the Single European Act in February 1986.

Delors overturned the principle established by France’s Charles de Gaulle, the principle which de Gaulle referred to as “Europe of the Fatherlands.” De Gaulle’s concept of the European Economic Community–then six nations including France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux three–was one in which there would be periodical meetings of the premiers of the six Common Market nations. There, with elected heads of states, policies would be formulated and decisions made. An assembly elected from members of national parliaments would review the actions of the ministers. De Gaulle viewed the Brussels EEC bureaucracy as a purely technical administrative body, subordinate to national governments. Cooperation should be based on the “reality” of state sovereignty. Supranational acquisition of power over individual nations of the EEC was anathema for de Gaulle, rightly so. As with individuals so with nations—autonomy is basic and borders do matter.

Delors’ Single Act proposed to overturn that Europe of the Fatherlands through radical reforms to the EEC aimed at the destructive idea that the diverse nations, with diverse histories, cultures and diverse languages, could dissolve borders and become a kind of ersatz United States of Europe, run top down by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It in essence is a Mussolini-style corporativist or fascist vision of a non-democratic, non-responsible European bureaucracy controlling populations arbitrarily, answerable only to corporate influence, pressure, corruption.

It was an agenda developed by the largest multinationals of Europe, whose lobby organization was the European Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT), the influential lobby group of Europe’s major multinationals (by personal invitation only) such as Swiss-based Nestle, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Vodafone, BASF, Deutsche Telekom, ThyssenKrupp, Siemens and other giant European multinationals. The ERT, not surprisingly, is the major lobby in Brussels pushing adoption of the TIPP trade deal with Washington.

The ERT was a major driver for the 1986 Delors Single Act proposals that led to the Frankenstein Monster called the European Union. The idea of the EU is creation of a top-down central unelected political authority that would decide the future of Europe without democratic checks and balances, at heart a truly feudal notion.

The concept of a single United States of Europe, dissolving national identities that went back more than a thousand years or more, can be traced back to the 1950’s when the Bilderberg Meeting of 1955 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, West Germany, first discussed the creation out of the six member nations of the European Coal and Steel Community of “a common currency, and…this necessarily implied the creation of a central political authority.” De Gaulle was not present.

The project to create a monetary union was unveiled at a 1992 EEC conference in Maastricht, Holland following the unification of Germany. France and Italy, backed by Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, forced it through over German misgivings in order to “contain the power of a unified Germany.” British Tory press railed against Germany as an emerging “Fourth Reich,” conquering Europe economically, not militarily. Ironically, this is what has very much de facto emerged from the structures of the Euro today. Because of the Euro, Germany economically dominates the entire 19 Eurozone countries.

The problem with the creation of the European Monetary Union (EMU) prescribed in Maastricht Treaty is that the single currency and the “independent” European Central Bank were launched without being tied to a political single legal entity, a genuine United States of Europe. The Euro and the European Central Bank is a supranational creation without answerability to anyone. It was done in absence of a genuine organic political union such as that created when 13 states, with common English language and following a commonly-fought war of independence from Great Britain, created and adopted the Constitution of the United States of America. In 1788 the delegates from the 13 states agreed to establish a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states, with separation of powers between the legislative, judicial and executive branches. Not so the EMU.

The EU bureaucrats have a cute name for this disconnect between unelected central bank officials of the ECB controlling the economic destiny of the 19 member states with 340 million citizens of the so-called Eurozone. They call it the “democratic deficit.” That deficit has grown gargantuan since the 2008 global financial and banking crisis and the emergence of the not-sovereign European Central Bank.

Collapse of Industry

The creation of the Euro single currency since 1992 has put the Euro member states into an economic strait-jacket. The currency value cannot be changed to boost national exports during economic downturns such as that experienced since 2008. The result has been that the largest industrial power in the Eurozone, Germany, has benefited from the stable euro while weaker economies on the periphery of the EU, including most notably, France, have endured catastrophic consequences to the rigid Euro rate.

In a new report, the Dutch think-tank, Gefira Foundation, notes that French industry has been contracting since the adoption of the euro. “It was not able to recover after either of the 2001 or 2008 crises because the euro, a currency stronger than the French franc would be, has become a burden to France’s economy. The floating exchange rate works like an indicator of the strength of the economy and like an automatic stabilizer. A weaker currency helps to regain competitiveness during a crisis, while a stronger currency supports consumption of foreign goods.”

The study notes that because of this currency strait-jacket, ECB’s policy has created a Euro too high versus other major currencies to enable France to maintain exports since the economic downturn of 2001. The Euro has led to increased imports into France and because France had no exchange rate flexibility, her industry “could not regain international competitiveness in the world’s market after the 2001 crisis, so its industry has been slowly dying ever since.” They lost the economic stabilizing tool of a floating exchange rate.

Today, according to the Eurostat, industry makes up 14.1% of the French total gross value added. In 1995 it was 19.2%. In Germany it is 25.9%. Most striking has been the collapse of a once-vibrant French car industry. Despite the fact that world car production almost doubled from 1997 to 2015 from 53 million to 90 million vehicles annually, and while Germany increased its car production by 20% from 5 to 6 million, from the time France joined the Euro in 2002, French car production almost halved from nearly 4 million to less than 2 million.

Euro Bail-in Laws

The same Euro strait-jacket is preventing a serious reorganization of troubled banks across the Eurozone since the 2008 crisis. The creation of the supra-national, non-sovereign European central Bank has made it impossible for member countries of the Eurozone to resolve their banking problems created during the excesses of the pre-2008 period. The case of Italy with its request to make a state bailout of its third-largest bank, Monte dei Paschi, is exemplary. Though draconian layoffs and closings have for the moment eased panic, Brussels refused to permit a $5 billion Italian state rescue of the bank, instead demanding the bank revert to a new EU banking law called “Bail in.” While they may not yet dare to implement bail-in just yet in Italy, it is EU law and will certainly be the instrument of choice by the unelected Eurogroup when the next banking crisis hits.

Bail-in, while it sounds better than taxpayer bailout, actually requires that a bank’s depositors be robbed of their deposits to “rescue” a failed bank, if Brussels or the unelected Eurogroup decides such a bail-in of deposits is needed after bank bond holders and stock holders and creditors have not been able to meet the losses. This bail-in confiscation was applied in Cyprus banks in 2013 by the EU. Depositors there with over €100,000 either lost 40% of their money.

If you are a depositor in, say, Deutsche Bank, and the stock shares are tanking, as they have been, and legal troubles threaten their existence, and the German government refuses to talk bailout, but rather leaves the bank to potential bail-in, you can be sure every depositor with an account over €100,000 will begin to look to other banks, worsening the crisis for Deutsche Bank. Then all other remaining depositors would be vulnerable to bail-in as was initially proposed by the Eurogroup for Cyprus banks.

Surrender of monetary sovereignty

Under the Euro and the rules of Eurogroup and ECB, decisions are no longer sovereign but central, taken by not-democratically appointed faceless bureaucrats like Holland Finance Minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of Eurogroup. During the Cyprus bank crisis Dijsselbloem proposed confiscating all depositor money, big or small, to recapitalize the banks. He was forced to back down at the last minute, but it shows what is possible in the coming EU bank crisis that is pre-programmed by the defective Euro institution and its fatally flawed ECB.

Under current Eurozone rules, effective January, 2016, EU national governments are prohibited from taxpayer rescue of their banks, preventing orderly resolution of bank liquidity problems until too late. Germany has adopted a bank bail-in law as have other EU governments. The new bail-in rules are the result of a bureaucratic directive from the unelected, faceless bureaucrats of the EU Commission known as the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (“BRRD”).

In 1992 when Swedish banks went into insolvency as a real estate bubble popped, the state stepped in with Securum, a bad-bank/good bank rescue. The bankrupt banks were temporarily nationalized. Non-performing real estate loans in billions were put into the state corporation, Securum, the so-called bad bank. The risk-addicted bank directors were dismissed. The nationalized banks, minus bad loans, were allowed, under state management, to resume lending and return to profit before being reprivatized as the economy improved. The non-performing real estate became again profitable as the economy recovered over several years, and after five years the state could sell the assets for a total net profit and liquidate Securum. Taxpayers were not burdened.

ECB Prevents Bank Resolutions

Now, as the EU faces a new round of bank solvency crises with banks like Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank and major banks across the Eurozone facing new capital crises, because the EU lacks a central taxation power, no flexible tax-payer or bank nationalization is possible. New national bank rules adjusted to local circumstances are not possible. Measures to give troubled banks time such as allowing a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and repossessions if people fall behind on their payments, outsourcing national electronic payment system to commercial banks, are not possible.

The EuroZone has no central fiscal authority, so such solutions cannot be implemented. Banking system problems are only being solved by monetary authorities, by the insane ECB policy of negative interest rates, so-called Quantitative Easing where the ECB buys endless billions of Euros in dodgy corporate and state debt with no end in sight, and in the process making insurance companies and pension funds insolvent.

The answer is definitely not that proposed by the kleptocratic George Soros and others, namely to give the unelected Brussels super-state the central fiscal power to issue Brussels Euro bonds. The only possible solution short of destroying the economies of the entire Eurozone in the coming next European bank solvency crisis, is to dismantle the Frankenstein Monster called the European Monetary Union with its ECB and common currency.

The individual countries in the 19 country Euro Zone do not form what economists call an “optimum currency area,” never did. The economic problems of a Greece or Italy or even France are vastly different from those of Germany, or of Portugal or Spain.

In 1997 before his death, one of my least-favorite economists, Milton Friedman, stated,

“Europe exemplifies a situation unfavorable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, speaking different languages, with different customs, and having citizens feeling far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to a common market or to the idea of Europe.”

On that, I have to say, he was right. It’s even more so the case today. The Euro and its European Central Bank are murdering Europe as effectively as the Second World War did, only without the bombs and rubble.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

“To all those of us who are locked up here nothing is more important than to be remembered” Leonard Peltier, Leavenworth Prison, September, 1998

While Barack Obama speaks without blushing about the virtues of the Northamerican “democracy,” and lectures us on human rights, an innocent man languishes in his cell, totally isolated, awaiting only death, or for what the U.S. President alone can, but does not, do.

Leonard Peltier, Anishinabe-Lakota, a leader of the American Indian Movement, AIM, writer and poet, has just completed forty years in prison, and is one of the political prisoners jailed for the longest time in the whole planet. When he was captured, in February 1979, he was a young man, struggling for the rights of the Native peoples, who had already known repression and jail from an early age. Now, almost blind and very ill, he endures a cruel and totally unjust captivity.

Condemned without a single piece of evidence, in a process characterized by manipulation and illegality, he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences (SIC), that he has been serving in maximum security prisons, subjected to particularly harsh conditions, with an inhumanity that considers neither his fragile health nor his advanced age.

In the decade of the Seventies, last century, the repressive and racist nature of the Northamerican system unleashed its violence against those who opposed the Viet Nam war, and also against Blacks, Puerto Ricans and the Native nations that have been dispossessed of their lands and are confined in so-called “reservations”. In 1973, the massacre of Wounded Knee took place, in the same location where in 1890 the great confrontation between Native nations and White invaders occurred. In both confrontations, numerous “Indians” lost their lives, including children, women, and the elderly; and no one has faced justice for these crimes.

The atrocity of Wounded Knee II and the growing presence of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the FBI, and paramilitary groups created an atmoshphere of terror in the area where recent discovery of uranium and other minerals had fed Anglo-Saxon greed.

Solidarity spread to other sectors. Marlon Brando, 1973 Oscar winner for his memorable performance in The Godfather, turned the ceremony into a unique denunciation: in his place, he sent Apache actress Sacheen Littlefeather, as he protested the treatment of the Native people and the massacre at Wounded Knee. “It seemed absurd to me to attend the awards ceremony.  It was grotesque to celebrate an industry that systematically has slandered and disfigured the Northamerican “Indians” for six decades”, Brando proclaimed.

The Oglala Elders, besieged in the Pine Ridge reservation of South Dakota, asked the American Indian Movement, AIM, for protection.  AIM sent several activists, Leonard Peltier among them. In June 1975, a strange incident occurred there, during which two FBI agents and a number of unarmed civilian Natives lost their lives.  The names and number of the dead Natives have been consigned to obscurity.

In any event, several facts were evident.  The Native people were harassed in their own refuge, which they did not leave to attack anyone. Who penetrated the reservation, before the incident, were scores of heavily armed FBI agents, as were the armed paramilitaries at their service.  If any Native had fired a weapon, something that has not been proven, it would have been a desperate act of self defense.

The authorities only filed charges against Native people. Peltier sought refuge in Canada, where he was captured on February 6, 1976. Meanwhile, his comrades were freed for lack of evidence.

The charges against Peltier were fabricated from beginning to end by the FBI.  Revelations that followed the trial, obtained after long efforts by his defense attorneys through the Freedom of Information Act, prove the fraudulent character of the whole process: false testimonies obtained through blackmail and threats, presentation as “proof” of a weapon that was not there, which was never used by Peltier, and had absolutely no relationship to the incident.

In a hearing before the Court of Appeals in 1978, one of the Prosecutors who acted against Peltier, had to admit it: “We do not really know who fired on the agents”.  That tribunal, however, upheld the conviction.

The trial of Peltier was a farse of monumental proportions. It was convincingly proven by Robert Redford, another great Northamerican artist, in his documentary “Incident at Oglala: the Leonard Peltier Story” , produced in 1992, but so severely censured that few have ever seen it. The reasons are obvious. According to the May 22, 1992, Washington Post: “It is very difficult to see ‹‹Incident at Oglala›› without concluding that Leonard Peltier is innocent… his trial was nothing but a farce cooked up by the Government. This direct and illuminating documentary shows the lengths to which the unscrupulous prosecutors and FBI were willing to go to punish this man”.

Nelson Mandela, the European  Parliament, and numerous personalities throughout the whole world have spoken out for the liberation of Leonard Peltier.  The demand for his freedom has lasted more than four decades, so far, without results. Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, said some time ago: “Until he is free, each new day is a new crime, each dawn is a new crime, each evening, a new crime against the dignity of the Native people and against the honor of the United States of Northamerica. Because as long as Leonard Peltier is in prison, we all are in prison”.

When Peltier was arbitrarily incarcerated,  Barack Obama was a teenager, and was not responsible for that injustice. But for the last eight years he has borne the responsibility, because as President of the United States he has done nothing to free him.

President Obama knows that “Sí se puede” , but he prefers to be an accomplice of the crime.

Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada
Former Foreign Minister and Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations

A translator’s note: It would be greatly appreciated if as many people as possible were to forward this message to President Obama.  It is now or never.Free translation from the Spanish published by Cubadebate, on March 30 2016, sent by Nils Castro, [email protected]. Done at REFUGIO DEL RIO GRANDE, Texas, EE.UU.

The Ontario Government’s Adviser on Basic Income (BI), Hugh Segal, has released his much heralded discussion paper, “Finding a Better Way,” that sets out his proposals for a lengthy BI pilot project. If the experiment he advocates is put into effect, it will run parallel to the deliberations of a Security Reform Working Group that will be considering changes to the present social assistance system in the province, rather than replacement to it.

Segal’s proposal is being put forward in an international context of considerably enhanced interest in the notion of Basic Income (BI). The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) has been very sceptical when considering the nature and possibilities of BI in general but, before taking this up, a few comments are necessary on the particular features of the situation in this province. As far as we’re concerned, there is no reason to believe that the Ontario Liberals have the slightest intention of improving the lot of those living in poverty and their track record can only lead to the conclusion that they are putting in place another round of futile deliberations to divert attention from their real agenda of austerity and war on the poor.

Consultations of this kind have been used for years now to trick people into believing action on poverty is being prepared, as real incomes have declined, related benefits and supports have been cut and the numbers forced to work for poverty wages has grown massively. Bluntly, even if we believed that Basic Income was a viable and likely means of addressing poverty and inequality, we would remain convinced that the impending consultative circus is an exercise in duplicity. The Liberals aren’t acting in good faith and, in any event, the process of deliberations will extend beyond the present political mandate of this deeply unpopular government.

Liberal Machinations

From the standpoint of the Liberal’s political machinations, the most useful thing about “Finding a Better Way” is how much it helps them delay the search. The paper calls for a round of public consultations, a period in which the Government will prepare a pilot, at least three years of testing it out and, then, a review of the findings that will doubtless proceed at a glacial pace. However, for such a lengthy undertaking and a study of a concept that has such far reaching implication as Basic Income, Segal’s plans are remarkably unimaginative.

He wants to gather together “an arm’s length coalition of competent not-for-profit research organizations” (p35) to run a project that will recruit a sampling of the poorest people and test out the results of making them a bit less poor. The idea is to gather test subjects mainly from among those on social assistance but including others who are selected “regardless of their status in the labour market.” The income of this grouping would then be increased to 75% of the Low Income Measure from (for the very poorest) the present level of 45%. The scrutiny and moral policing normally associated with receiving social assistance would be removed and their ability to earn extra income would be enhanced (p8). The people who would be tested would be geographically dispersed across Ontario, but there would be three “saturation sites” where all those eligible would be offered the chance to participate (p53).

Contrary to Segal’s assertion that “(t)here is no way of predicting what a properly managed and objective pilot will produce in terms of results,” (p72) the findings of this venture are entirely predictable. If you give some very poor people a bit more money, they will become a bit less poor and a bit better off. Doubtless, Segal’s group of interdisciplinary professionals will come up with an array of terms to lend an air of pseudo profundity but there really won’t be any results that are the least bit surprising and the whole process is an exercise in needless delay.

The increased income that will go to Segal’s test subjects should be provided (and more) to every person on social assistance in Ontario and the minimum wage should become a living wage, with an immediate increase to $15 an hour. The real implications related to the concept of Basic Income have to be considered apart from Segal’s quest to discover the obvious. That some of the poorest workers are going to be a bit better off with some extra money is clear but the issue is what it would mean to top up the wages of millions of low paid workers out of the tax revenues while letting their employers off the hook entirely when it came to paying living wages. That a group of people on social assistance will do better at 75% of the Low Income Measure than at 45% is a given but what happens if a basic payment is introduced while public services are being degraded and supports, especially for disabled people, are going under the austerity knife?

Immediate Fight: Raise the Rates

In Ontario at the moment, the eventual possibility of this pilot project translating into concrete changes in how income support is delivered is less pressing than the task of ensuring the deliberations are not used as a cynical cover that allows the Government to impose severe and deepening poverty on those on the present system of social assistance. The immediate fight is still to ‘Raise the Rates.’ Still, the Ontario Basic Income pilot project must also be addressed as part of an international drive to advance an initiative that furthers austerity and privatization while posing as a vehicle for progressive reform and social policy innovation.

This might be a good moment to note that the notoriously right wing Fraser Institute weighed in on the Ontario experiment, shortly before the discussion paper appeared. Their writers were at pains to insist that a suitably market friendly version of Basic Income would ensure that the payment it provided replaced, rather than augmented, other systems of social provision. For the Fraser Institute to feel reassured, the model would also provide income that was sufficiently inadequate to continue to drive people into the lowest paying jobs on offer. This view of BI as a way of intensifying austerity and greasing the wheels of privatization has been expounded repeatedly by a long list of right wing thinkers that includes none other than Milton Friedman and extends to present day IMF economists. There, nonetheless, exists a widely held view on the political left that BI can be an antidote to this agenda, rather than a means to further its progress. In this regard, OCAP and a range of trade union and social movement activists, as well as left academics, have expressed everything from serious doubt to outright hostility. The basis for the position that OCAP has taken can be expressed in the following six simple points.

1. Capitalists can increase the rate of exploitation and profit if there are more workers than jobs. They have always ensured this imbalance is maintained to one degree or another.
2. Income support to those outside of the workforce is provided at minimum levels as a reluctant concession to the extent necessary to prevent or reduce social unrest or dislocation.
3. Since the 1970s, we have been dealing with an agenda of austerity and an assault on public services that has included the degrading of income support systems. This has also involved a drive to force disabled people and injured workers to compete in the scramble for the lowest paying jobs. These tactics have been enormously successful and have massively increased the level of exploitation. Unions are weaker, wages have been depressed and low wage, precarious work has abounded.
4. Despite the gains of the austerity agenda and the presently unfavourable balance of social forces, the idea has taken root on the left that we can somehow get governments to provide a universal or very widespread payment that will redistribute wealth, reduce poverty and decrease the exploitative capacity of the capitalists. Why governments would do this or how they could be prevailed upon to do so is never really explained.
5. While a progressive Basic Income is not on the cards, its free market evil twin is a real and very dangerous possibility. Under this neoliberal model, an inadequate and dwindling BI payment is provided that absolves low wage employers from the obligation of paying living wages and becomes the only element of social provision left in place. You become a customer shopping in a market place of privatized services. Who could really deny that this right wing version is much closer to presently unfolding reality than the hopes and dreams of left BI enthusiasts?

OCAP is, of course, totally in favour of demanding living wages and adequate social benefits and we are more than happy to see specific cash figures named in this regard. However, rather than buy into a concept with such dangerous attributes as Basic Income, we think it would be far better to work to increase the strength of our unions and movements and unite around concrete demands for free, expanded and accessible public services. When it comes to income support systems, we should fight for adequate income, full entitlement, expanded supports and an end to austerity based restrictions and moral policing. As always, it comes down to what can be won in struggle and the notion of a social policy end run around this harsh fact of life is simply not rooted in reality. •

John Clarke is an organizer with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP).

New technology has allowed geographers to create stunning maps of U.S. river basins. There are 18 major river basins in the continental U.S., with the largest belonging to rivers that feed the Mississippi River.

The color-coded maps make it easy to visualize the magnitude of the basins, which is otherwise rather abstract.

Seeing the vast expanse of river basins that cover the U.S., and the interconnectedness among them, it’s also clear that rivers make up the fabric of America, each with its own story to tell.

CLICK IMAGE TO ACTIVATE

In the short film, “Flint,” for instance, you can hear stories of three people and their connection to Georgia’s Flint River.

There’s Robin McInvale and her story of finding love on the river, Paul DeLoach, a cave diver and co-founder of conservationist group Flint Riverkeeper and Jimmy Miller, who’s been fishing in the Flint since he was a boy.

The personal connections to the river are immense and not unique to the Flint. Similar stories can be found nationwide, and the connections aren’t only sentimental in nature.

The Flint river, for instance, provides water to more than 1 million people but is at risk from pollution, including runoff from agriculture and industry — another common thread among U.S. rivers.

What Is Upstream Will Travel Downstream

While it’s easy to understand the massive effect a large river like the Mississippi has on waters downstream, small streams and wetlands also play an important role in larger downstream waterways. This even includes small streams that only flow after heavy rainfall.

This revelation came from a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, which reviewed more than 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific studies.1

The study “unequivocally demonstrates that streams, regardless of their size or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters and strongly influence their function.”

In addition, wetlands, floodplains and open waters in transitional areas located between land and water ecosystems (known as riparian areas) act as buffers in helping protect downstream waters from pollution.

Wetlands and floodplains not in riparian areas were also found to affect the integrity of downstream waters, even when they lacked surface water connections. “Some potential benefits of these wetlands are due to their isolation rather than their connectivity,” the report noted.

The study was particularly important because it helped to define the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

Establishing these waters as crucial to protecting waters downstream was then used to establish the Clean Water Rule, which more clearly defines waters protected under the Clean Water Act.

Currently, about 1 in 3 Americans, or 117 million people, get drinking water from streams that are protected under the Clean Water Rule.2

Who Should Pay for Water Pollution in Iowa?

When nitrates from fertilizer runoff pollute waterways, who should pay for cleanup? That is the question facing areas of Iowa, an agricultural mecca.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that removing nitrate from U.S. drinking water costs nearly $5 billion a year,3 which the industrial agriculture industry has been largely shielded from.

The water utility in Des Moines, Iowa — Des Moines Water Works — sued three counties, alleging they polluted the river with nitrates from agricultural runoff. The water utility has already spent $1.5 million to remove nitrates from drinking water and wants fertilizer runoff to be regulated as pollution under the Clean Water Act.

If the lawsuit succeeds, the agriculture industry will have to make changes to limit runoff.4 But, shouldn’t they also be responsible for cleanup? As noted by PBS News in reference to Storm Lake, Iowa, an area with rich farmland:5

“Corn is king here, grown mostly for animal feed and ethanol. Corn doesn’t like to have its feet wet, and to keep the fields dry, pipes have been installed to drain water off the fields. And with that water goes the fertilizer, fertilizer laden with nitrate.”

Bill Stowe, chief executive officer of Des Moines Water Works, told NPR:6

“The big challenge cleaning up the water in the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers, the rivers that we take from, they’re surface waters going through 10,000 square miles of industrial agriculture upstream, is the effects of that industrial agriculture on water quality.

We’re seeing water that’s so dirty, that we have to build facilities like this, which arguably is the world’s largest nitrate-removal facility, to be able to clean up the water to deliver it safely to our customers here in Central Iowa.”

Voluntary Steps to Control Fertilizer Run-Off: Are They Enough?

Iowa has a voluntary program in place — the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy — to help control fertilizer runoff, but it’s still in its beginning stages even though it started four years ago. Many have questioned whether voluntary programs go far enough. Stowe told PBS:7

“It’s the ag folks that really are driving this problem. And, in this state, we regulate, and some would argue over-regulate, cities and towns. But we leave unregulated industrial agriculture.

And, of course, agriculture is the king of the block. Therefore, leave it alone, and hopefully a voluntary system will bring in conservation practices that will improve water quality. We say, no pun intended, hogwash to that, hasn’t worked, won’t work.”

Iowa has long faced problems with elevated levels of nitrates in drinking water and has been identified as a top contributor to pollution (nitrates and phosphorus) causing the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Fertilizer runoff has also been blamed for toxic algae taking over Florida coastlines.

A report released by the Iowa Environmental Council (IEC) has attempted to summarize the related health risks of such nitrates in drinking water.8

Researchers reviewed over 100 studies on the health effects of nitrates in drinking water and found multiple studies linked them to birth defects, bladder cancer and thyroid cancer.

Wile many of the health problems were found with nitrate levels higher than the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L, some studies suggested nitrate levels lower than the drinking water standard may still pose health risks. About 15 percent of private wells in Iowa may have nitrate levels that exceed federal standards.9

Minnesota Rivers Also Threatened From Industrial Agriculture

The Mississippi River was named the second-most polluted waterway in the U.S. in 2012,10 but it still maintained swatches that were considered to be relatively pristine, particularly in the Upper Mississippi in Minnesota.

However, hundreds of miles of forest, marshes and grasslands in the area have been lost to agriculture (mostly corn, soy and potato fields) and urban development in recent years. As a result, the natural areas that played a part in keeping the Upper Mississippi pristine are being quickly lost.

Remember, what is upstream will travel downstream, so pollution in this area — the headwaters of the Mighty Mississippi — will quickly become pollution throughout much of the U.S. Among the environmental assaults already being seen include increased nitrate contamination in drinking water, which is the result of fertilizer pollution. Park Rapids, Minnesota spent $3 million to dig deeper wells due to nitrate contamination.

It’s estimated that 10 percent of private drinking wells in the area may have nitrate levels that pose dangers to pregnant women and infants.11

Purifying Your Water Is Crucial

It’s going to take change on a global scale — to industry, agriculture and public policy — to stop the water pollution that’s already taking a health and environmental toll, but you can also act on an individual level to help the problem and protect yourself. For starters, choose organically grown foods, which are grown without the synthetic fertilizers that are now devastating so many waterways.

In addition, it’s best to assume yours is less than pure and take steps to remedy it, such as using a high-quality water filtration system (unless you can verify the purity of your water). If you have well water, it would be prudent to have your water tested for nitrates and other contaminants. If you have public water, you can get local drinking water quality reports from the EPA.

To be certain you’re getting the purest water you can, filter the water both at the point of entry and at the point of use. This means filtering all the water that comes into the house, and then filtering again at the kitchen sink and shower.

Unfiltered water can also expose you to dangerous chlorine vapors and chloroform gas. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other U.S. government agencies report that most homes in the U.S. have measurable levels of chloroform gas, courtesy of chlorinated tap water.

Unless you have a whole house water filter, chlorine will vaporize from every toilet bowl in your home and every time you wash your clothes, dishes or take a shower or bath. Chloroform gas, chlorine vapors and the associated DBPs may increase your risk of asthma, airway inflammation and respiratory allergies. Chloroform gas alone can cause dizziness, nausea and general fatigue.

If you get your water from a municipal water supply and don’t have a whole house filter, it really is important to open up windows on opposing sides of your home so you get cross ventilation. Keep the windows open for five to 10 minutes a day to remove these gases. Ideally, use a whole house filtration system.

One of the best I’ve found so far is the Pure & Clear Whole House Water Filtration System, which uses a three-stage filtration process — a micron sediment pre-filter, a KDF water filter and a high-grade carbon water filter — to filter out chlorine, disinfection byproducts (DBPs) and other contaminants. You can find more information about water filters in my video below.

The Syrian Air Force destroyed up to 60 air strikes in northern Hama since Monday, destroying a number of armored vehicles, cars and fighting positions belonging to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) and its allies. The main air strikes were reported north of Soran, Tal Hawash, Kafr Naboudah and Qasabiyah.

Infighting among Turkish-backed militant groups in the northern Syrian town of Azaz was reported on Monday. Firefights are ongoing between members of Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Shamia militant groups. The main reason of the incident is tensions between Arab and Turkmen units. The so-called “Azaz Higher Court” added that Ahrar Sham and Sham Front are clashing over the right to control the main checkpoint between the areas of Azaz and Efrin. Turkey closes the al-Bab-al-Salameh bordercrossing because of the clashes.

Some 500 members of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and its allies from the Jaish al-Fatah operation room have been killed in recent clashes with the Syrian government forces in the western part and the western countryside of Aleppo city, according to pro-government sources. Pro-militants sources argue that the “opposition” has lost only about 200 fighters. The casualties were suffered by the militants during the recent clashes in the areas of Minyan, al-Assad and Hikma in western Aleppo that resulted in their liberaion by the Syrian army and its allies.

Over 4,000 Syrian army soldiers have completed officer training school at the Homs Military Academy. They are now designated the rank of “lieutenant” and set to be deployed to fighting areas across the country. The Homs Military Academy is primarily an academy for infantry officers, but reports say that some graduates are specialized in logistics, air defense, tank warfare and even electronic warfare. Another training program in the academy is reported to be completed in April, graduating more Syrian army officers.

Since the start of Russian military operation in 2015, Moscow has launched a series of training programs for the Syrian army and the National Defense Forces. Most likely, Russian military advisers contributed to the Homs academy course.

Russian MiG-29K multirole fighter jet has crashed in the Mediterranean during operations from Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser. According to reports, the incident took place November 13 afternoon when the jet faced a technical fault and splashed down in the water while attempting to land. A Russian rescue helicopter picked up the pilot.

In 2016, the fundamentally undemocratic U.S. two-party system presented the public with the two most hated candidates in history. The choice was so dismal that over forty three percent of the voters could not bring themselves to go to the polls.  Everyone hated one or the other of the candidates, or both. Whoever won was bound to face vehement opposition.

The unexpected shock of Donald Trump’s victory created mass hysteria, with crowds in tears going into the streets to protest – an unprecedented reaction to an uncontested election.

This hysterical opposition is not the best basis for building the new movement needed to oppose a widely rejected political establishment.

Most of the weeping and wailing comes not from Bernie Sanders supporters, who were prepared for the worst, but from those who believed the Clinton campaign claim that Trump represents nothing but various ways to “hate” other people: sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.  The response is to hate Trump. This is sterile and gets nowhere politically.

Trump’s reputation as a racist fiend is largely based on excessive remarks such as his outrageous promise to build a wall to keep Mexican immigrants from entering the country – outrageous, in fact, because the wall already exists! Except that it is called a “fence”.

Washington is not about to be ruled by Nazis, but by reactionary Republicans, which are bad enough but nothing new.  If Trump is better than they are on some points, that should be noted and encouraged.  An effective opposition should know how to distinguish between hot air and real issues, and to judge issues on their own specific merits.

The Clinton campaign was based the “identity politics” claim to protect women and minorities from their enemy, Trump. An opposition movement based on perpetuating that claim, with emphasis on how horrible Trump must be personally, is also likely to swallow other aspects of the Clinton campaign line, notably its anti-Russian propaganda.  Incited by the mainstream media, the “left” opposition risks echoing the Clintonist accusation that “dictator” Trump is too friendly with “dictator” Putin.  And the hysterical opposition will oppose the one positive element in Trump’s campaign: the desire to make business rather than war with Russia.

It is significant that the German Defense minister Ursula von der Leyen wasted no time in demanding that Trump choose between friendship with Putin on the one hand or NATO and “our shared values” on the other.  This is a sign that not only the U.S. war party but also the European NATO machine will be putting pressure on Trump to pursue the very same warlike policies favored by Hillary Clinton.  And the disappointed Clintonite opposition is likely to be out in the streets not to oppose wars, but to oppose Trump’s opposition to wars, all in the name of our shared democratic humanitarian values and opposition to “dictators”.

This is the danger of hysterical opposition to Trump.  It would be a continuation of the worst aspects of this dreadful campaign, totally centered on denouncing individuals, and neglecting serious political questions.  A progressive opposition should leave Clintonism behind and develop its own positions, starting with opposition to regime change wars – even if Trump is also against regime change wars.  And indeed, it should push Trump to maintain that position, because he will be under strong pressure in Washington to give it up.  The opposition should demand that Trump make good on his promise to avoid war, while opposing his reactionary domestic policies.  Otherwise, we are heading for the worst of both worlds.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her new book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. She can be reached at [email protected]

La sconfitta della Clinton è anzitutto la sconfitta di Obama che, sceso in campo a suo fianco, vede bocciata la propria presidenza. Conquistata, nella campagna elettorale del 2008, con la promessa che avrebbe sostenuto non solo Wall Street ma anche «Main Street», ossia il cittadino medio. Da allora la middle class ha visto peggiorare la propria condizione, il tasso di povertà è aumentato, mentre i ricchi sono divenuti sempre più ricchi. Ora, presentandosi come paladino della middle class, conquista la presidenza Donald Trump, l’outsider miliardario.

Che cosa cambia nella politica estera degli Stati uniti con il cambio di guardia alla Casa Bianca? Certamente non il fondamentale obiettivo strategico di rimanere la potenza globale dominante. Posizione che vacilla sempre più. Gli Usa stanno perdendo terreno sul piano economico e anche politico rispetto alla Cina, alla Russia e ad altri «paesi emergenti». Per questo gettano la spada sul piatto della bilancia.

Da qui la serie di guerre in cui Hillary Clinton ha svolto un ruolo da protagonista. Come risulta dalla sua biografia autorizzata, fu lei che in veste di first lady convinse il consorte presidente a demolire la Jugoslavia con la guerra, iniziando la serie degli «interventi umanitari» contro «dittatori» accusati di «genocidio».

Come risulta dalle sue mail, fu lei che in veste di segretaria di stato convinse il presidente Obama a demolire la Libia con la guerra e a iniziare la stessa operazione contro la Siria. Fu lei a promuovere la destabilizzazione interna del Venezuela e del Brasile e il «Pivot to Asia» statunitense in funzione anticinese. Ed è sempre stata lei, tramite anche la Fondazione Clinton, a preparare in Ucraina il terreno per il putsch di Piazza Maidan che ha dato il via alla escalation Usa/Nato contro la Russia.

Dato che tutto questo non ha impedito il relativo declino della potenza statunitense, spetta all’amministrazione Trump correggere il tiro mirando allo stesso obiettivo. Irrealistica è l’ipotesi che intenda abbandonare il sistema di alleanze incentrato sulla Nato sotto comando Usa: sicuramente però batterà i pugni sul tavolo per ottenere dagli alleati un maggiore impegno soprattutto in termini di spesa militare. Trump potrebbe ricercare un accordo con la Russia, anche con l’intento di dividerla dalla Cina verso la quale annuncia misure economiche, accompagnate da un ulteriore rafforzamento della presenza militare Usa nella regione Asia-Pacifico.

Tali decisioni, che porteranno sicuramente ad altre guerre, non dipendono dal temperamento bellicoso di Donald Trump, ma dai centri di potere dove si trova il quadro di comando da cui dipende la stessa Casa Bianca.

Sono i colossali gruppi finanziari che dominano l’economia (solo il valore azionario delle società quotate a Wall Street supera quello dell’intero reddito nazionale degli Stati uniti).

Sono le multinazionali, le cui dimensioni economiche superano quelle di interi stati, che delocalizzano le produzioni nei paesi che offrono forza lavoro a basso costo, provocando all’interno chiusura di fabbriche e disoccupazione (da qui il peggioramento delle condizioni della middle class statunitense).

Sono i giganti dell’industria bellica che guadagnano con le guerre.

È il capitalismo del 21° secolo, di cui gli Usa sono la massima espressione, che crea una crescente polarizzazione tra ricchezza e povertà. L’1% della popolazione mondiale possiede più del restante 99%.

Alla classe dei superricchi appartiene il neopresidente Trump, al quale il premier Renzi, in veste di Arlecchino servitore di due padroni, ha già giurato fedeltà dopo averla giurata al presidente Obama.

Manlio Dinucci

Citing historical injustices, environmental uncertainties and other factors, the U.S. Department of the Army is holding off on easements under the Missouri River for the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) and halting construction pending further review.

“The Army has determined that additional discussion and analysis are warranted in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s dispossessions of lands, the importance of Lake Oahe to the Tribe, our government-to-government relationship, and the statute governing easements through government property,” the Army said in a joint statement with the U.S. Department of the Interior on Monday November 14.

“While these discussions are ongoing, construction on or under Corps land bordering Lake Oahe cannot occur because the Army has not made a final decision on whether to grant an easement. The Army will work with the Tribe on a timeline that allows for robust discussion and analysis to be completed expeditiously.”

Energy Transfer Partners has been pushing ahead hard on construction and using heavily armed North Dakota state authorities as well as private security to keep hundreds of water protectors at bay and make its self-imposed January 1, 2017, deadline for operation. It has excavated and laid pipeline almost right up to the edge of Lake Oahe, the dammed-off portion of the Missouri River that was flooded more than half a century ago for the construction. The company has even constructed a drill pad in anticipation of receiving the easements to complete the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile-long pipeline from the Bakken oil fields to central Iowa.

Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II reacted with acceptance and gratitude to the Army Corps’ announcement, and the tribe called it a sign that President Barack Obama “is listening.”

“We are encouraged and know that the peaceful prayer and demonstration at Standing Rock have powerfully brought to light the unjust narrative suffered by tribal nations and Native Americans across the country,” Archambault said.

“We call on all water protectors, as we have from the beginning, to join our voices in prayer and to share our opposition to this pipeline peacefully. The whole world is watching and where they see prayerful, peaceful resistance, they join us.”

Water protectors have been camped out near the construction site of the pipeline since April and have dogged the pipeline work at every step. More than 400 people have been arrested as they stood their ground against pepper spray, mace, rubber bullets and sound cannons, among other violent methods.

Water protectors trying to stop construction that runs through sacred burial sites are met with mace, pepper spray and rubber bullets. 

“Together we can inspire people across America and the globe to honor each other and the Earth we hold sacred,” Archambault said.

“Millions of people have literally and spiritually stood with us at Standing Rock. And for this, you have our deepest thanks and gratitude. The harmful and dehumanizing tactics by the state of North Dakota and corporate bullies did not go unnoticed because of you. Not all of our prayers were answered, but this time, they were heard.”

An Israeli café chain has prevented its Arab workers and visitors from speaking their mother language inside one of its branches.

The ban was issued by a shift manager at Café Café, claiming that speaking Arabic is “threatening” to the customers.

According to a report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the shift manager at Café Café claimed that the ban was instituted “after two Arab employees, a man and woman, were speaking Arabic in front of a customer, who thought the two were laughing at her and took offense.”