On August 21 the Libyan parliament in Tobruk refused to recognise the Government of National Accord in Tripoli, which enjoys the support of the United Nations.

The news was reported in the Libyan Observer of August 22. According to the news report, a quorum meeting of Tobruk deputies (HoR) refused to express any confidence in the unity government led by Fayez al-Sarraj in Tripoli. This means that the bombing conducted by the United States in Sirte, which dates back to Sarraj’s call for help, violates international law.

Sarraj’s Government of National Accord (GNA) was neither elected nor sworn in, but rather assembled by the United States and EU from various rival factions. According to the Libya agreement of December 2015, the fate of the GNA is dependent on the consent of the parliament in Tobruk. The agreement was adopted on the initiative of the UN Security Council in Skhirat, Morocco. The decision in Tobruk now means that Sarraj has lost his pseudo-juridical basis of support.

One hundred and one members participated in the meeting of the HoR on August 21. According to Parliament Speaker Fahima this was the first General Assembly since January to reach the necessary quorum for a decision. Sixty-one deputies voted against recognition of the GNA, 39 abstained and just one voted in favour of the GNA.

Sarraj left the country immediately and flew to Stuttgart, where he was received in the US AFRICOM headquarters by its new chief, General Thomas Waldhauser. The US base is now the planning centre for further action in Libya.

In early August, Sarraj appealed to Washington for air support against the Islamic State (IS) in Sirte. Since then American fighter jets have carried out more than 90 airstrikes against the city and the surrounding areas.

In the latest stage of the war in Libya more than 300 GNA soldiers are alleged to have been killed and 1,800 wounded. The number of victims on the IS side is not known. Meanwhile Sirte has been completely abandoned by residents.”

The UK, France, Italy and Germany are all involved in the renewed fighting in Libya. For half a year special military units from the US, Britain, France and other nations have been active in Libya, gathering information and building alliances with local militias.

The attacks on Libya are justified as part of the so-called war on terror, with official Western propagandists stressing that the struggle against IS in Sirte was particularly urgent. In fact, it is the imperialist military intervention of 2011 that is responsible for the advance of Islamist terror and the Islamic State. Libyan IS fighters emerged from the Islamist militias backed by Washington and other Western intelligence services that were given arms in 2011 to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

Over 100,000 people were killed in the war of 2011 and the subsequent civil war. The country, which had one of the highest standards of living in Africa and the best health care and social system, has been bombed back to the Middle Ages and is now considered a “failed state.”

In February, a US fighter jet attacked a training camp of the IS in the western Libyan city of Sabratha. In July, three French soldiers on a secret reconnaissance mission were killed in Benghazi after their helicopter was shot down.

Italy also has a special interest in its former colonial possession. Thanks to a new law, the Italian government can now deploy several dozen special forces operatives in Libya without informing parliament. The law, which was adopted following the Paris attacks in November 2015, allows military action without the approval of parliament if the action is under the control of the secret service rather than the military. Italy has also opened its military bases, especially Sigonella in Sicily, for US fighter jets to carry out airstrikes.

The UN Security Council officially approved an intervention on the Libyan coast in June. In the context of the EU mission “Sophia” (EUNAVFOR MED), European governments have sent two dozen warships and a thousand soldiers to the Libyan and Tunisian coast. In June the European Council decided to extend its mandate on the Libyan coast until the end of July 2017.

The military build-up takes place at the expense of thousands of refugees. The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) has counted a total of 2,606 drowned refugees in July alone on the Mediterranean route from Libya to Italy. In the months from January to May 2016 there were at least 2,200 deaths. The EU mission “Sophia,” however, is not aimed at rescuing the shipwrecked but rather at combatting the so-called smugglers. It has the task of reducing the flow of refugees and at the same time enforcing the arms embargo against IS.

Germany is also participating in the Libya mission. The Bundeswehr is involved in “Sophia” with ships, planes, helicopters and 130 soldiers. At the same time it has been preparing for half a year for deployment on the Libyan mainland. Back in January, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) told the Bild: “Libya is on the opposite coast of Europe—separated only by the Mediterranean.” She argued that in meeting the urgent need to stabilize and enforce “law and order in this huge state … Germany will not evade its responsibility to contribute.”

The real reason for the imperialist powers’ intervention in Libya is not the fight against terrorism, but rather access to and control over natural resources, especially oil and gas, and to acquire first place in the race to re-colonise Africa.

“It is ultimately a struggle over the distribution of oil and power,” UN special envoy Martin Kobler told Deutschlandfunk on August 3. According to Kobler the Government of National Accord in Tripoli has “100 percent international backing.” It was extremely important that the unity government asked Washington for help in order “to maintain Libyan sovereignty.”

The Sarraj faction recently signed an agreement with Ibrahim Dschedhren, head of Petroleum Facilities Guard, which controls a large part of the oil production in the region. The GNA would allow oil exports to start again and use the proceeds to finance its affairs.

The competing government in Tobruk reacted by occupying the oil terminal port of Zuwetinah south of the coastal city of Benghazi. It encompasses an area that is the most important centre for oil trade.

General Khalifa Haftar, who commands the armed forces of the Tobruk HoR, has threatened to carry out attacks against cities and towns, which continue to be loyal to Sarraj and his unity government.

Haftar had initially aligned with the US and played an important role as a CIA operative in the overthrow of Gaddafi. He later distanced himself, however, from the US government and is now looking for support from France and Egypt. A spokesman of Haftar announced on August 25 that the eastern-based Libyan armed forces now regard the US intervention in the battle for Sirte as “illegal.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Libya’s Tobruk Parliament Refuses to Recognize Western-Backed Government

As Islamic State retreats the true scale of its atrocities is becoming apparent. Associated Press collated existing documents and testimonies to produce the fullest picture yet – but activists say that thousands more victims buried in shallow mass graves are yet to be discovered.

The agency says it has pinpointed the exact location of 72 Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) mass graves – 17 of those in Syria, the rest in Iraq – which contain anything from at least 5,200 to over 15,000 victims.

The information came from AllSource, a satellite intelligence firm that has matched photos from space with eyewitness accounts, aid groups such as Yazda, which are recording the systematic slaughter, and often IS itself, which has boasted about killing hundreds of ‘infidels’ and ‘traitors’ in its own regularly-broadcast videos.

“They are beheading them, shooting them, running them over in cars, all kinds of killing techniques, and they don’t even try to hide it,” said Sirwan Jalal, who has been appointed by Iraqi Kurds to investigate the mass burials.

The biggest documented massacre was committed in Camp Speicher in Tikrit in June 2014, when Islamic State gunned down between 1,000 and 1,700 unarmed Shiite Iraqi Air Force recruits, forcing them to shout slogans as they lay down, waiting to be executed.

Thirty-six of the perpetrators were hanged for the war crime earlier this month.

But while that location was well known, another massacre happened near Ramadi just two days earlier. AllSource looked for images of disturbed earth in the city in the northwest of Iraq – big enough to be noticeable from a satellite image – that tallied with accounts given by survivors to Human Rights Watch.

This was a testimony by a man only known as A.S., who was singled out for being a Shiite and put in a line in which each man had to shout out his number: “I was number 43. I heard them say ‘615,’ and then one ISIS guy said, ‘We’re going to eat well tonight.’ A man behind us asked, ‘Are you ready?’ Another person answered ‘Yes,’ and began shooting at us with a machine-gun.”

A.S. told HRW that he escaped by playing dead and then sneaking out at night, among about 15 others, a common tactic among the few survivors of such large-scale massacres.

With war still ongoing, in places such as Hardan, a Kurdish area, the authorities have merely roped off the mass graves, and say there are currently no resources to excavate and document the dead.

As the bodies continue to decay, and the wind blows away the earth, revealing the still-clothed bones, locals are served a daily reminder of the horrors.

“I have lots of people I know there. Mostly friends and neighbors,”Arkan Qassem, who lives in a village outside Hardan, told AP. “It’s very difficult to look at them every day.”

With IS counting different sects – such as Shias and Yazidis – different ethnicities – such as Kurds – and even Sunni tribes as their enemies, there are estimated to be “hundreds” of mass graves that will take years to be fully mapped, and their victims to be given a proper burial.

“This is a drop in an ocean of mass graves expected to be discovered in the future in Syria,” said Ziad Awad, from The Eye of the City, a publication in Syria’s Deir ez-Zor, which is cataloguing the IS massacres.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Crimes against Humanity: Seventy-two Daesh-ISIS Mass Graves Containing Up to 15,000 Discovered in Iraq and Syria. Who are the State Sponsors of ISIS? Who is Training, Who is Financing Them?

Anti-fracking measures proposed in Colorado will not appear on the ballot for residents to vote on after they failed to garner the voter support necessary.

One of the measures “would have required new wells to be at least 2,500 feet from homes and schools” while the other would have provided local governments with the ability “to restrict or ban energy development”.

The proposals required 98,492 signatures, but supporters fell just short of the signatures needed. Ryan Hughes , president of Localized Strategies and leader of the signature petitions, said they might ask the Colorado Secretary of State to review disallowed signatures.

The Colorado Secretary of State claimed that the petitions “contained potential forgeries”; including three signatures provided “by a circulator named Sdeed Merghani”.

The petitioners said they “filed more than [the necessary] amount”.

Industry response to this failure resulted in energy corporation’s stocks getting a sudden spike on the stock market.

Journalist Jeff Daniels explained : “Synergy Resources gained nearly 4 percent on the day, while Bill Barrett Corp. rose more than 4 percent. Also, PDC Energy and Noble Energy climbed 2 percent and about 1.8 percent respectively.”

In states where oil and natural gas is a profitable export, there has been a trend by capitol governments to prevent residents from banning fracking.

Last year, Texas Governor Gregg Abbot made it illegal for residents of any city in the state to ban hydraulic fracturing (fracking) practices with the signing of House Bill 40 .

Abbott claimed the ban on the fracking ban does “profound job of helping to protect private property rights,” ensuring that “those who own their own property will not have the heavy hand of local government deprive them of their rights. HB 40 strikes a meaningful and correct balance between local control and preserving the state’s authority to ensure that regulations are even-handed and do not hamper job creation.”

The oil and gas industry has contributed $1,519,469 to Abbott, helping to win his place as governor of Texas, which has turned out to be a sound investment.

Ed Longanecker, president of the Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPROA) called HB 40 a “balanced approach that protects the ability of municipalities to reasonably regulate surface activity related to oil and gas development, while offering the regulatory certainty necessary for our industry operations.”

HB 40 helps fracking corporations by presetting a “four-part test for allowing cities to regulate drilling operations above ground, such as emergency response, noise and setbacks. But the law says those controls must be ‘economically reasonable’ and can’t hinder or prohibit the work of a ‘prudent operator’.”

The false-security clause in the bill refers to a “safe harbor” provision that actually protects fracking efforts for 5 years because they are “considered commercially reasonable”.

Cities such as Fort Worth have more than 2,000 active gas producing wells and more development is expected without hindrances from residents.

In order to prevent Denton residents from enacting their ban on fracking, the Texas Oil and Gas Association (TOGA) and the Texas General Land Officer (TGLO) filed injunctions against the municipality.

Those lawsuits are expected to be rescinded.

Perhaps not surprising, the authors of this bill have direct ties to the oil and gas industry.

State Representative Drew Darby currently “ receives income from Leclair Operating, a petroleum company in Abilene, and has assets in Kachina Pipeline Inc. valued at more than $25,000.”

The Texans for Public Justice explained State Representative Jim Keffer “who heads the House Energy Resources Committee, holds an interest in the Emerald Royalty Fund, which specializes in mineral rights. His broad stock portfolio includes shares in more than a dozen oil and gas companies, according to a 2011 filing with the Texas Ethics Commission. He received nearly $73,000 in the 2011-12 election cycle from the industry.”

House Representative Phil King has received an estimated $35,000 from oil and gas industry corporations, and sits on the House Energy Resources Committee.

House Representative Senfronia Thompson has received $23,750 from the energy and natural resources industry. Oil and gas gave Thompson $5,750.

House Representative Rene Oliveira was given $69,600 from the energy and natural resources industry in 2012 alone.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Big Energy Pays US State Governments to Ban the Protest Movement From Banning Fracking

Today, the European Commission has ruled that two tax rulings issued by the Irish tax administration on the tax treatment of Apple’s corporate profits represent illegal state aid under EU law. As a consequence, Apple has to pay up to €13 billion of taxes plus interest to Ireland. This sum due to the Irish exchequer can be reduced if other countries from Europe, Africa, the Middle East or India or the United States decide to claim a share of those profits. This lays bare the core of a global problem: secretive tax rulings issued by tax haven states are not an instrument for the avoidance of double taxation, but a tool for the achievement of non-taxation of profits. In practice such rulings destroy fair market competition and undermine the tax sovereignty of democratic states.

This decision is remarkable on at least three counts.

First, the sheer size of the repayment order is extraordinary and highlights that the European Commission is not in a mood to bargain. Despite recent public implicit warnings by the US Treasury, the scale of the repayment is probably a realistic assessment of the revenue losses across the European Union. Calculations for Germany show that Apple should be expected to have paid at least €1,3 billion in additional income taxes since 2010, and a similar amount can be expected for the UK. The Commission’s assessment of €13 billion in taxes due for 2003 till 2014 appears to be broadly in line with those.

Second, the decision is explicit in saying that Ireland is not the only loser from these tax avoidance practices; other European Union countries have also lost significant revenues as a result of Apple’s tax trickery. Furthermore, because Apple’s sales elsewhere in the world (with the exception of North and South America) have been structured through the legal entities in question, today’s decision has implications far beyond Europe. It is highly likely that affected countries, of which the EU Commissioner explicitly mentioned European, African and Middle Eastern nations, but also India, are now in a position to challenge the legal fiction whereby sales in all of those countries were contractually routed through Irish legal entities. Many countries around the world have in the past taken measures to challenge these techniques aimed at the avoidance of permanent establishments in the respective countries.

Third, the Commission has made clear that the recently adopted position of the US Treasury is not based on sound facts. In its white paper, it argues that the state aid proceedings would result in a form of a direct transfer of revenues from the US to the EU. However, Commissioner Vestager explicitly has stated that the amount due to Ireland in taxes can be reduced, among others, if the respective Apple legal entities paid higher fees for research and other services to the US headquarter. This clearly shows that the EU Commission is prepared to accept a higher share of tax base being attributed to and taxed in the USA, but that it would not accept stateless or untaxed income in this order of magnitude. As research by TJN has shown in 2015, the US is likely to be the single biggest loser of US multinational’s tax avoidance schemes.

John Christensen, a director of Tax Justice Network, said:

“Apple illustrates the harm caused by tax wars between nation states. The sheer trickery of their tax arrangements renders their claims to corporate social responsibility risible, and the economic harm caused by these arrangements is also enormous. Despite their sitting on record levels of unspent cash reserves, Apple directors and their tax advisers have been cheating taxpayers around the world of billions of tax dollars.  The world urgently needs a new framework for international cooperation to block countries like Ireland and Luxembourg from engaging in tax wars which harm democracy and cause untold damage to the quality of economic development.”

Moran Harari, researcher at Tax Justice Network, said:

“The courageous decision of the European Commission exposes the way Apple has abused the society’s trust to gain billions on the account of the public at large. This decision proves that consistent and justified public pressure may lead to social change. That is why we must keep fighting for tax justice.”

Markus Meinzer, a director of Tax Justice Network, said:

“Today’s decision backfires on what can be only described as boundless greed, where even after an investigation by the US Senate, Apple continued to further reduce its tax rate from 0,05% to 0,005% in 2014. It is time for Apple to smell the coffee and realise that what is unethical cannot forever remain legal. Now it is high time for tax administrations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and India to claim a share of that pot of untaxed profits.”

Press contacts:

Moran Harari, [email protected]         tel. +972 52 8812189

Markus Meinzer [email protected]    tel. +49 178 3405673

About the Tax Justice Network

We are an independent international network focused on tax justice: the role of tax in society, and the role of tax havens in undermining democracy, boosting inequality and corrupting the global economy. We seek to create understanding and debate, and to promote reform, especially in poorer countries. We are not aligned to any political party.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Secretive Tax Rulings and the Apple Tax Repayment: The EU Commission’s Apple Decision. The Beginning of the End of Tax Wars?

Launched this month, as much of the world was on holiday, Avigdor Lieberman’s plan for the Palestinians – retooling Israel’s occupation – received less attention than it should.

Defence minister since May, Mr Lieberman has been itching to accelerate Israel’s annexation by stealth of the West Bank.

His “carrot and stick” plan has three components. First, he intends to sideline the Palestinian Authority in favour of a new local leadership of “notables” hand-picked by Israel.

Preferring to “cut out the middle man”, in his words, he will open a dialogue with supposedly more responsible Palestinians – business people, academics and mayors.

Next, he has established a new communications unit that will speak in Arabic over the heads of the PA in the West Bank and its Hamas rivals in Gaza directly to ordinary Palestinians.

An online campaign – budgeted at $2.6 million – will seek to convince them of Israel’s good intentions. The Palestinians’ problems, according to Mr Lieberman, derive from corrupt and inciteful national leaderships, not the occupation.

And finally, his defence ministry will produce a map of the West Bank marking in green and red the areas where, respectively, “good” and “bad” Palestinians live. Collective punishment will be stepped up in towns and villages in red areas, from which Palestinian attacks have been launched. Presumably night raids and house demolitions will increase, while closures will further curtail freedom of movement.

Palestinians in green areas will reap economic rewards for their good behaviour. They will be given work permits in Israel and the settlements, and benefit from development projects, including the creation of Israeli-controlled industrial zones.

It sounds like the musings of a 19th century colonial official on how best to prevent the natives turning restless. Ahmed Majdalani, an adviser to Mahmoud Abbas, told the Haaretz newspaper the new arrangements assumed Palestinans were “stupid and lacking self-respect” and could be “bought with economic perks”.

Mr Lieberman’s longer-term goal is to persuade Palestinians – and the international community – that their aspirations for self-determination are unattainable and counter-productive

Israel has tried that approach before, as Palestinian officials pointed out. Decades ago, Israel sought to manage the occupation by imposing on the local population Palestinian collaborators, termed “Village Leagues”. Armed by the Israeli military, they were supposed to stamp out political activism and support for the PLO.

By the early 1980s the experiment had to be abandoned, as Palestinians refused to accept the leagues’ corrupt and self-serving rule. An uprising, the first intifada, followed a short time later.

Israel’s agreement to the PA’s creation under the Oslo accords in the mid-1990s was, in part, an acceptance that the occupied territories needed a more credible security contractor, this time in the form of the Palestinian national leadership.

Whatever Mr Lieberman and others claim, the Palestinian leaderships in the West Bank and Gaza are the last parties to blame for the recent wave of Palestinian unrest. The attacks have been mostly carried out spontaneously by “lone wolves”, not organised groups. Many occur in Jerusalem, from which all political activity is barred.

Mr Abbas has described the “security coordination” with Israel as “sacred”, aware that his PA will not survive long if it does not demonstrate its usefulness to Israel. His security services have subdued Palestinian resistance more effectively than the Israeli army.

Bereft of regional allies and a credible strategy, even Hamas have chosen quiet since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, its lethal wrecking spree in Gaza in 2014. It has kept the tiny coastal enclave locked down. Rocket fire – one of the few remaining, if largely symbolic, ways to confront Israel – all but ceased long ago.

The silence from Gaza was briefly disturbed a week ago by a rocket fired by a small ISIL-linked group. Despite Hamas’s disavowal of the attack, Mr Lieberman demonstrated his new big stick by bombarding government sites in Gaza in a show of force unseen over the past two years. The futility of this approach – blaming the official leaderships for the roiling frustration and resentment of those they formally lead – should be self-evident.

Ordinary Palestinians, not officials, endure the endless expansion of settlements and the resulting takeover of their agricultural lands. Ordinary Palestinians, not their leaders, face daily abuses at checkpoints and in military raids. Reports at the weekend suggested soldiers were deliberately kneecapping youths at protests to permanently disable them.

Round-ups, torture, military courts that always find the accused guilty – these are the rites of passage for Palestinians in the West Bank. For Palestinians in Gaza, it is slow starvation, homelessness and a random missile rain of death.

An Israeli strategy that failed decades ago – before the PA even existed – is not going to succeed now. Social media campaigns and paltry handouts will not persuade Palestinians they are nothing more than a humanitarian problem.

They are not about to shelve their dreams of liberation just because Mr Lieberman colour-codes them in red and green.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Carrot and Stick” Carve-Up of the Occupied West Bank Will Not Work for Israel

Turkey’s incursion into northern Syria on 24 August was flagged up as a move to drive the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) out of the border town of Jarabulus. But that is just a cover: Turkey’s not very secret major objective is to crush the 50,000-strong Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Unit) militia, and overrun the three autonomous Kurdish dominated areas, collectively called “Rojava” by the Kurds.

Two days into the Turkish invasion, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim stated bluntly that this operation would not be ended until Islamic State “and other militants” had been crushed. Already there are reports of fighting between Turkish-led forces and the YPG south of Jarabulus and thousands of Turkish troops massing on the border.

Turkey struck first toward Jarabulus because the government of Islamist president Recep Erdoğan was concerned that the town should not follow the example of Manbic (Manbij), where ISIS was driven out by the Syrian Democratic Forces alliance, which has the Kurdish YPG (Peoples Protection Units) at its core. This was a stunning military and political coup for the YPG.

Within Sight of the Turkish Border

Jarabulus lies within sight of the Turkish border, just on the western side of the Euphrates. A brief glance at a map reveals its strategic significance.

Erdoğan wants to do two things.

First, prevent the Kurdish YPG fighters from linking up two of the areas they control – Afrin canton on the west side and Kobani canton the east side of the Euphrates river. If these were linked, the Kurdish dominated area would form a contiguous area – effectively a mini-state – running alongside the Turkish border. On the other side of that border is Turkish Kurdistan, which the Kurds call ‘north Kurdistan’. The possibility of a political link-up between Rojava and Turkish Kurdistan would be immediately on the agenda.

The second Turkish objective is to keep open the corridor to the south which has been essential for Turkey’s supplies to Islamic State and other Islamist fighters it backs (and for oil going in the other direction from the ISIS-controlled oilfields).

Erdogan’s road to intervening was cleared by two diplomatic coups. First he went three weeks ago to see Russian president Vladimir Putin. Doubtless Putin, acting as the agent of Syrian president Assad, assured him that the Russian-Syrian-Iranian axis do not support the creation of a Kurdish-dominated autonomous region and would not interfere with Turkish action against the YPG and SDF.

More important perhaps was getting the U.S. to back off from its support for the Kurdish fighters. U.S. warplanes have provided cover for SDF-YPG action against ISIS. There have been U.S. Special Forces on the ground fighting with YPG units. This was only ever a short-term tactical alliance, one that the Obama government would obviously ditch the moment U.S. long-term political interests demanded it.

Turkey’s medium term goal is to crush the Kurdish YPG, widely seen as the Syrian Kurdish co-thinkers of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) in Turkey. Erdogan’s government also wants to definitively crush the three established cantons of Rojava. But it’s not only Turkey that doesn’t want a self-governing Kurdish area in Syria – this is also opposed by the Syrian government and all the significant Syrian rebel groups. Indeed one of the allegedly ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition groups, the Free Syrian Army, is providing the ground troops alongside Turkish tanks and planes.

However some reports say local people recognized some ISIS fighters coming into the town with the Kurdish tanks. It certainly seems likely that ISIS were tipped off by the Turkish government and moved out to avoid a fight.

According to a statement by the Executive Council of the Kurdistan National Congress, “The Turkish state is operating in partnership with the El-Qaida affiliated Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (previously Al Nusra) and ISIS. Jarablus has been seized through an agreement between them. We believe that, the Turkish state and these terrorist groups will read their attacks across the region.”

Marriage of Convenience for Some

Backing from the United States has been crucial on the ground for the YPG’s military victories against ISIS, but Erdogan’s regime has been campaigning fiercely to disrupt it. On 24 August, Turkey demanded that Kurdish forces fall back to the east of the Euphrates or face an all-out attack. This was backed up by U.S. vice president Joe Biden, in the wake of his discussions with Erdogan in Ankara, who said that if the YPG did not fall “back across the river” then the U.S. would end its support for them.

Will the YPG pull back to the other side of the Euphrates or stand and fight? One YPG commander was quoted as saying that the Kurdish fighters would refuse to comply with the Turkish order to move east. Other statements said that the YPG-SDF were in fact moving east to make preparations for an attack on Raqqa – de facto headquarters of ISIS in Syria.

The American alliance with the YPG has always been a paradox. The U.S. backed the Kurdish fighters because it saw them as an effective fighting force against ISIS, in fact spectacularly the most effective force. However, the Kurdish controlled cantons of Rojava have been the site of a spectacular radical social experiment in both democratic self-organization and women’s equality as well as ethnic inclusion, absolutely not the kind of thing the U.S. wants to support. So this was always a marriage of convenience, very time limited.

The U.S. says it will stop helping the YPG unless they accede to Turkey’s demand and retreat east of the Euphrates, but the more that Turkey directly engages the YPG-SDF forces, the more the U.S. will back off support for the YPG.

Erdogan had for two years demanded the creation of a ‘buffer zone’ along the Turksh border in which Syrian refugees from the fighting could be placed. This was always a euphemism for ‘destroy Rojava’ and drive out the Kurds. Now Turkey is trying to put this into action.

The situation is now extremely dangerous. After the failed coup, Turkish president Erdogan feels he is in an unchallengeable situation. The destruction and massacre of hundreds of thousands in Syria is a grim warning. The West will do little or nothing to prevent a massacre of the Kurdish people and Rojava being overrun if Erdogan unleashes the full weight of his military might against them. The need for solidarity with the Kurdish people has never been greater. •

Phil Hearse is editor of www.marxsite.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s Move into Syria: Massacre of the Kurds, Overthrowing Rojava

US Pressures Turkey to Curb Attacks on Syrian Kurds

August 31st, 2016 by Patrick Martin

President Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will meet this coming weekend, the White House said Monday, as tensions mounted between Washington and Ankara over the Turkish invasion of Syria. The meeting will be held in China, where both Obama and Erdogan are to participate in the Group of 20 summit of leading economic powers on September 4-5.

The Obama-Erdogan meeting was announced as a series of US spokesmen criticized the actions of the Turkish military in Syria. After ousting Islamic State (ISIS) militants from the border town of Jarabulus, Turkish forces, allied with the US through NATO, have turned their guns against Syrian Kurdish forces sponsored and armed by the United States. Dozens were killed Sunday in a series of bombardments as Turkish artillery and air strikes hit several villages held by Syrian Kurdish forces, including Jeb el-Kussa, where at least 20 died and 50 were wounded.

The Turkish invasion, dubbed Operation Euphrates Shield, while initially billed as an offensive against ISIS, quickly became an extension of the protracted civil war inside Turkey between the Turkish military and guerrillas of the separatist PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). The Syrian Kurds, allied to the PKK, are organized in the YPG militia and the PYD party, which have become the main forces backed by the Obama administration in northern Syria.

The trigger for the Turkish incursion was not the Islamic State, which has controlled the section of the Syrian-Turkish border west of Jarabulus for several years without interference by Turkey, but the advances by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an umbrella group dominated by the YPG, which crossed the Euphrates River and captured the town of Manbij from Islamic State after a 10-week battle.

Turkish forces crossed the border August 24 and drove Islamic State out of Jarabulus. Then, together with Sunni Islamist militias allied with them, they began seizing villages that had been taken by the SDF-YPG in the course of their own offensive against ISIS. A reporter for Al-Jazeera said, referring to the Turkish forces and their militia allies, “their main target is to take over Manbij. YPG fighters maintain a significant presence along that area with their local allies.”

Kurdish forces withdrew in the face of the Turkish onslaught, but in some cases did not move east of the Euphrates, as demanded by Turkey, but south through Manbij, maintaining their beachhead on the western side of the river. The SDF’s military council in the region declared in an online statement, “We, the military council of Jarabulus and its countryside, announce the withdrawal of our forces to the line south of the Sajour River to preserve the lives of civilians and so that no pretext remains for continued strikes on villages and civilians.”

In the first days of the invasion, which began while Vice President Joseph Biden was in Ankara, US officials indicated their support for the Turkish attack, hoping that it would help create better conditions for realizing the main US goal of overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with Iran and Russia.

But Monday saw an escalating series of warnings to Turkey from US officials. Brett McGurk, the US special envoy for the campaign against ISIS, wrote on Twitter, “We want to make clear that we find these clashes—in areas where [ISIS] is not located—unacceptable and a source of deep concern. We call on all armed actors to stand down.”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, at a media appearance with the visiting defense minister of India, said that he would be meeting with the Turkish defense minister, Fikri Iski, next week in Europe. He said, “We have called upon Turkey to stay focused” on the fight against ISIS “and not to engage” the Kurdish forces. “We’ve called on both sides not to fight one another, not to fight each other,” he said.

After announcing the upcoming Obama-Erdogan meeting, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters at the White House, “Further action against the SDF would complicate efforts to have that united front” against ISIS. At their meeting in China, he went on, Obama and Erdogan would discuss the situation in Turkey since the attempted military coup of July 15, as well as the war in Syria and the refugee crisis that it has produced.

Meanwhile, the Syrian government, which has exercised no control over the region in question for several years, condemned what it called “repetitive breaches, aggression and massacres” committed by Turkey against the Syrian people in the area around Jarabulus. The Syrian Foreign Ministry sent two messages Monday to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, accusing Turkey of “full-fledged crimes against humanity.”

Turkish officials reiterated their demands that the Syrian Kurdish forces cross back east of the Euphrates River or the Turkish military would continue to attack them. “So long as they don’t, they will be a target,” said Mevlut Cavusoglu, the foreign minister.

Posturing as the defender of Syrian Arabs against aggression by the Kurds—the stance adopted by ISIS as well—Cavusoglu claimed, “In the places where it has moved, the YPG forces everyone out—including Kurds—who do not think like it does and carries out ethnic cleansing.”

Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus declared Monday that one goal of the Turkish military intervention was to prevent the YPG from gaining control of the entire Syrian-Turkish border, from the northeast to the Mediterranean Sea. “If that happens, it means Syria has been divided,” he told the Turkish broadcaster NTV, adding, “We are in favor of Syria’s territorial integrity.” He denied Turkey was entering the war in Syria, saying, “We are not pursuing an aim of becoming a permanent power in Syria. Turkey is not an invader.”

Perhaps the most intransigent comment came from Omer Celik, a Turkish cabinet minister, who dismissed US demands that the country fight ISIS but not the Kurdish YPG. “No one has the right to tell Turkey to ‘fight this terror organization but don’t fight that terror organization,’” he said.

The Turkish government brands all Kurdish separatist forces as “terrorists,” whether located in Syria, Iraq or Turkey itself. The Erdogan regime regards the advance of the YPG in Syria as a deadly threat, when combined with the existence of a Kurdish Regional Authority in northern Iraq, and the renewed attacks by the PKK in southeastern Turkey itself. While the Kurdish forces are divided politically, Ankara fears efforts to link up Kurdish speakers in southeastern Turkey, northern Syria and northern Iraq in a future independent Kurdistan.

The complex political situation is made even more complicated by the fact that the Syrian Arab forces allied with the Turks and with the Syrian Kurds respectively each have a US government sponsor. The CIA arms and trains the Sunni Islamist militias that are loosely referred to as the “Free Syrian Army,” while the Pentagon has helped create the SDF. The result is that separate US-backed Syrian militias are fighting each other.

According to press reports, Jaysh al Tahrir, an Islamist militia described by Washington as a “moderate rebel group,” has received several TOW anti-tank missiles from the US and is presumably now using them against the SDF, which has Pentagon Special Forces operators embedded within it, who could now find themselves targeted by missiles supplied by their own government.

This possibility only demonstrates the increasing recklessness and irrationality of the policy of US imperialism in Syria and throughout the Middle East. After 13 years of warfare, beginning in Iraq and now extending into the civil wars in Syria, Yemen and Libya, the United States has devastated a vast region. Washington bears the main responsibility for the deaths of several million people, the creation of tens of millions of refugees, and destruction on a scale not seen since World War II.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Pressures Turkey to Curb Attacks on Syrian Kurds

The National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the oldest and largest human rights bar association in the United States, by its International Committee, its Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Committee and its Environmental Human Rights Committee, as well as the NLG’s Environmental Justice Committee, stands in solidarity with the sovereign Oceti Sakowin Oyate (the Great Sioux Nation), the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and its people in their just opposition to the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline across their sacred and ancestral lands.

The United States has failed to respect the national sovereignty and interests of the Tribe and its people, has failed to respect the nation-to-nation relationship with the Tribe established by treaties, and has failed to properly consult with the Tribe to obtain its free, prior, and informed consent for the construction of the pipeline. We stand with the great many defenders and protectors of ancestral lands, water, and spiritual, historic, and cultural resources at the Camp of the Sacred Stones currently blocking construction of the pipeline across the Missouri River near the Tribe’s land and territory. We applaud the indigenous youth who ran 2,200 miles to Washington, DC, to deliver to the United States government a petition signed by 160,000 people in opposition to the pipeline’s construction.August 29, 2016

 

The 30-inch diameter, 1,172-mile pipeline is proposed by Dakota Access, LLC, to connect the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota across South Dakota and Iowa to other pipelines in Illinois for the transport of approximately 470,000 to 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It has been estimated that the Bakken oil reserves, the largest in the United States, hold in excess of 5 billion barrels of oil and are producing over a million barrels per day. In April of this year, researchers at the University of Michigan found that the Bakken field is emitting about 2 percent of the world’s ethane, about 250,000 tons per year into the air, directly affecting air quality across North America. These emissions, combined with combustion of Bakken oil, are major contributors to the Global Climate Crisis that threatens the well-being of our environment, future generations, and the Earth.

The proposed pipeline route crosses ancestral lands of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Missouri River. The Missouri River is a major source of water for the Tribe. The ancestral lands and water are sacred to the Tribe and its people, and they possess a responsibility to Mother Earth and to future generations to protect these ancestral lands and water.

Energy Transfer Partners, the Texas company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, and its affiliated entities, have a long history of violations of environmental laws including pending lawsuits by the states of New Jersey, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the City of Breau Bridge in Louisiana over MTBE contamination of groundwater, as well as citations for releases of hazardous materials from its pipelines and facilities in Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii. Pipelines leak and spill. In one year alone, there were over 300 pipeline breaks in North Dakota. Numerous pipeline spills of millions of gallons of oil and contaminants into the Missouri River and its tributaries have already occurred. In January, over 50,000 gallons of Bakken crude oil spilled into the Yellowstone River in Montana. Oil from the Bakken field is more volatile than other crudes.

The conduct of the US government in its approval of the Pipeline proposal breaches the terms of the 1851 and 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaties between the Oceti Sakowin and the United States. The exercise of colonial power by the United States in approving the proposal further violates the collective human rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its peoples including the rights to self-determination, national sovereignty, and free, prior, and informed consent as to those matters that may affect them, which are secured to all peoples by the Charter of the United Nations, Art. 73; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 1, 3 (ICCPR); and specifically to indigenous peoples under the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Art. 3, 4, 11, 18, 19, 27, 28, 32, 37, 40 (UN DRIP), and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), Art. 6; and other international instruments that the United States as signed and ratified or have become binding customary international law. By Art. VI, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution these have become part of the Supreme Law of the United States of America.

The pipeline further violates not only the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, but also the collective human rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its people to their spiritual, historic, and cultural interests in their ancestral lands across which the pipeline is proposed to travel, rights which are secured to them by the afore-stated international instruments and law. The proposed pipeline violates the collective environmental human rights of the people of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to life, health, clean water, and a clean environment, treaty rights secured to them by the Ft. Laramie Treaties as well as by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 3, 25; ICCPR, Art. 6; the UN DRIP, Art. 7, 24, 29; and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Art. 1.

In a flagrant violation of environmental justice principles, the pipeline was redirected towards lands near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe from its original route north of the drinking water intakes for Bismarck, ND, in part to avoid non-Native lands and communities. This act of racial discrimination placing the people of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe at disparate risk of harm violated their collective human rights as secured by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and violated the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, EO 12898.

On August 10, Dakota Access, LLC moved construction equipment to the proposed Missouri River crossing site adjacent to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Members of the Tribe prevented the developers’ earthmovers from digging trenches for the pipeline. Several tribal members and supporters were arrested, including Tribal Chairman David Archambault. NLG attorneys have responded to help with their defense.

On August 15, Dakota Access, LLC filed a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit in federal court in Bismarck, ND against a number of individuals, including the Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The suit is an attempt to silence their opposition and to get the pipeline constructed before a federal lawsuit filed by the Tribe in the District of Columbia can be decided on the adequacy of federal consultation with the Tribe. Dakota Access, LLC seeks an injunction against anyone interfering with construction of the pipeline and could add federal contempt charges to existing criminal charges for those who continue to resist construction. A decision on the preliminary injunction sought by Dakota Access, LLC in Bismarck is scheduled to be issued by September 9, 2016. Meanwhile, the encampment of protectors of the land and water and the spiritual and cultural resources of the Tribe, which started with 35 people, has grown to over hundreds, with tensions mounting.

We call for the respect of the sovereign rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and its peoples, and for the immediate and permanent halt of the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In light of the growing Climate Crisis, we further call for the Bakken oil to be left in the ground.

Photo: Officers from the Morton County Sherriff’s Dept. line up facing Dakota Access Pipeline protesters in North Dakota, August 15. Via Standing Rock Dakota Access Pipeline Opposition on Facebook.


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline. National Lawyers Guild (NLG) Statement of Solidarity

Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline

August 30th, 2016 by Logan Glitterbomb

As this article is being written, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe are preparing to challenge Dakota Access, LLC and the U.S. Army Corps in court over environmental concerns and property rights disputes.

On July 26, 2016 the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe discovered that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had given its approval for a massive 1,172 mile pipeline to run through the Hunkpapa Nation territory near Cannonball, just within a half-mile of their reservation.Energy Transfer Partners, a Texas-based energy company, plans for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross Lake Oahe and the Missouri River, disturbing many sacred indigenous sites and burial grounds which exist on land supposedly protected by ancestral treaties between the tribe and the United States.

Energy Transfer Partners plans build, own and operate the proposed $3.78 billion pipeline which will “transport up to 570,000 barrels of crude oil fracked from the Bakken oil fields across four states to a market hub in Illinois.” According to Dakota Access, LLC, the pipeline will also “cross 209 rivers, creeks and tributaries” along the way. Most pressing to the tribe however is the fact that it could potentially destroy ancient burial grounds and other sacred sites as well as threaten the Missouri River which currently acts as the tribe’s main source for irrigation and drinking water.

According to Jon Eagle, Sr., the Standing Rock Sioux’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer:

“The land between the Cannonball River and the Heart River is sacred. It’s a historic place of commerce where enemy tribes camped peacefully within sight of each other because of the reverence they had for this place. In the area are sacred stones where our ancestors went to pray for good direction, strength and protection for the coming year. Those stones are still there, and our people still go there today.”

The next day after the tribe was made aware of the situation, July 27th, they immediately filed for litigation federal court in the District of Columbia to challenge the U.S. Army Corps regarding their actions in approving the Dakota Access Pipeline without consulting tribal governance, something they are obliged to do according to both U.S. treaties and the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. According to Indian Country Today, “[t]he suit seeks to enforce the tribal nation’s federally protected rights and interests.” Several other tribes have since asked to join the lawsuit which seeks a preliminary injunction to undo the Army Corps’ approval of the Dakota Pipeline, most notably the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

In addition, Standing Rock youth ages 6–25 from the reservation vowed to run to Washington, D.C. to deliver a petition with 160,000 signatures on change.org opposing the pipeline to the President of the United States. After running for 2,200 miles, they were able to meet with Army Corps officials and hold rallies along the way; they returned home on August 10.

On August 8, Dakota Access, LLC. gave the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe a 48-hour notice that construction would begin. In response, several hundred protesters gathered including the Standing Rock tribe, their fellow tribes, and a coalition of allies ranging from farmers and ranchers to environmentalists, set up an encampment, known as the Sacred Stone Camp, right outside the construction site, just in time to greet the members of the petition crew who were returning home.

Several people were arrested during this action but construction was successfully suspended while the developers filed a lawsuit requesting payment for alleged damages and restraining orders against the notably peaceful protesters. Eventually construction continued and so did the Sacred Stone Camp. Lines of cops stood between the construction workers and the protesters, some of whom rode on horseback wearing their traditional tribal garb.

One of those arrested was Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II who spoke of the situation:

“We don’t want this black snake within our Treaty boundaries. We need to stop this pipeline that threatens our water. We have said repeatedly we don’t want it here. We want the Army Corps of Engineers to honor the same rights and protections that were afforded to others, rights we were never afforded when it comes to our territories. We demand the pipeline be stopped and kept off our Treaty boundaries…We have a voice, and we are here using it collectively in a respectful and peaceful manner, The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is doing everything it can legally, through advocacy and by speaking directly to the powers that be who could have helped us before construction began. This has happened over and over, and we will not continue to be completely ignored and let the Army Corps of Engineers ride roughshod over our rights…We have a serious obligation, a core responsibility to our people and to our children, to protect our source of water. Our people will receive no benefits from this pipeline, yet we are paying the ultimate price for it with our water. We will not stop asking the federal government and Army Corps to end their attacks on our water and our people.”

Aside from those of the Randian persuasion, most libertarians would be hard pressed not to question the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s claim to traditionally indigenous land and as such would most appropriately side with the Sioux tribes against the government and their subsidized cronies over at Energy Transfer Partners. In order to protect their environment, these tribes and their allies plan to challenge potential environmental destruction not through legislation but through direct action and the court system on the basis of property rights, tactics championed by many libertarian environmentalists. That is something any libertarian should be able to support.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline

A couple of days ago I wrote to an internet acquaintance who had mentioned that a severely depressed friend of hers was at the end of her ropes after failing to improve with a recent series of electroconvulsant therapy (ECT), something that had helped in the  past. The following is part of my response:

In response to your testimony about the person who had a temporary improvement from a series of ECT “therapy” sessions (AKA, “sub-lethal electrocutions of the brain that reliably produces seizures and coma”).

ECT is usually administered daily for a week or two. It is important to understand that electroshock psychiatrists can easily get rich if they have enough desperate or hopeless, medication-intoxicated patients in their practice who are drug-treatment “failures”. ECT is usually only recommend when every imaginable, potentially brain-damaging psych drug cocktail of neurotoxic or psychotoxic psych drugs has been tried and failed (or actually made the patient worse).

The variety of the cocktail combinations of the hundreds of different psychiatric drugs and doses approaches infinity, and none of the combinations has ever been tested for safety or efficacy (either short-term or long-term) even in rat labs! The experimentation with different combinations of psychiatric drugs is pharmacology at its worst. But the iatrogenic damage (iatrogenic means “an illness caused by a physician or a drug prescribed by a physician”) done to an innocent, trusting patient will hardly ever be proven in a court of law – only partly because lawyers who will take such cases are so rare, especially in an area where a lawyer’s livelihood depends on not offending the prestigious health care community.

Sadly, there are also close to zero psychiatrists who would consider going through the time-consuming effort of gradually and systematically eliminating potentially neurotoxic and psychotoxic drugs that might actually be making their psychiatric patients worse. To spend valuable clinic time trying to eliminate neurotoxic and neurotransmitter-depleting drugs would be akin to admitting that the patient might have an iatrogenic illness, and that seems to be a taboo subject.

Unfortunately, most physicians are not trained at safely helping to get their patients off potentially toxic drugs or admitting that the prescribed drugs could be poisonous and disease-producing. Physicians are, however, very good at putting their patients on drugs. As I have written many times in this column, it only takes 2 minutes to write a prescription, but it takes 20 minutes to NOT write a prescription.

ECT typically adversely affects both short-term and long-term memory (often permanently destroying it!), so that some of any perceived temporary “improvement” occurs because the patient may no longer remember the traumatizing interpersonal/sexual/social/psychological/spiritual conflicts that previously made them feel sad, nervous, depressed, anxious or hopeless.

Studies have shown that many physicians reach for their prescription pad within minutes of most clinic encounters. Knowing that time is money, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know which of the “two-or-twenty-minute” options is promoted by medical clinic administrators or the many profit-making sectors of Big Medicine, Big Psychiatry and Big Pharma.

The excerpts below come from a vitally-important article that most electroshock psychiatrists can’t bring themselves to read, much less acknowledge or understand, and that closed-mindedness also may include the physicians who refer patients for ECT after the experimental trials with drug cocktails have failed.

The piece was written by Leonard Roy Frank a “psychiatric survivor” (google the term) who lived in San Francisco until his death in 2015. Frank was also an electroshock/insulin coma survivor, a long-time activist for human rights, and an editor/writer.

In 1962, after finishing college, his alarmed parents found him living a hippie/vegetarian/meditative alternative life-style in California and, “logically” assuming that he was mentally ill, committed him – against his well – to psychiatric facilities where he was mis-diagnosed as schizophrenic. Frank somehow survived the large number of insulin shock/coma treatments that were followed by the “new and improved” electroshock treatments.  He lost his memory but retained his intellectual ability to relearn what he had lost.

In 1974, after he recovered from those diagnostic and therapeutic misadventures, he co-founded the Network Against Psychiatric Assault (NAPA). He edited The History of Shock Treatment (self-published) in 1978.

A major part of the following article is based on his testimony on behalf of Support Coalition International at a public hearing on the dangers of ECT conducted by the Mental Health Committee of the New York State Assembly in Manhattan on May 18, 2001. Frank was deeply involved in MindFreedom International and often picketed the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meetings.

The story of Frank’s life is summarized at:

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/the-journey-of-transformation/.

If the Brain Is a Terrible Thing to Damage, Why Do Psychiatrists Electroshock People?

By Leonard Roy Frank (2001)

For more information, see: http://www.ect.org/news/newyork/franktest.html

Electroshock is psychiatry’s way of burying its mistakes without killing the patients.” –Leonard Roy Frank

Introduction 

Electroshock (also known as electroconvulsive “treatment” or electroshock “treatment” [ECT or EST]) is one of psychiatry’s physical methods for ”treating” people diagnosed as “mentally ill.”

The technique as presently used involves the administration of anesthetic and muscle-relaxant drugs prior to applying 100 to 400 volts of electricity for .05 to 4 seconds to the brain thereby triggering a grand-mal convulsion lasting from 30 and 60 seconds.

The convulsion is followed by a coma, usually lasting a few minutes, after which the subject awakens to experience a number of the following effects: fear, confusion, disorientation, amnesia, apathy (“emotional blunting”), dizziness, headache, mental dullness, nausea, muscle ache, physical weakness, and delirium. Most of these subside after a few hours, but amnesia, apathy, learning difficulties, and loss of creativity, drive, and energy may last for weeks or months. In many instances they are in some measure permanent. The intensity, number, and spacing of the individual electroshocks in a series greatly influence the severity and persistence of these effects.

Surveys indicate that two-thirds of those undergoing ECT today are women and that upwards of half are 60 years of age and older. Reports of ECT use on individuals as old as 102 (Alexopoulos, 1989) and as young as 34 months (Bender, 1955) have appeared in the professional literature. For people diagnosed with “depression,” the group most commonly electroshocked, an ECT series usually consists of 6 to 12 individual electroshocks administered three times a week on an inpatient basis. For people diagnosed with “manic-depression” (also called “bipolar disorder”), a series may consist of as many 20 seizures usually administered at the same rate but sometimes given daily. For people diagnosed with “schizophrenia,” as many as 35 electroshocks may be administered in a single series.

Since the procedure was first used in the United States in January 1940, having been introduced by psychiatrists Ugo Cerletti and Lucino Bini at the University of Rome two years earlier (Szasz, 1971), I estimate that 6 million Americans have been electroshocked. Based on a 1989 survey, psychiatrist and ECT textbook writer Richard Abrams has estimated that 100,000 Americans undergo ECT annually. He believes that “it is likely that between 1 and 2 million patients per year receive ECT worldwide” (Abrams, 1997, p. 9).

Over the last thirty-five years I have researched the various shock procedures, particularly ECT, have spoken with hundreds of ECT survivors, and have corresponded with many others. From these sources and my own experience as someone who underwent ECT in combination with insulin comas (in 1963), I have concluded that ECT is a brutal, dehumanizing, memory-destroying, intelligence-lowering, brain-damaging, brainwashing, life-threatening technique. ECT robs people of their memories, their personality and their humanity. It reduces their capacity to lead full, meaningful lives; it crushes their spirits. Put simply, electroshock is a method for gutting the brain in order to control and/or punish people who fall or step out of line, and intimidate others who are on the verge of doing so (Breggin, 1991, 1998; Frank, 1978, 1990; Morgan, 1999).

Seven Reasons for ECT’s Persistence 

If electroshock is an atrocity, as I and other critics maintain, how can its widespread and growing use in psychiatric facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world be explained?

(1) ECT supports the biological model

ECT reinforces the psychiatric belief system, the linchpin of which is the biological model of mental illness. This model centers on the brain and reduces most serious personal problems down to genetic, physical, hormonal, and/or biochemical defects which call for biological treatment of one kind or another. The biological approach covers a spectrum of physical treatments, at one end of which are psychiatric drugs, at the other end is psychosurgery (which is still being used, although infrequently), with electroshock falling somewhere between the two.

The brain as psychiatry’s focus of attention and treatment is not a new idea. In 1916 Swiss psychiatrist Carl G. Jung wrote: “The dogma that ‘mental diseases are diseases of the brain’ is a hangover from the materialism of the 1870s. It has become a prejudice which hinders all progress, with nothing to justify it” (Jung, 1969, p. 279). Eighty-six years later, there is still nothing in the way of scientific proof to support the brain-disease notion.

The tragic irony is that the psychiatric profession makes unsubstantiated claims that mental illness is caused by a brain disease (or is, in fact, a brain disease) while hotly denying that electroshock causes brain damage, the evidence for which is overwhelming.

As psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin (1998, p. 15), ECT’s foremost critic, has written summarizing more than 30 years of study: “[Brain] damage is demonstrated in many large animal studies, human autopsy studies, brain wave studies, and an occasional CT scan study. Animal and human autopsy studies show that ECT routinely causes wide widespread pinpoint hemorrhages and scattered cell death. While the damage can be found throughout the brain it is often worst in the region beneath the electrodes. Since at least one electrode always lies over the frontal lobe, it is no exaggeration to call ECT an electrical lobotomy.”

(2) ECT is a money-maker

American psychiatrists specializing in ECT earn $300,000 to 500,000 a year compared with other psychiatrists whose mean annual income is $150,000. An in-hospital ECT series costs anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000. Assuming that 100,000 Americans undergo ECT annually in the U.S., I estimate that in this country alone electroshock is a $5 billion-a-year industry.

(3) Informed consent about ECT does not exist

While outright force still occurs, it is no longer commonly used in the administration of ECT. However, genuine informed consent today is never obtained because ECT candidates can be coerced into “accepting” the procedure (in a locked psychiatric facility, it is often “an offer that can’t be refused”) and because ECT specialists refuse to accurately inform ECT candidates and their families of the procedure’s nature and effects.

Electroshock psychiatrists lie not only to the parties vitally concerned, they lie to themselves and to each other. Eventually they come to believe their own lies, and when they do, they become even more persuasive to the naïve and uninformed. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in 1852, “A man cannot dupe others long who has not duped himself first.” Here is an instance of evil so deeply ingrained that it is no longer recognized as such by the perpetrators themselves. Instead we see such outrages as ECT specialist Robert E. Peck titling his 1974 book, The Miracle of Shock Treatment and Max Fink, a leading ECT proponent who for many years edited Convulsive Therapy (now called The Journal of ECT), the most influential journal in the field, telling a Washington Post reporter in 1996 that “ECT is one of God’s gifts to mankind” (cited in Boodman, p. 16).

(4) ECT serves as backup for “treatment-resistant” psychiatric drug users

Many, if not most, of those being electroshocked today are suffering from the ill effects of a trial run or long-term use of antidepressant, anti-anxiety, neuroleptic, and/or stimulant drugs. When such effects become obvious, the patient, the patient’s family, or the “treating psychiatrist” may refuse to continue the drug-treatment program. This helps explain why ECT is so necessary in modern psychiatric practice: it is the treatment of next resort. It is psychiatry’s way of burying its mistakes without killing the patients – at least not too often.

Growing use and failure of psychiatric-drug treatment has forced psychiatry to rely more and more on ECT as a way of dealing with difficult, complaining patients, who are often hurting more from the drugs than from their original problems. And when the ECT fails to “work,” there’s always – following an initial series – more ECT (prophylactic ECT administered periodically to outpatients), or more drug treatment, or a combination of the two. That drugs and ECT are for practical purposes the only methods psychiatry offers to, or imposes on, those who seek “treatment” or for whom treatment is sought is further evidence of the profession’s clinical and moral bankruptcy.

(5) Psychiatrists are accountable to no one

Psychiatry has become a “Teflon profession”: what little criticism there is of it does not stick. Psychiatrists regularly carry out brutal acts of inhumanity and no one calls them on it – not the courts, not the government, not the people. Psychiatry has become an out-of-control profession, a rogue profession, a paradigm of authority without responsibility, which is a good working definition of tyranny.

(6) The government supports the use of ECT

The federal government stands by passively as psychiatrists continue to electroshock American citizens in direct violation of some of their most fundamental freedoms, including freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from assault, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

The government also actively supports ECT through the licensing and funding of hospitals where the procedure is used, by covering ECT costs in its insurance programs (including Medicare), and by financing ECT research (including some of the most damaging ECT techniques ever devised). One recent study provides an example of such research. This ECT experiment was conducted at Wake Forest University School of Medicine/North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Winston-Salem, between 1995 and 1998 (McCall, 2000). It involved the use of electric current at up to 12 times the individual’s convulsive threshold on 36 depressed patients. The destructive element in ECT is the current that causes the convulsion: the more electrical energy, the greater the brain damage. This reckless disregard for the safety of ECT subjects was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (p. 43).

(7) Professionals and the media actively and passively support the use of ECT

Electroshock could never have become a major psychiatric procedure without the active collusion and silent acquiescence of tens of thousands of psychiatrists and other allied health professionals. Many of them know better; all of them should knowbetter.

The active and passive cooperation of the media has also played an essential role in expanding the use of electroshock. Amidst a barrage of propaganda from the psychiatric profession, the media passes on the claims of ECT proponents almost without challenge. The occasional critical articles are one-shot affairs, with no follow-up, which the public quickly forgets. With so much controversy surrounding this procedure, one would think that some investigative reporters would key on to the story, but until now this has been a rare occurrence. And the silence continues to drown out the voices of those who need to be heard.

I am reminded of Martin Luther King’s 1963 “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” in which he wrote, “We shall have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

Soul Crime 

In these perilous times especially, Dr. King’s words need to be taken seriously. So long as it is being used anywhere on anyone and I am free to express my views, I will continue to write and speak the truth about electroshock. I will do so not only on behalf of those of us who have survived electroshock more or less intact, but on behalf of those who are right now undergoing ECT or who will be faced with the prospect of undergoing ECT at some future time. I will also do so on behalf of the silenced ones, the ones whose lives have been ruined and those who died or whose lives were shortened as a result of ECT; they are the true victims of electroshock, all of whom bear witness through my words.

By way of summary, I will close with a short paragraph and with a poem I wrote in 1989.

If the body is the temple of the spirit, the brain may be seen as the inner sanctum of the body, the holiest of holy places. To invade, violate, and injure the brain, as electroshock unfailingly does, is a crime against the spirit and a desecration of the soul.

References (abbreviated)

Breggin, P. R. (1991). “Shock treatment is not good for your brain.” Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical Theories of the “New Psychiatry” (pp.184-215). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Frank, L.R. (Ed.) (1978). The History of Shock Treatment. San Francisco: self-published.

Frank, L.R. (1990). Electroshock: Death, brain damage, memory loss, and brainwashing. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 11, 489-512.

Szasz, T.S. (1971). From the slaughterhouse to the madhouse. Psychotherapy, Theory, Research and Practice, 25, 228-239.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his family practice career. He is a past member of MindFreedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. He now writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at 

http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn, 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/authors?query=Gary+Kohls+articles&by=&p=&page_id=

at https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Electroshock” Psychiatry: ECT Therapy Damages the Human Brain

US “Cultural Colonisation” in Asia Pacific

August 30th, 2016 by Joseph Thomas

Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 – after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.

In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:

His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.

(Modern day “chief’s sons (and now daughters) being recruited by the empire, indoctrinated in their ways, and sent back home to culturally colonise their homelands, just as Tacitus described nearly 2,000 years ago.)

Far from simple military conquest, the Romans engaged in sophisticated cultural colonisation.

Compare what Tacitus wrote nearly 2,000 years ago with the United States’ Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI). Upon the YSEALI website, a description of the programme reads:

Launched in 2013, the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI) is U.S. government’s signature program to strengthen leadership development and networking in Southeast Asia. Through a variety of programs and engagements, including U.S. educational and cultural exchanges, regional exchanges, and seed funding, YSEALI seeks to build the leadership capabilities of youth in the region, strengthen ties between the United States and Southeast Asia, and nurture an ASEAN community. YSEALI focuses on critical topics identified by youth in the region: civic engagement, environment and natural resources management, and entrepreneurship and economic development.

At face value, the notion of the United States “training” the “leaders” of Asia makes little sense, considering such training would be endowing such leaders with American values serving American interests, not Asia’s. Thus, their role as “leaders” is questionable. Their role as “facilitators” or “collaborators” seems like a much more accurate description.

The programme includes academic and professional fellowships to the United States.

The Academic Fellows Program is described as:

The YSEALI Academic Fellows Program brings undergraduates or recently graduated students between the ages of 18 and 25 to the United States for a five-week institute held on the campus of a U.S. college or university.

These five week institutes, held on the campus of a U.S. university or college, will include an academic residency, leadership development, an educational study tour, local community service activities, and opportunities to engage with American peers. The program will conclude in Washington, D.C., to allow for engagement with policymakers, governmental representatives, businesses, and think tanks.

This, quite literally, is the modern day version of what Tacitus described in his writings nearly 2,00 years ago, where the US is educating the youth of Southeast Asian states in the liberal arts, indoctrinating them into networks built to establish, maintain and expand American hegemony, encouraging an expressed preference for American culture, values and institutions while placing those of their homelands as subordinate.

(US “think tanks” are chaired, directed and sponsored by the largest corporate and financial interests on the planet. They represent the interests and objectives of a handful of elite interests, not the American people, and certainly not the Asian people. That the YSEALI exposes fellows to such mechanisms of US political power illustrates further just how similar this modern day programme is to what the Roman Empire did to indoctrinate and culturally colonise targeted peoples.)

It is interesting to note that “think tanks” are mentioned as part of the YSEALI experience. Those familiar with the board of directors and corporate sponsors of these think tanks will understand that it is within their halls, unelected policymakers representing immense corporate and financial interests, create foreign and domestic policy that is implemented regardless of who the American people vote into office and regardless of whether the American people agree with such policies or not, saying nothing of whether such policies even benefit the American people.

Those partaking in the YSEALI will likely believe they are at the cutting edge of “democracy,” while in fact, they are instead becoming extra weight behind the bludgeoner of dictatorial corporate special interests.

The Professional Fellows Program is described as:

The YSEALI Professional Fellows Program gives participants ages 25-35 the opportunity to spend five weeks in the United States, including four weeks working directly with American counterparts in individually tailored work placements with non-profit organizations, state and local government, and private-sector offices across the country. During these placements, Fellows build their practical expertise, leadership skills, and professional networks. 

The Professional Fellows Program places young Asians at work places in areas including economic empowerment, environmental sustainability, legislative process and governance/civic engagement and civil society and NGO (nongovernmental organisation) development.

Just as the Roman Empire did two millennia ago, the United States is today recruiting cadres of young people from across Southeast Asia, indoctrinating them into America’s hegemonic networks and sending these cadres back to their home countries to culturally colonise them.

Instead of building up media platforms, institutions and NGOs based on local values, culture and the best interests of the people living in Southeast Asia, these cadres, with “seed funding” provided through both the US State Department and the YSEALI itself, will be building networks that serve US special interests, locked directly into the very institutions and networks YSEALI alumni met and worked with during their various fellowships.

Empire has not died. It has simply evolved, with much of that evolution being superficial and the underlying networks and methods remaining nearly indistinguishable to those employed by the Romans, British and even by 19th century American “Manifest Destiny.”

Empire has not died because the fundamental aspects of human nature; greed, the need to dominate, avarice and all other negative qualities associated with absolute power corrupting absolutely have not changed.  No matter how progressive the US attempts to dress up its “fellowships,” the YSEALI and other programmes like it will continue to be spoken of  by those who are drawn into them as “civilisation” when in fact they are only a “feature of their enslavement.”

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US “Cultural Colonisation” in Asia Pacific

Selected Articles: US-NATO War Crimes in Syria and Yemen

August 30th, 2016 by Global Research News

Erdogan-angry-510x255 (1)Erdogan, You are A War Criminal Under International Law. Turkey Invades Syria, Kills Civilians. The “International Community” Applauds

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 30 2016

Turkey has invaded Syria in derogation of international law (Nuremberg) with the blessing of the US and the “international community”. According to press reports Turkey’s  air force and artillery were involved in “pounding ISIS strongholds” in Jarablus.  Turkey’s mandate according to an official communique is to “completely cleanse terrorists from its border region with Syria.”  The media applauds.  Turkey has a humanitarian mission under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. The truth of the matter is that Turkey sponsors the terrorists and then invades Syria on the pretext that it must protect Syria from the ISIS. Erdogan is going after his own terrorists. The ISIS is sponsored and supported by the Turkish High command.

Flag-map_of_Syria.svg

International Law, Human Rights, The Fight against Terrorism: Which Country Holds the Legal and Moral High Ground, Canada or Syria?

By Mark Taliano, August 30 2016

In terms of international law, human rights, the fight against terrorism, and common decency, Syria wins, hands down.Syria, which ranked amongst the top 5 countries globally as a “safe” destination prior to the pre-planned western-launched dirty war, puts Canada to shame. It has been well-documented for years that the pre-planned war on Syria is illegal according to international laws, resolutions, and conventions.

Yemen

US-Saudi War Crimes, Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis: Civilian Killings, Famine, Refugees. The Western Media’s Remorseless Silence

By Eresh Omar Jamal, August 30 2016

While the slaughter of Yemenis continues, the world remains silent in response to their screams. Why is that? Has the world lost its senses, especially to feel the sufferings of the tormented? In an alleged effort to defeat the Houthi rebels, a coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia, supported by the United States and the United Kingdom have been bombarding Yemen, already one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world, with air-strikes since March 2015, sending it literally back to the stone-age.

Trump_&_Clinton

Crazed Hillary Clinton and the Prospects of World WAR III. Can Americans Overthrow “The Evil” That Rules Them?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, August 30 2016

Paul Wolfowitz and the lies that he told in the high government positions that he held are responsible for a massive number of deaths and massive destruction in seven countries. Wolfowitz has announced his vote for Hillary Clinton. Does this make you feel reassured? The real surprise would have been Wolfowitz’s announcement in favor of Donald Trump. So why was what was expected news?

map-africa

Pan-Africanism, Women’s Rights and Socialist Development

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 30 2016

Women were in the forefront of the movement for national liberation in Ghana, then known as the Gold Coast prior to 1957. The early efforts of Nkrumah sought the full participation of women in the initial phases of organizing with the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) and the Committee on Youth Organization (CYO).

Science, War and Humanity

By Dr. Vandana Shiva, August 30 2016

A few weeks ago, global corporate PR decided to #RoundUp 107 Nobel Laureates in a bid to rescue #GoldenRice from its #Fantastic #Failure. Knights of the “pure science”, to the rescue of its Gold– the rice and a few “Scientists” even rising from the grave. Nobel – rooted in the Chemical Industry – has served as the Cathedral of Knowledge.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: US-NATO War Crimes in Syria and Yemen

Temer e Cunha; a FIESP, a Rede Globo; as elites brasileiras, o PSDB! Acuso de conspiração para dar um golpe de Estado contra uma presidenta legitimamente eleita!

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Impeachtment da Dilma Rousseff no Senado Federal – “Eu acuso”

In the immediate aftermath of the Turkish capture of Jarablus in Syria Turkish President Erdogan telephoned his “friend Putin” on Friday 27th August 2016. The Kremlin’s account of the conversation is remarkable even by its standards for its terseness: 

“The two leaders discussed the development of Russia-Turkey trade and political and economic cooperation in keeping with the agreements reached in St Petersburg on August 9.  Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan exchanged opinions on developments in Syria and pointed out the importance of joint efforts in fighting terrorism.  They agreed to continue their dialogue on the issues of the bilateral and international agenda.”

The true subject of the discussion will in fact have been the Turkish capture of Jarablus in northern Syria.

Whilst it seems the Turks did inform the Russians of this move in advance, it is clear that the Russians are to put it mildly unhappy about it.  Though the Turks appear to have tried to arrange talks with the Russian military leadership presumably to discuss this move – even announcing a visit to Turkey by General Gerasimov, the Chief of the Russian General Staff – no such talks are taking place, with the Russians denying that a visit to Ankara by their Chief of General Staff was ever agreed, and the Turks now saying that the visit has been postponed.

The Russian media meanwhile is carrying articles making clear the extent of Russian anger.  An article in the Russian newspaper Kommersant, which is clearly based on official briefings, is accusing Turkey of “going further than promised in Syria”.  That this article reflects official thinking in Moscow is shown by the fact that the semi-official English language Russian news-site “Russia Beyond the Headlines” has republished it in English.

The article makes it clear that Turkey did not coordinate the Jarablus operation with Moscow or Damascus, and that it was much bigger than Moscow was led to expect.  The Russians are also clearly annoyed by the extent to which the operation has been coordinated by Turkey with the US, which is providing air support.

“For Moscow, Ankara’s operation was an unpleasant surprise, demonstrating that the expectations for a convergence of the countries’ positions on Syria that emerged after the meeting between Putin and Erdogan were premature.  In deciding about the operation in Jarabulus, the Turkish leader has sent a signal that relations with the U.S. remain a priority for him, and he prefers to act in the framework of the antiterrorist coalition led not by Moscow, but Washington.”

(Bold italics added)

I have repeatedly warned against over-high expectations that the recent rapprochement between Turkey and Russia amounted to any sort of realignment.  I have also said that despite Turkish annoyance with the US over the recent coup attempt, Turkey remains a US ally, continues to be committed to regime change in Syria, and is not going to throw the US out of Incirlik or allow Russia to use the base.  My only surprise is that judging from this comment it appears there were some people in Moscow who thought otherwise.

The Kommersant article then continues ominously

“According to Kommersant’s information, in case of aggravation of the situation, the Russian military and diplomats are ready to employ bilateral channels of communication with their Turkish counterparts, as well as express their concerns to the U.S. if necessary.  According to Vladimir Sotnikov, director of the Moscow-based Russia-East-West centre, Ankara’s actions could seriously affect the process of normalisation of bilateral cooperation that was agreed by presidents Putin and Erdogan in St. Petersburg”.

(Bold italics added)

That suggests that behind the mild public language strong complaints have been made in private by Moscow to Ankara.  Erdogan’s call to Putin looks like an attempt to assuage Russian anger, to reassure Moscow about Turkey’s intentions in Syria, and to keep the “process of normalisation” between Turkey and Russia on track.  The terse Kremlin summary of the conversation suggests that Putin in response made Russian feelings and concerns perfectly clear, and that there was, in the diplomatic language of the past, “a full and frank exchange of views” ie. a row.

Why are the Russians so angry about the Jarablus operation?

Here I acknowledge my heavy debt to the geopolitical analyst Mark Sleboda who over the course of a detailed and very helpful discussion has corrected certain errors I have previously made about the Jarablus operation and has greatly enlarged my understanding of it.

In my two previous articles discussing the Jarablus operation I said that it looked to be targeted principally at the Kurds, whose militia, the YPG, has over the last year significantly expanded the area in north east Syria under its control.  I also discounted the possibility that the Turkish seizure of Jarablus was intended to affect the course of the battle for Aleppo by providing supplies to the Jihadi fighters trying to break the siege there.  In my latest article I said the following

“….. it is not obvious that the rebels actually need a “safe zone” in this area.   They already have a corridor to send men and supplies to Aleppo through Idlib province, which they already control.  Why add to the problems of setting up a “safe zone” much further away in north east Syria when the rebels already control territories so much closer to Aleppo?”

Mark Sleboda has explained to me that the principal corridor to supply the rebels in Syria has always been through the area of north east Syria around Jarablus.  In his words

“Idlib is not an acceptable supply route from Turkey to forces in Aleppo province because the Turkish-Syrian border in Idlib is mountainous terrain – small and bad roads and then long routes all the way through Idlib past SAA held territory into Aleppo province. The Jarablus Corridor north of Aleppo is and has always been absolutely vital for the insurgency,. That’s why Turkey, Brookings, etc have always placed so much priority on a no fly zone there. Now its come to realisation.”

In other words the Turkish capture of Jarablus before it could be captured by the YPG was not primarily intended to prevent the linking together of two areas within Syria under Kurdish control – though that may have been a secondary factor – but was primarily intended to secure the main supply route (or “ratline”) Turkey uses to supply the Jihadi fighters attacking Aleppo.

Beyond that it is now clear that Turkish ambitions go much further than Jarablus.  Various Turkish officials have over the last two days been speaking to the Turkish media of Turkey establishing a large rebel controlled “safe zone” in this area of Syria.   Moreover – as Mark Sleboda says – they have now secured US support for it, as shown by the very active role the US air force is taking in supporting the Turkish move on Jarablus.

As Mark Sleboda has also pointed out to me, creating this rebel “safe zone” within Syria has been a declared Turkish objective for over a year.  The Turks have up to now been prevented from realising it because of US reluctance to provide the necessary support, and because of concern in Washington and Ankara about a possible Russian military reaction.  With the move to Jarablus and beyond now carried out with US support and through Russian acquiescence obtained by stealth, the Turks have now achieved it.

What implications does this have for the war in Syria and for the continuation of the Russian – Turkish rapprochement?

Going back to the war in Syria, my own view remains that this will not in the end decide the outcome of the battle of Aleppo, where reports suggest that the Syrian army is continuing to gain ground despite the uninterrupted – and in fact increasing – flow of supplies to the Jihadi fighters across the Turkish border. My longer term view also remains that if the Syrian government succeeds in recapturing the whole of Aleppo and eventually Idlib, then it will have won the war.  However what this episode shows is that the war is far from won, and that the Turks and their US backers are still prepared to go on escalating it in order to prevent the Syrian army winning it.

Beyond that I think the British reporter Patrick Cockburn may turn out to be right, that by trying to establish a “safe zone” within Syria Turkey is overplaying its hand and is taking a step that

“….would embroil Turkey in the lethal swamp lands of the Syrian-Iraqi war.”

Already there are indications that the Turkish move is provoking a local reaction from the YPG and the Kurds.  Despite earlier reports that the YPG was withdrawing all its forces back across to the eastern bank of the Euphrates, there are now credible reports of scattered resistance to the Turkish move by Kurdish militia aligned with the YPG, and there are also reports of mobilisation against the Turkish move in the Kurdish areas of Syria.

In my recent article I made the following point about the potential ability of the YPG to wreck any scheme to set up a rebel “safe zone” in this part of Syria

“North east Syria is a bitterly contested area in which the dominant force is not the rebels but the YPG.  It does not look like a credible “safe zone” for the rebels or a credible launch area from which to launch attacks on Aleppo.  On the contrary an attempt to create a rebel “safe zone” in this area would antagonise the YPG, and would restore the alliance between the Syrian government and the YPG to full working order, leading to constant fighting in the area of the so-called “safe zone” between the Syrian rebels and the YPG.  That would surely defeat the whole purpose of the “safe zone”, rendering it unsafe and effectively worthless as a “safe zone”.   Of course the Turkish military could try to garrison the area to defend whatever “safe zone” it created inside it.  That would however require an incursion into Syria that went far deeper than the one to Jarablus, and which would risk the Turkish army becoming bogged down in a lengthy guerrilla war on Syrian territory with the YPG.  I doubt Erdogan, the Turkish military or the US would want that.”

In his article discussing the Turkish incursion Patrick Cockburn makes essentially the same point

“Turkey may be able to prevent the Kurds permanently extending their rule west of the Euphrates, but it would be a very different and more dangerous operation to attack the de facto Syrian Kurdish state, which has spread itself between the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers since the Syrian Army largely withdrew from the region in 2012.”

Setting up a rebel “safe zone” inside Syria in the teeth of the opposition of the YPG is however what Erdogan and the Turks – backed by the US – have now decided to do.

In recent days there has been some renewed talk of Russia becoming bogged down in the war in Syria.  In my opinion the country that runs by far the greatest risk of getting bogged down in Syria is not Russia but Turkey, which already has to deal with an Islamist terrorist campaign and a Kurdish insurgency on its own territory – both in large part consequences of the war in Syria – and which cannot afford to add a war between the Turkish army and the potentially Russian backed YPG in Syria to its mounting problems.  That however is what Turkey by its latest move now risks.

There remains the outstanding puzzle of US policy.  The US actively encouraged the YPG to capture the town of Manbij – which lies west of the Euphrates – from ISIS, and provided heavy air support for the YPG operation to the capture Manbij.  It is now demanding that the YPG withdraw from Manbij and from all areas west of the Euphrates, and is providing air support for a Turkish military operation that is at least in part targeted against the YPG.

It is impossible to see any logic in these moves.  As I said in my previous article

“It is impossible to see any coherent strategy here.  Rather it looks as if CIA and military officials on the ground in Syria have been going their own way, encouraging the YPG to expand as fast as it can, heedless of the larger consequences.  The political leadership in Washington, when it finally woke up to what was happening, then had to take disproportionate steps to bring the situation back under control.”

Regardless of this, the Turkish move into Syria should bury once and for all any idea that Turkey is in the process of undertaking a geopolitical realignment away from the West and towards the Eurasian powers.  Not only is Turkey still a US and NATO ally,  but it is now conducting an illegal military operation against Russian opposition in Syria with US military support.  That is not the action of a country in the process of carrying out a realignment and preparing to switch alliances from the West to Beijing and Moscow.

The Russians and the Turks are now talking to each other, which for several months they had stopped doing.  The Kremlin’s summary of Friday’s conversation between Putin and Erdogan shows that they are still talking about improving their trade links and economic ties.  However, as the Kommersant article shows, even that limited progress now appears to be in jeopardy as the two countries’ conflicting stances in the Syrian war once again threaten to pull them apart.

In other words Turkey remains, as it has always been, an ally not of Russia and the Eurasian powers, but of the US and the West, and its actions in Syria are a clear demonstration of that.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erdogan Calls Putin as Russia Seethes at Turkey’s Syrian Incursion

The United States’ “wet-foot, dry-foot” rule is prompting a humanitarian crisis, foreign ministers from Ecuador and elsewhere say.

Nine Latin America foreign ministers sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry Monday accusing the United States of fomenting a migration crisis in the region through its Cold War-era immigration policies for Cuban migrants, arguing that President Barack Obama’s failure to change the law despite the recent thaw in relations with his counterpart Raul Castro has adversely impacted the region.

In the letter, the ministers argue that the 1966 U.S. immigration policy toward Cubans known as the Cuban Adjustment Act has “encouraged a disorderly, irregular and unsafe flow of Cubans” through various countries of Latin America on route to the United States and has contributed to a migration and humanitarian crisis in the region.

“Cuban citizens risk their lives, on a daily basis, seeking to reach the United States,” the letter continues. “These people, often facing situations of extreme vulnerability, fall victim to mafias dedicated to people trafficking, sexual exploitation and violence.”

Ecuador and Colombia initially spearheaded the letter, which was signed by seven other countries from South and Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, and Peru.

“The fact that nine foreign ministers have signed this letter shows the strength of the sentiment in Latin America that United States policy is creating a migration crisis in our region,” said Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Guillaume Long in a press conference in Quito Monday. “It’s time for the U.S. to change its outdated immigration policies toward Cubans, because they are undermining regular and safe migration in our continent.”

Long added that the decades-old policy also is a form of “terrible discrimination,” given that scores of migrants from other Latin American countries are forced to “hide and often live decades with the threat of deportation” if they are undocumented, while Cubans are given residence if they step foot on U.S. territory. “This injustice must stop for the wellbeing of all,” he said.

Under the U.S.’s 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, any Cuban who enters the U.S. is able to gain permanent residency after being present in the U.S. for one year. The act, amended in 1995 to not admit into the U.S. any Cubans found at sea, became known as the “wet-foot, dry-foot” rule.

Critics of the act argue that the rule promotes dangerous forms of travel and provides an incentive for smugglers to turn a profit off migration. The Cuban government has long slammed the policy as a provocation.

Thousands of Cuban migrants, some hoping to reunite with their families, have rushed to take advantage of the policy in the past two years, amid fears that the rekindling of U.S.-Cuba relations could bring an end to the wet-foot, dry-foot rule that allows landed Cuban migrants to stay in the country. Cuban officials have slammed Obama’s inaction on changing the policy, which they say directly contradicts the normalization process.

In recent months, Cuban migrants have increasingly turned to a roundabout route by land through South and Central America, rather than crossing the treacherous sea route from the island to Florida, to reach the United States. But the massive influx of thousands of Cuban migrants to the region has posed serious challenges, and many have been caught in limbo as countries close their borders.

The criticism of the decades-old policy comes after the landmark move in 2015 for the United States and Cuba to normalize ties after more than half a century of frozen relations. The U.S. removed Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in May 2015, paving the way for Cuba to reopen its embassy in Washington and the U.S. to reopen its embassy in Havana after 54 years. Since then, flights and cruise ships have been able to operate between the two countries, U.S. companies have opened shop in Cuba, and Obama was the first sitting president to visit the island since 1928

While the thaw in U.S.-Cuba relations has been historic, talks are ongoing and diplomatic challenges still remain. Cuba has repeatedly insisted that the U.S. end the economic blockade against the island, return the U.S. naval-occupied territory of Guantanamo, and respect the Cuban sovereignty by halting all funding of anti-government groups.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nine Latin American Countries Slam US for Creating Migrant Crisis

Bexar County District Attorney Nico LaHood said Monday he’s ready for the backlash to his public comments that vaccines cause autism.

The father of a son with autism, LaHood voiced his opinions about the long-running issue for the documentary “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe” posted on the Autism Media Channel Facebook page.

Sitting in his office, LaHood introduces himself as the D.A., then said, “I’m here to tell you vaccines can and do cause autism.”

The theory has been debunked in the medical world, but many parents looking for answers, remain skeptical.

LaHood said he and his wife noticed a change in their son after he received his 18-month vaccination.

“We had a very different child,” he said.

Asked whether he should be voicing his opinion due to his political office, LaHood said, “My opinions are just my opinions. As a daddy, as a husband, who happens to be the district attorney. People are allowed to have a First Amendment right to an opinion. I know this is not a politically correct opinion.”

He said both President Barack Obama and former Gov. Rick Perry have publicly supported childhood vaccines, so he has the same right to speak out against them.

LaHood said, “I’m not forcing my opinion on you. I’m giving you my opinion and I think I’m entitled to it.”

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, who saw a preview of the film, said he agrees.

“He’s a terrific father. He’s concerned. He has a son with autism. I have a nephew with autism. I know what it’s like,” Wolff said.

However, a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Health District said the public health agency believes all children should be vaccinated if they’re healthy and have the approval of their physicians.

“As a pediatrician, we stand for vaccinations. It’s one of the most important things we can do for children when they come to see us,” said Dr. Rob Sanders at the pediatric urgent care clinic operated by University Hospital at the Robert B. Green campus downtown.

Sanders said they are safe and effective, so rejecting their use could have public health consequences.

“We’ve seen outbreaks of measles. We’ve seen outbreaks of mumps in the last 10 years in different parts of the country,” Sanders said, as the result of anti-vaccine movements.

LaHood said he urges parents to get educated about the issue.

“Let parents make their own decision on what they think is best for their child after they’ve done the research,” LaHood said.

But Suzanne Potts, executive director of the Autism Society of Central Texas, said since there is no single cause and no cure, it’s more important to increase services for the estimated 300,000 Texans who have the disorder.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Vaccines Cause Autism’: District Attorney Nico LaHood

Press reports on the latest charges by both the Republican and Democratic Party candidates that their opponents have ties with the Ku Klux Klan are not surprising.

Racist political culture is part and parcel of the history of the United States where the nation-state was founded through the forced removal and genocide of the indigenous Native peoples and the enslavement of Africans.

Neither of the two ruling class parties have ever expressed regret or apologized for the mass slaughter of Native Americans or the centuries-long capture and super-exploitation of African people. Today the indigenous people remain largely absent from the public view in the U.S. while Africans are still stigmatized by the legacy of enslavement and the century of legalized segregation after the destruction of Reconstruction policies in the post-Civil War era.

In the most recent period Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has sought to deflect attention away from his personal family connections with the Ku Klux Klan as well as his response to pledges of support from modern-day ideological racists such as former Grand Wizard David Duke. A report from a New York newspaper in 1927 has resurfaced reporting that Trump’s father was arrested amid a brawl at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Queens. (Washington Post, Feb. 29)

These allegations carry weight in light of the rhetoric of Trump which targets so-called “illegal immigrants”, as code words for people from Mexico and other Central American states, along with the claims that Muslims from nations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia are somehow more prone to commit acts of terrorism.

This writer in an article published several months ago during the primary process said: “Donald Trump’s hesitancy and denial of knowing much about the Ku Klux Klan in response to an endorsement by former Neo-Nazi and Grand Wizard David Duke speaks volumes about the political character of the Republican Party and its electoral base. Trump appeared on Cable News Network’s State of the Union program when he was asked about support coming from Duke.” (Racism and Electoral Politics, Global Research, March 8)

The report continues quoting the Republican candidate who stressed: “I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about,’ Trump said nonchalantly. He then went on to say: ‘You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I’d have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong. You may have groups in there that are totally fine — it would be very unfair. So give me a list of the groups and I’ll let you know.’” (CNN, Feb. 29)

Later the host Jake Tapper quickly responded saying: “OK. I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but –” then Trump said: “Honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I’ve ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.”

Trump Makes Counter Charges Against Clinton

Not to be outdone by the claims of racism, Trump has now fired back saying that Hillary Clinton was mentored by a Klansman. This emanates from remarks made by Clinton at the time of the death of West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd who had been a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in his earlier years.

Byrd played a role in the political isolation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. prior to his assassination when he took to the Senate floor in March 1968 decrying an outbreak of violence during a demonstration in Memphis, Tennessee in support of striking African American sanitation workers. Byrd demanded that King be stopped and that the Poor People’s Campaign that was being planned at the time to establish a camp in Washington, D.C. demanding an end to poverty was a threat to national security.

These charges against Clinton came in the form of a tweet from Diamond and Silk—sisters Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, who are African Americans and open supporters Trump, having spoken at his rallies. The message referenced a statement by Clinton made about the former West Virginia Sen. Byrd, when Clinton called Byrd “a true American original, my friend and mentor.”

Trump has also reminded the public of Clinton’s labeling of “super-predators”, presumably alluding to young African Americans who have committed heinous crimes in urban areas. She was utilizing such terminology during the 1990s as a rationale for the signing of the ominous crime bill and other legislation which disproportionately impacted people in Black communities across the U.S. Bill Clinton recently in Philadelphia defended his support of such legislation responding to critics saying that they were defending murders and drug dealers.

Crime, Race and Punishment in U.S. Politics

The exponential growth in incarceration rates among African Americans is a decades-long process going back at least until the early 1980s under the administration of Ronald Reagan through his “war on drugs.” There appears to be no let-up in this trend since neither Trump or Clinton have pledged to work towards legislation that would not only release the unjustly convicted and sentenced–but to makeover the affected communities.

This prison-industrial-complex in many ways is another form of modern-day slavery. Under the federal legislation signed by the Clinton administration, many of those convicted of crimes face formidable challenges in securing work and housing.

Two examples of Klansmen and Klan sympathizers in U.S. politics occurred during the first two decades of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the U.S., has been described as a “progressive Democrat” who authorized policies that benefited people inside the country and abroad, yet his legacy is one of racism and war, when he re-imposed draconian segregation that negatively impacted African Americans working and seeking employment in the civil service.

According to a column from the Boston University Professor’s Voice in 2013, it notes that:

“Cabinet heads — such as his son-in-law, Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo of Tennessee – re-segregated facilities such as restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. In some federal offices, screens were set up to separate white and black workers. African-Americans found it difficult to secure high-level civil service positions, which some had held under previous Republican administrations.”(William Keylor, March 4, 2013)

This column goes on to recall:

“A delegation of black professionals led by Monroe Trotter, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and Boston newspaper editor, appeared at the White House to protest the new policies. But Wilson treated them rudely and declared that ‘segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.’”

Wilson is also said to have made favorable comments about his friend, supporter and former classmate Thomas Dixon’s 1905 novel, “The Clansman,” which was adapted to film in the notoriously racist “The Birth of a Nation” in 1915 by D.W. Griffith. The film released during Wilson’s tenure in the White House is said to have prompted a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan during World War I.

In Detroit during the 1920s, Charles Bowles ran for mayor on several occasions with open Klan support. He was eventually elected in 1929 but was recalled six months later.

This was not an anomaly for the period. The Washington Post pointed out in an article published on February 29 said:

“In 1923 and 1924, candidates from both parties who were explicitly endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan ran for governor in Texas, Arkansas, Maine, Arizona and Michigan. Candidates for governor in Kansas and mayor in Minneapolis and Houston were also rumored to have the Klan’s backing, though, at least in some cases, the men denied the claim. A candidate for city commissioner in Houston won election with the Klan’s backing; three opposed by the Klan won, too.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Elections 2016: Trump, Clinton and Racism in American Politics

Turkey has invaded Syria in derogation of international law (Nuremberg) with the blessing of the US and the “international community”.

According to press reports, Turkey’s  air force and artillery were involved in “pounding ISIS strongholds” in Jarablus.  Turkey’s mandate according to an official communique is to “completely cleanse terrorists from its border region with Syria.”  

The media applauds.  Turkey has a humanitarian mission under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.

The truth of the matter is that Turkey sponsors the terrorists and then invades Syria on the pretext that it must protect Syria from the ISIS terrorists. 

Erdogan is going after his own terrorists. The ISIS is sponsored and supported by the Turkish High Command. 

Since the onset of the Turkish invasion, extensive atrocities have been committed by Turkish forces under the cloak of combating Daesh and Al Qaeda. which are supported, trained and financed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  

Turkey has gone on a military rampage in Northern Syria.  Lest we forget, a war of aggression is a “crime against the peace”, it is the ultimate war crime under Nuremberg.  

“Crimes against Peace and War” (Nuremberg Principle VI) are “punishable as crimes under international law”. These consist in (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”;

It should be noted that Nuremberg Principle III relates directly to president Erdogan as well as to the heads of State and heads of government of the US-NATO led coalition.

Nuremberg trial (image right)

”a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State [Erdogan, Obama, et al] or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

According to the Syrian government (Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA). 

“The Turkish army’s air and artillery forces, in coordination with the armed terrorist organizations, targeted the villages of Jub al-Kusa and al-Amarneh to the south of Jarabulus city in Aleppo through shelling randomly, leading to a massacre and killing 35 civilians, 20 of them were killed in Jub al-Kusa and 15 others in al-Amarneh village, in addition to dozens wounded persons,”

The Foreign Ministry said in two identical letters sent to the UN Secretary-General and President of Security Council about the bloody ugly massacre committed by the Turkish army in the north of Syria.

“The government of the Syrian Arab Republic condemns, with the strongest terms, the repeated crimes, violations, aggression and massacres perpetrated by the regime in Ankara against the Syrian people, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic for more than five years,” the two letters affirmed.

“Syria calls on Security Council’s member states to condemn those cowardly crimes and to exert all pressures and take all effective measures to guarantee the recovering of Turkish regime to its senses and forcing it abandon its support of terrorism or using it as a pretext to interfere in the domestic affairs of Syria,” the Ministry went on to say.

Upon entering Jarabulus, Turkish forces did not fire a single bullet against Daesh-ISIS, which is protected by Ankara. In a bitter irony, the terrorists were invited to join the invading Turkish forces:

The Ministry affirmed that that the talk of the Turkish regime about the exit of ISIS from Jarabulus was in reality an entrance for other terrorist organizations to this city, which means it is a terrorism that substitutes another terrorism.

“The continued support of France, USA, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the Turkish regime is a clear support to terrorism, not only in Syria but in all world countries,” the Ministry said.

The Syrian government calls on UN Security council to assume its responsibilities in preserving the international peace and security, and to call on Turkey to immediately withdraw from the Syrian territories, and to respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria in implementation to international resolutions No. 2170, 2178, 2199 and 2253. (SANA, August 29, 2016)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erdogan, You are A War Criminal Under International Law. Turkey Invades Syria, Kills Civilians. The “International Community” Applauds

Climate Science is NOT Settled

August 30th, 2016 by Viv Forbes

For at least a decade we have been told by the UN/IPCC, by most government media and officials, by many politicians, and by the Green “charities” and their media friends that “the science is settled”.

We are lectured by Hollywood stars, failed politicians and billionaire speculators that anyone who opposes the World War on Carbon Dioxide is ignorant, mischievous or supporting some hidden vested interest.

We endure calls for an end to free speech for climate sceptics, smearing with derogatory terms like “denier”, and even aggressive punishments like dismissal and legal action against sceptics for speaking out. The new low is the use of anti-racketeer legislation against sceptics:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/29/rico-charges-against-climate-deniers-a-case-of-goose-andgander/

We notice the sudden and unexplained denial of pre-booked sceptic conference facilities and the steadfast refusal of alarmists to debate facts and issues.

Why are they so afraid of words? Surely this is a sign that their facts are shonky and their arguments are feeble? They fear they are losing the confidence of the public.

The tide is turning, and informed opposition is growing. It is time for the thinking media to give sceptical evidence and conclusions a fair go in the court of public opinion.

In a short time with no costly international meetings and very little publicity, Clexit has gathered the support of over 115 members in 20 countries. Please look at the list of Foundation Members and countries:

http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/clexit-members.pdf

Look at the skills, qualifications, experience and wisdom of our founding members; and the many other well-qualified dissenters listed at the end. The science is not settled.

This global warming alarm started with UN sponsored groups such as the IPCC. But Clexit has members who were official IPCC reviewers but they dissented from the final public IPCC reports which were prepared by political appointees.

The climate alarm rests totally on computerised models of atmospheric physics. But Clexit has highly qualified meteorologists, physicists, astro-physicists, radiation experts, climate modellers and long-range forecasters who reject the science, maths, assumptions and forecasts of the greenhouse-driven computer models.

We are told that Earth’s climate is controlled by the gradual increase of a tiny trace of one colourless gas in the atmosphere. But Clexit has specialists who can show that the warm and cold currents in the deep and extensive oceans, the variable water vapour in the atmosphere and Earth’s changing cover of ice, snow and clouds have far more effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide.

We are told that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. But Clexit has organic chemists, biologists, physicians, naturalists, graziers, foresters and farmers who know that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very beneficial for Earth’s biosphere – deserts are contracting, bush and forests are expanding, and crop yields are up.

We are told that sea levels are rising alarmingly. But Clexit has experts on sea level history and measurement who can prove that there is nothing unusual or alarming about current fluctuations in sea levels.

We are told that today’s climate is extreme and unusual. But Clexit has geologists and geographers who have studied eons of climate history via ice cores, stratigraphy, paleontology, deep-sea drilling, historical records, glaciers, ice sheets and landscapes and who say that climate change is normal and today’s climate is not extreme or unusual.

We are told to fear the coming global warming. But Clexit has geologists and researchers who have studied the cycles of the ice ages and the climate effects of the Milankovitch cycles in Earth’s orbit – obliquity, eccentricity and precession. They say we have passed the peak of this modern warm era and the long-term trend is now towards global cooling. We will still have short-term periods of hot and extreme weather, and some heat records may still be broken, but the 1,000 year climate averages are trending down towards the next glacial epoch of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

We are told repeatedly that the Great Barrier Reef is doomed by dangers that change annually – rising seas, river sediments, warm seas, ocean acidity, fertiliser run-off, coal port development, over-fishing or marauding star-fish. But Clexit has qualified members who have studied oceanography and ancient and modern corals and report that the Reef is healthy, and corals have survived far more dramatic changes in sea levels and climate in the past.

Solar cycles get no consideration in the IPCC climate models but Clexit has astrophysicists and long range weather forecasters who have demonstrated that solar and lunar cycles have big effects on Earth’s climate and weather cycles. In addition, while billions of dollars are spent fruitlessly on failed climate models and endless climate conferences, little is known about the strings of undersea volcanoes or how much geothermal heat is released from Earth’s molten interior during orogenic upheavals.

We are told that we must embrace green energy. But Clexit has power engineers and logistics experts who say that wind and solar can never run modern industrial societies, modern transport or big cities. Such a policy is a recipe for blackouts and starvation. Clexit also has naturalists and conservationists who see more harm than good in extensive wind, solar and bio-fuel developments.

Finally, we are told that to save the world we need to hand powerful taxing and regulating powers to unelected officials of the United Nations. But Clexit has politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen, columnists, lawyers, army officers and bloggers who see that this political agenda will destroy the freedoms we cherish.

Many Clexit members have held very senior positions in research, industry or academia but no longer have sensitive positions, careers or incomes to protect, so are Page 3 of 3 free to express honest opinions, which they have done by supporting “Clexit”.

We ask the media to give our soundly-based dissenting conclusions a fair hearing – there are two sides to most stories, but only one side is being aired.

The Clexit initiative was launched with no budget, promises or funds. So, unlike the alarmists with an agenda, those receiving rivers of government funds and those posing as tax-exempt charities, we cannot afford massive advertising costs.

We hope, in the interests of fair play, you see fit to give our valid concerns some space in the free media.

Note: The first informal meeting of many Clexit members will take place in London on Sept 8/9, 2016 at this conference (whose first booked venue was suddenly withdrawn): https://geoethic.com/london-conference-2016/

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Climate Science is NOT Settled

In terms of international law, human rights, the fight against terrorism, and common decency, Syria wins, hands down.

Syria, which ranked amongst the top 5 countries globally as a “safe” destination prior to the pre-planned western-launched dirty war, puts Canada to shame.

It has been well-documented for years that the pre-planned war on Syria is illegal according to international laws, resolutions, and conventions. Not only does the Canadian Defence Minister’s earlier pronouncement that “President Assad, he does need to go ….” amount to an endorsement for illegal regime change against a sovereign, non-belligerent, U.N member country, but Canada’s membership in NATO and Canada’s proven complicity in regime change operations amounts to the height of criminality according to Nuremburg standards.

Additionally, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 states that “(t)he Syrian people will decide the future of Syria,”  and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2253  imposes

asset freeze, travel ban, arms embargo and listing criteria for ISIL, Al-Qaida and ‘associated individuals, groups, undertaking and entities’

Not only is Canada’s regime-change mission against Syria entirely illegal, but our huge military hardware contract  with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia implicates Canada further, especially since Saudi Arabia is a chief financier to the terrorists invading Syria.

And now that our staunch ally the U.S openly admits to supporting Al Qaeda/Al Nursra Front terrorists in Syria, we are even further implicated by association.

Canada’s illegal sanctions, which serve to besiege all Syrian citizens, and therefore render assistance to invading terrorists, are also a weapon of aggression against the innocent and the righteous.

In terms of the “War on Terror”, Syria wins easily, since Syria and its allies are waging a legitimate war against terrorism, while Canada and its allies are waging war shoulder to shoulder with all the terrorists  in Syria – there are no moderates —  in an imperial military campaign aimed at destroying Syria and effecting illegal regime change.

And Canada’s pro-terrorism position isn’t limited to Syria either.  We supported al Qaeda to destroy Libya, and we support neo-Nazis in Ukraine – the same ones that spear-headed the illegal junta.

While it is abundantly clear that Canada supports rather than opposes terrorism, Syria, on the other hand, fights terrorism, with all its heart and soul – and they have plenty of both.

Syria’s fight in defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity against some of the most disgusting of terrorists is righteous.

Virginia Senator Richard H. Black describes the terrorist modus operandi in these words:

Terrorists are the criminals–not the Syrians.

Much is made of alleged mistreatment of rebels in Syrian prisons. By contrast, the rebels have no prisons. They murder their captives–beheading, crucifying, stoning, burning or drowning them in steel cages. Rebels post hundreds of videos, depicting mass executions of prisoners and battlefield cannibalism. Many of their victims are women, children, priests and elderly noncombatants. International Law is clear; terrorists who commit such crimes are not entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions. When terrorists attack civilian targets with suicide-bombs, ravage Syria’s wives and behead their sons, they can hardly expect gentle treatment in response.

In terms of advancing the cause of democracy, Canada also loses to Syria.  Whereas government controlled areas of Syria hold elections – the most recent Presidential elections had a participation rate of 73% and President al-Assad won a majority with 88% of the vote — Canada supports the terrorist occupied areas — of which none holds elections.

Freedoms of speech, of dissent, of religion, are all showcased in government-held areas of Syria, in contrast to terrorist occupied areas, where children are indoctrinated in the teaching of Wahhabism, where misogyny is rampant, Sharia law is practiced, and ethnic cleansing is common.

So in terms of advancing the causes of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law; in terms of protecting human rights; and in terms of actually fighting rather than engaging in terrorism, Syria far outstrips Canada.

Our government projects a false international image of promoting liberty, freedom, and democracy, as we deny and abrogate those same values every single day.

The Canadian government and its agencies also propagandize Canadian citizens, so we too are a victimized by our government’s degeneracy.

If Syrians were to announce the need for regime change against Canada, and then proceed to flood our country with foreign-backed terrorist mercenaries, we might have a better appreciation for what Syrians are forced to endure, thanks to our efforts.

The reality of government-sponsored false flag terrorism is a concern, but for the most part, Canadians are free to live their lives unhampered by reasonable fears of foreign mercenary terrorists, the thunder of Hell Cannon mortars, and the rattle of assault rifles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on International Law, Human Rights, The Fight against Terrorism: Which Country Holds the Legal and Moral High Ground, Canada or Syria?

The situation in Aleppo city remains tense. The Syrian army, Hezbollah and the National Defense Forces, supported by Russian and Syrian warplanes, have been continuing pressure on Jaish al-Fatah militants in the areas of the 1070 Apartment Project, the Air Force Technical College, the Ramouseh Roundabout and the Khan Tuman-Ramuseh road.

It’s expected that the pro-government forces will attempt to physically cut off the road advancing on Mushrifah from the Um Al Qara Hill. If the Syrian army and its allies are able to achieve success in any of the aforementioned directions, the militant defenses in the area could easily start to collapse. There are also reports that 2500 servicemen of the 4th Armoured Division of the Syrian Arab Army will be deployed to reinforce the Syrian government forces in southwestern Aleppo in coming days.

Local sources report that following the surrender of Daraya city near the Syrian capital, Damascus, militants are going to withdraw from the nearby town of Moadamiyeh. The first reports about such possibility appeared on August 26 and have been repeated by various sources since then. Negotiations between representatives of Moadamiyeh militants and the Syrian army have reportedly been ongoing since August 25. If it’s confirmed, the liberation of Moadamiyeh will become an important step on a long way to secure the area of Damascus.

The Free Syrian Army and other Turkish-backed militant groups, supported by Turkish ground and air forces, have been advancing southwest of Jarabulus. The fifth day of the Turkish Operation Euphrates Shield resulted capturing the villages of Amarina, Ayn al-Bayda, Dabis, Balaban, Suraysat, Jub al-Kussa, Maghayer, and Qiratah by the Turkey-led forces. Most of them were seized from the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). By August 29, the Turkey-led forces have crossed the Sajur River and have been developing their advance further. According to leaders of militant groups involved in the operation, the Turkish-led forces are going to seize Al Bab and Manbij and link Jarablus and Al Rai. Meanwhile, the United States has temporarily halted all arms supplies to the SDF.

While Ankara denies any civilian casualties, non-Turkish sources report that over 50 civilians have been killed since the start of operation.

The footage and photos appeared last weekend, showing the beating of captured SDF fighters by Turkish-backed militants in northern Syria. Pro-Kurdish sources also argue that the SDF fighters have been tortured and Turkish soldiers involved. However, no proofs of the involvement of Turkish servicemen have been provided.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Al Qaeda Militant Strongholds Fall Near Damascus

Mavi Ramierez is a Mom, a social media entrepreneur and a dedicated citizen journalist who took a day off from work to cover the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has been filed by Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters against the Democratic National Committee and its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The lawsuit, which currently has more than 100 plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings with retainer agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

Leaked DNC documents and emails by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks show Wasserman Schultz disparaging the Sanders’ campaign while key DNC officials actually plotted to sabotage the Sanders’ campaign by putting the word out that he is an atheist (which Sanders says he is not) and characterizing his campaign as “a mess.” From a virtual unknown on the national stage, Sanders’ campaign won 23 states in the primaries, raised over $228 million, predominantly from average Americans, and held rallies that ranged from 5,000 to more than 20,000 supporters while Clinton attracted hundreds. Sanders’ supporters are demanding this court case to determine if the intentional sabotage by the DNC cost Sanders’ his primary battle.

Homeland Security Chief Jeh Johnson Whispers to Hillary Clinton During an Awards Ceremony in 2014

Homeland Security Chief Jeh Johnson Whispers to Hillary Clinton During an Awards Ceremony in 2014

Since mainstream media has failed to report on this first court hearing, the interviews conducted by Mavi Ramierez outside the Federal courthouse last Tuesday take on added significance. Ramierez interviewed the Sanders’ supporters and attorney for plaintiffs as they emerged from the hearing. But throughout these interviews, there was a constant, annoying, and distracting honking coming from an SUV parked on the sidewalk. One gutsy interviewee, who goes by the Facebook name of Jessica Rose Grfl, strolled down to the SUV, peered inside, and tells the videographer that this is an unmanned vehicle. The honking appears to be by remote control. Ramierez and her videographer move closer to the SUV and show viewers that it is from the Federal Protective Service of the Department of Homeland Security. ( Go to -31:00 on the video.)

The head of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, is an Obama nominee. Johnson has spun four times through the revolving doors of the corporate/Wall Street law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to work in either the Bill Clinton or Obama administration. Johnson was a bundler for Obama in his 2008 campaign and personally donated $28,460 to the Obama Victory Fund and another $28,460 to the DNC in 2008, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Jessica Rose Grfl (Facebook Name) Speaks Outside of the Federal Court Building on August 23, 2016

Clearly, Johnson is a big Obama fan and Obama is a big Debbie Wasserman Schultz fan. In June, Politico’s Hanna Trudo reported that Obama appeared at a DNC fundraiser in Miami and told the crowd the following about Wasserman Schultz: “She’s had my back, I want to make sure we have her back.”

Just two days after Wikileaks released the devastating emails in July, showing that key DNC officials had violated their own bylaws in overtly attempting to sabotage the Sanders’ campaign, creating an instant scandal in the media and forcing Wasserman Schultz to resign from the DNC, President Obama remained unconscionably effusive in his praise for Wasserman Schultz. The White House released this official statement from the President on July 24, which stated in part:

For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful. Her leadership of the DNC has meant that we had someone who brought Democrats together not just for my re-election campaign, but for accomplishing the shared goals we have had for our country…Michelle and I are grateful for her efforts, we know she will continue to serve our country as a member of Congress from Florida and she will always be our dear friend.

Read complete article at Wall Street on Parade

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Class Action Law Suit against Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Charges of Fraud…

Science, War and Humanity

August 30th, 2016 by Dr. Vandana Shiva

They didn’t know where they was going,

but they knew where they was wasn’t it.

We’re everyday robots, on our phones,
in the process of getting home.
Looking like standing stones,
out there on our own.
We’re everyday robots, in control
or in the process of being sold.
Driving in adjacent cars,
‘Til you press restart.

They didn’t know where they was going,
but they knew where they was wasn’t it.
-Damon Albarn, Richard Russel  “Everyday Robots

Image right Dr. Vandana Shiva

A few weeks ago, global corporate PR decided to #RoundUp 107 Nobel Laureates in a bid to rescue #GoldenRice from its #Fantastic #Failure. Knights of the “pure science”, to the rescue of its Gold– the rice and a few “Scientists” even rising from the grave. Nobel – rooted in the Chemical Industry – has served as the Cathedral of Knowledge.

The turn of the century 1900 was also a turning point in the history of chemistry. Consequently, a survey of the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry during this century will provide an analysis of important trends in the development of this branch of the Natural Sciences*, and this is the aim of the present essay. Chemistry has a position in the center of the sciences, bordering onto physics, which provides its theoretical foundation, on one side, and onto biology on the other, living organisms being the most complex of all chemical systems. Thus, the fact that chemistry flourished during the beginning of the 20th century is intimately connected with fundamental developments in physics.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/chemistry/malmstrom/

Alfred Bernhard Nobel was born in Stockholm in 1833, and four years later his family moved to Russia. His father ran a successful St. Petersburg factory that built explosive mines and other military equipment. Educated in Russia, Paris, and the United States, Alfred Nobel proved a brilliant chemist. When his father’s business faltered after the end of the Crimean War, Nobel returned to Sweden and set up a laboratory to experiment with explosives. In 1863, he invented a way to control the detonation of nitroglycerin, a highly volatile liquid that had been recently discovered but was previously regarded as too dangerous for use. Two years later, Nobel invented the blasting cap, an improved detonator that inaugurated the modern use of high explosives. Previously, the most dependable explosive was black powder, a form of gunpowder.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-nobel-prizes-awarded

Alfred Nobel’s gifts to the collective con-science were certainly explosive, and between Russia and Prussia, Nobel had an explosive market as well – one compounded by war. Nobel’s list shares a cast with the story of death – two productions, in the theatre of the cosmos, run by the same company of actors.

History.com continues..

In 1875, Nobel created a more powerful form of dynamite, blasting gelatin, and in 1887 introduced ballistite, a smokeless nitroglycerin powder. Around that time, one of Nobel’s brothers died in France, and French newspapers printed obituaries in which they mistook him for Alfred. One headline read, “The merchant of death is dead.”

But, Nobel awards prizes in such noble pursuits as Literature and Peace, it’s not just about synthesized chemicals, is it?

According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, the Nobel Committees should have five members, but the Committee for Chemistry has in recent decades chosen to widen its expertise by adding a number of adjunct members (five in 1998) with the same voting rights as the regular members. Until recently there was no limit other than age on how many times regular members could be re-elected for 3-year terms, so that some members sat on the Committee for a very long period. For example, Professor Arne Westgren of Stockholm, who was secretary of the Nobel Committees for Physics and for Chemistry 1926-1943, was also Chairman of the Committee for Chemistry 1944-1965. Present rules, however, only allow two re-elections, so that a member’s maximum total time on the Committee will be nine years.

Chemicals – definitely Nobel’s favourite bank of “knowledge”.

Can one audition to be in ‘The Chemical Company’?

If “one” is/are *invited* by “the academy“.

Recipients of these invitations, for both Physics and Chemistry, are: 1) Swedish and foreign members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; 2) members of the Nobel Committees for Physics and for Chemistry; 3) Nobel Laureates in Physics and Chemistry; 4) professors in Physics and Chemistry in Scandinavian universities and at Karolinska Institutet; 5) professors in these subjects in a number of universities outside Scandinavia, selected on a rotation basis by the Academy of Sciences; and 6) other scientists that the Academy chooses to invite.

Nobel’s list is unable to accommodate Organic Ideas, because they are far too big for Chemistry’s box. Why do we find ourselves betrayed by those with the highest intellectual privilege?

Because, “#SCIENCE![.]” 

From childhood, my dream was to follow in the footsteps of Albert Einstein. At age 12 I switched schools because the school I was enrolled in, in beautiful Nainital, did not offer Physics. In Dehra Dun, I would go, after school, for Physics classes to Mr Dikshit – at the time a college professor. When i finished with school I won the Science Talent Scholarship, which afforded me the chance to study in the top institutions of India over the summer (Babha Atomic Research Center, Indian Institute of Technology). I went to the Punjab University to study Particle Physics. Something did not feel complete. I persevered with a PhD in Particle Physics from Delhi University.

The deeper I got into Particle Physics, the deeper my passion grew to understand the foundations of Quantum Theory. I did not want to be a computer. I wanted to use my mind to question, to understand. That is how I ended up in Canada , doing a PhD in the Foundations of Quantum Theory.

As I dove deeper into the language of Physics, as Physics itself tried to describe the universe, meaning resonated on paper but I could hear no music, except the rhythm of nature that surrounded me. The rhythm of nature surrounds us all. Mass dictates Shape to Space in Physics; in our beautiful reality the rhythm of nature shapes the rhythm of our bodies and our minds, and our rhythms in return shape the rhythm of our environment. As the “UNI-verse” attains harmony, it slows down, gently approaching balance, perpetual balance. Unless someone detonates some nitroglycerine.

Our “UNI-verse” is auto poetic, self regulating. The end result of all organic regulation is balance – equality – what modern Physicists call The Flatness Problem. In the solution, Institutionalised Science found an inconvenience in cosmic balance, and has spent more than a century covering up its failure at observing reality, having retreated into sanitised labs to study “models” in order to approximate what they could observe first-hand in the Real World. In the real world all ideas are prophetic and all laws are regulatory.

The real word is different from the modeled world for obvious reasons. Reality will always be a better ‘map’ of reality than a modeled map of reality, an abstraction. Scire – to know – is then the ability to abandon maps. Knowledge makes maps redundant, no matter the resolution of the projection.

Knowledge also makes fear redundant.

My academic training was in Physics. My fearlessness was a side effect of my acknowledgement of the forces of nature.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Science, War and Humanity

While the slaughter of Yemenis continues, the world remains silent in response to their screams. Why is that? Has the world lost its senses, especially to feel the sufferings of the tormented? In an alleged effort to defeat the Houthi rebels, a coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia, supported by the United States and the United Kingdom have been bombarding Yemen, already one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world, with air-strikes since March 2015, sending it literally back to the stone-age.

The war has triggered a major humanitarian crisis. Since the air-strikes began,

“food prices [in Yemen] have gone up 60 percent, leaving 14 million people across the country classified as ‘food insecure’ (Yemen’s children die from bombs, bullets, hunger, ABC News, August 23).”

According to figures provided in the New York Times,

“the war has killed more than 6,500 people, displaced more than 2.5 million others and pushed one of the world’s poorest countries from deprivation to devastation (“America Is Complicit in the Carnage in Yemen”, August 17).”

Other reports have shown these figures to be much higher. Meanwhile, the United Nations has blamed the coalition for at least 60 percent of deaths and injuries to children last year, warning along with human rights groups, that the coalition may have been “commissioning international war crimes” (Saudi-led coalition could be committing ‘international crimes’ bombing civilians in Yemen, UN warns, The Independent, March 19).

At a press briefing at the United Nations on June 29, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International revealed that,

“Unlawful air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have killed and maimed hundreds of children in Yemen and damaged dozens of schools, but the coalition strong-armed the Secretary-General in an attempt to escape scrutiny.” That is, to have Saudi Arabia removed from the UN’s list of shame. The Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself after being bullied said, “There has been fierce reaction to my decision to temporarily remove the Saudi-led Coalition countries from the report’s annex. This was one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make. The report describes horrors no child should have to face.”

Yet, the media, and especially the western media, continues to keep mum. Why? Well, one explanation may be that because the coalition consists of those allied with the West, the western media does not want to report on the alleged war crimes that they may have committed. Another reason for such deafening silence, however, may be because most of the killings are actually being committed using weapons supplied by the West.

According to the Washington Post, the US has sold the Saudis a total of USD 20 billion in weapons over the last one year. Britain too has sold close to USD 4 billion worth of weapons to the Saudis. The Obama administration, despite aggressively lobbying for greater gun control in the US, “has discreetly brokered and authorised the sale of more arms to foreign governments than any other US president since World War II”, according to Owen B. McCormack. During the first five years of his tenure alone, “new agreements under the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales programme — the largest channel for US arms exports — totalled over USD 169 billion,” exceeding the amount authorised during the entire tenure of his predecessor by almost USD 30 billion.

And, of course, the main recipient of American made weapons has been Saudi Arabia — “almost 10 percent of US arms exports” while 9 percent went “to the United Arab Emirates, an ally of Riyadh in the Yemen war (“Such a long silence on Yemen,” The Hindu, August 22).” According to Congressional Research Service, even as early as 2010, the Obama administration authorised the sale of a whopping USD 90.4 billion worth of arms to the Saudis. And according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,

“arms imports to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states increased 71 percent from 2005-2009 to 2010-2014, accounting for 54 percent of imports to the Middle East in the latter period. Saudi Arabia rose to become the second largest importer of major weapons worldwide in 2010-2014, increasing the volume of its arms imports four times compared to 2005-2009.”

Not surprisingly, many of these weapons are being used to devastating effect in Yemen according to the likes of Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Amnesty International, including the British made cluster bombs, even though the weapon was banned in conflict decades ago because of their catastrophic effects on civilians (“British-made cluster bomb found in Yemeni village targeted by Saudi-led coalition”, The Independent, May 23).

And so it goes, with innocent Yemenis being torn to shreds by the most horrific of weapons out there, the Lords of War continue to make windfall profits. Fortunately for them, the media’s silence guarantees that there is no significant pressure to end the supply of weapons to maim and kill a bunch of poor people here and there. After all, how else will the demand for these weapons keep up with their massive supply? As the fictional character in the movie Lord of War, Yuri Orlov said, “where there’s a will, there’s a weapon”. And the “coalition of the willing”, whether it be to go to war in Iraq, or for the destruction of Yemen, have been more than ready to oblige to the will of western arms manufacturers. For the Yemenis, however, the horrors of having these weapons used on them are, unfortunately, very real. As should be our shame for failing to genuinely care for the lives of innocent men, women and children, despite repeatedly saying otherwise, as evident from our remorseless silence in the face of their desperate screams.

Eresh Omar Jamal is Editorial Assistant at The Daily Star, the largest circulating English daily newspaper in Bangladesh. He is also Founder and Deputy Editor of jobanbd.com and can be reached at[email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Saudi War Crimes, Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis: Civilian Killings, Famine, Refugees. The Western Media’s Remorseless Silence

Paul Wolfowitz and the lies that he told in the high government positions that he held are responsible for a massive number of deaths and massive destruction in seven countries. Wolfowitz has announced his vote for Hillary Clinton. Does this make you feel reassured?

The real surprise would have been Wolfowitz’s announcement in favor of Donald Trump. So why was what was expected news?

Trump has said that he doesn’t see any future in the conflict Washington has initiated with Russia, and Trump questions the point of NATO’s continuing existence. These peaceful attitudes make Trump into a “national security risk” according to Wolfowitz. What Wolfowitz means is that a peace candidate is a threat to Wolfowitz’s doctrine of US world hegemony. In the crazed mind of Wolfowitz and the neoconservatives, America is not safe unless it rules the world.

Hillary is a warmonger, perhaps the ultimate and last one if she becomes president, as the combination of her hubris and incompetence is likely to result in World War 3. On July 3, 2015, Hillary declared:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. . . . we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484?print=1

The crazed Hillary went on from this to declare the President of Russia to be “the new Hitler.” Little doubt she thinks she can obliterate Russia also.

Hillary is the one who brought zionist neocon Victoria Nuland into the State Department to oversee the US coup in Ukraine in order to create more propaganda against Russia and force Washington’s European vassals to impose sanctions and place military bases on Russia’s borders, thus provoking a nuclear power and raising dangerous tensions.

This fits in perfectly with Wolfowitz’s intention. As Wolfowitz is Hillary’s likely Secretary of Defense, the two together mean World War 3.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Wolfowitz, then a high Pentagon official, penned the Wolfowitz doctrine. The doctrine states that the principal goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of other countries that could serve as constraints on US unilateralism. This means Russia and China,  The combination of Hillary with Wolfowitz should scare everyone in the entire world. The prospect of nuclear weapons being in such crazed hands as those of Hillary and Wolfowitz is the most alarming though imaginable.

The question is whether Hillary can be elected in the face of her violations of national security rules, for which she received a pass from corrupt Obama, and her heavily documented self-dealings that have produced a Clinton private fortune of $120 million and $1,600 million in their foundation. It is completely clear that the Clintons use public office for their private aggrandizement. Is this what Americans want? Two people who become even more rich as the world is led into nuclear war?

But with electronic voting machines, the question will not be decided by what Amerians want, but by how the electronic machines are programmed to report the vote. The US has already had elections in which the exit polls, always a reliable indicator of the winner prior to the appearance of electronic voting machines, indicated a different winner than the electronic voting machines produced. The secrecy of how the voting machines are programmed is protected by “proprietary software.” The machines have no paper trails, precluding vote recounts.

As both political establishments are fiercely opposed to Trump, how do you think the machines will be programmed? Indeed, the media is so opposed to Trump, the question is whether there will be exit polls and if there are, will they be misreported?

Republican operatives, not Republican voters, are all in a huff over their allegations that Trump is costing the Republicans votes. How can this be when Republican voters chose Trump over other candidates? Aren’t the Republican operatives saying that they, instead of the voters, should choose the Republican candidate?

If so, they are just like the Democrats. Some years ago the Democrat establishment created “super delegates” who are not chosen by voters. Enough “super delegates” were created in order to give the Party establishment the ability to over-ride the voters choice of presidential candidate. That it was the Democrats—allegedly the party of the people—who first took the choice away from the people is astonishing. Much information indicates that Bernie Sanders actually won the Democratic presidential nomination but was denied it by vote fraud and “super delegates.”

This is politics in America—totally corrupt. Chris Hedges might be right: nothing can change without revolution.

The demonization of Trump by the presstitutes is proof that Trump, despite his wealth, is regarded by the Oligarchs who comprise the One Percent as a threat to their agendas. The Oligarchs, not Trump, own or control the media. So the presstitute demonization of Trump is complete proof that he is the candidate to elect. The oligarchs who oppress us hate Trump, so the oppressed American people should support Trump.

The presstitute demonization of Trump did not work in the Republican primaries. Is it working in the presidential election? We don’t know, because the polls are reported by the presstitutes, not by Trump.

If the demonization does not work, and the election has to be stolen from Trump by the electronic machines, the consequence will be to radicalize Americans, something long overdue. Perhaps the expectation of this development is the reason all federal agencies, even the post office and Social Security, have acquired arms and ammunition, and Cheney’s firm Halliburton was paid $385,000,000 to build detention centers in the US.

Those who control us are not going to give up their control without a world war. In the United States evil has seized power from the people, and evil will not give it back.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Crazed Hillary Clinton and the Prospects of World WAR III. Can Americans Overthrow “The Evil” That Rules Them?

Five Reasons U.S. Aid to Israel is a “Bad Investment”

August 30th, 2016 by Grant F. Smith

Israel and its U.S. lobby are pressing President Barack Obama to sign an executive agreement pledging $45-$50 billion in military and other support to Israel over a ten-year period. The secret negotiations have hit so many administration roadblocks that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making a special visit to the U.S.—on the pretext of receiving an award from a neocon think tank—but in reality angling for a meeting with Obama. Israel wants a greater percentage of U.S. taxpayer aid dollars to be spent in Israel, rather than flowing into U.S. military contractors. Israel’s side also opposes Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) caps on its flexibility to continually lobby Congress for additional aid for “joint” projects, such as anti-rocket defense systems, which mostly go to Israeli contractors.

It is surreal that Israel is even asking Obama to sign on the dotted line rather than waiting for the next president to promise aid. The Israeli government pulled out all the stops opposing the administration’s signature foreign policy achievement—the JCPOA—going as far as offering bribes to Congress and conducting espionage on U.S.-led negotiating sessions. However, Netanyahu has calculated he stands a better chance at extracting a new deal from Obama than whoever next occupies the Oval office.

The majority of Americans, on the other hand, overwhelmingly oppose U.S. aid to Israel , according to polls fielded in 2014 and 2016. Growing numbers would rather boycott, divest and sanction Israel for its human rights abuses than provide the arms and blanket diplomatic support (commonly stipulated in these MOUs) that enable the abuses to continue. Beyond that, there are five lessor known reasons Americans should be actively opposing U.S. aid to Israel:

1. U.S. aid to Israel yields a huge negative return on investment

From a strictly green-eyeshade perspective, U.S. aid to Israel is a horrible investment. The late Harvard economist Thomas Stauffer in 2002 tallied the cost of Israel to the United States since 1973 to be $1.6 trillion. Stauffer included the oil crisis triggered by Arab governments in the aftermath of wars fought with Israel and other costs emanating from Israel’s violent repression of the Palestinians. Since Stauffer’s death in 2005, no other high-profile economist has taken up the thankless task of calculating such figures, though fresh data to feed such models has been piling up.

It is now the consensus view that America was attacked on 9/11 because of U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia and unconditional U.S. support for Israel. The 9/11 attacks cost $3.3 trillion according to one conservative estimate. Israel lobbyists often claim that U.S. foreign aid to Israel is an investment that yields “dividends” and is therefore a “bargain.” If we assume aid is an investment and adjust for inflation, publicly known aid through 2011 is $233.6 billion. If we then assign unconditional U.S. support for Israel half the blame for motivating 9/11, an actual return on investment calculation is possible. The ROI of U.S. aid to Israel considering only half the costs of 9/11 is negative 806 percent. By any measure, this is an extremely poor return.

2. U.S. Aid to Israel is not a significant “U.S. jobs creator”

Many pundits are now spinning the proposed new MOU as a “U.S. jobs creator,” particularly in view of the pending restrictions against spending much of the aid in Israel. But how many jobs do military sales actually generate? Pitifully few. The top five military contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman claim to employ nearly a half-million, on annual 2015 revenues of just under a quarter trillion dollars. At $463,069 to support a single direct job, military equipment and service vendors employ many fewer employees per dollar of revenue than most other industries. Looking back, even if Israel spent 100 percent of its past ten-year $3.1 billion annual MOU dollars on “top shelf” U.S. military goods, like the Joint Strike fighter, it would have produced less than 7,000 direct U.S. jobs.

Military contractor revenue to support one direct job

CONTRACTOR

EMPLOYEES

2015 REVENUE

LOCKHEED MARTIN

98,000

 $           46,132,000,000
BOEING

156,921

 $           96,110,000,000
RAYTHEON

61,000

 $           23,000,000,000
GENERAL DYNAMICS

99,500

 $           31,500,000,000
NORTHROP GRUMMAN

65,000

 $           24,661,000,000
TOTAL

480,421

 $        221,403,000,000
 
REVENUE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A SINGLE JOB  $                         460,852

However, Israel’s largest U.S. “purchases” by volume are not high-tech goods, but rather the jet and diesel fuel it needs to reach its ever-growing number of designated enemies both in territories it illegally occupies and neighboring countries. In April, 2016 Israel notified Congress of its need for 864 million gallons of aviation and diesel fuel on average priced at $3.09 per gallon. Such commonplace commodity purchases drag the number of jobs supported in the U.S. by the MOU down to embarrassingly low levels.

Redirecting such tax dollars to projects inside the U.S., in particular for rebuilding desperately-needed infrastructure, would employ many more Americans per dollar spent than military contractors while providing tangible benefits to the commonweal. The U.S. construction industry supports a job for every $174,000 in output. The proposed $5 billion in aid proposed for Israel could instead unleash the restoration power of nearly thirty-thousand American construction workers—rather than a future of bloody Israeli military onslaughts on Gaza or Lebanon or yet-to-be determined targets.

3. U.S. aid enables Israel to forever avoid a meaningful peace deal

Back in 1960, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency predicted what has since come to pass. If Israel were able to achieve military hegemony in the region, it would lose interest in pursuing peace with the Palestinians and its neighbors through meaningful and justified concessions. The very aid that most Americans now oppose makes resolving the oldest, most disruptive conflict in the region impossible. In turn, U.S. support generates periodic blowback against the U.S., in the form of oil embargoes, terror attacks and loss of goodwill across the globe.

4. U.S. aid to Israel offsets Israel’s nuclear weapons development costs

The CIA’s special national intelligence estimate based its prediction of Israeli regional military hegemony on its acquisition of nuclear weapons. Since the beginning, Israel has relied on being able to surreptitiously source materials, know-how and technology from the U.S. and evade punishment when its agents were caught in the act. Charities raising hundreds of millions in the United States, such as the American Committee for the Weismann Institute for Science count on the IRS and the rest of the U.S. Treasury to look the other way and pretend clandestine nuclear weapons development has some sort of social welfare function. American taxpayer dollars devoted to providing Israel with military goods including nuclear capable aircraft and commodities therefore offset, subsidize and empower Israel’s clandestine development of nuclear weapons. This situation—well known and endlessly explored in foreign news media—makes the United States the butt of jokes at Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) conferences.

5. Israel’s nuclear weapons program makes aid illegal

In the mid-1970s, during investigations into the illegal diversion of weapons-grade uranium from U.S. contractor NUMEC to Israel, Senators Stuart Symington (D-MO) and John Glenn (D-OH) amended the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to ban any U.S. aid to clandestine nuclear powers that were not NPT signatories. The legislative intent of the amendment, as expressed by Symington, was clear: “if you wish to take the dangerous and costly steps necessary to achieve a nuclear weapons option, you cannot expect the United States to help underwrite that effort indirectly or directly.”

Since the law went into effect foreign aid including estimated assumed intelligence support—which the CIA refuses to divulge under the Freedom of Information Act—has reached an inflation-adjusted $234 billion in in taxpayer outlays. Eager to secure the political support and related campaign contributions from America’s soon-to-be $6 billion per year Israel lobby ecosystem, administrations flout the law by pretending not to know whether Israel has nuclear weapons, despite ample information in the public and government domain. The American public is not fooled. When polled in 2014, 63.9 percent claimed they believed Israel had nuclear weapons. Therefore, the continuance of illegal aid is a moral hazard that chips away at America’s already low confidence in rule of law and “justice for all.”

At this critical juncture, America’s only hope is that the courts issue an injunction against future illegal aid —and order an overdue claw back of the $234 billion unlawfully distributed in the past—to be spent on legitimate purposes in the future. This judicial act would remedy a boondoggle so vast, entrenched and long-running it makes even scandals such as Teapot Dome seem like tempests in teacups.

Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book, Big Israel: How Israel moves America. On August 8, 2016 he filed a lawsuit in federal court to block U.S. foreign aid to Israel and claw back aid illegally delivered since 1976.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Five Reasons U.S. Aid to Israel is a “Bad Investment”

Pan-Africanism, Women’s Rights and Socialist Development

August 30th, 2016 by Abayomi Azikiwe

Revisiting the role of women in Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana

During July 1960 an historic gathering of African women from throughout the continent and Diaspora took place in Accra, Ghana. This West African state had been liberated from British colonialism just three years before under the leadership of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) headed by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.

This Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent (CWAAD) passed resolutions calling for many of the same objectives as previous Pan-African gatherings in Ghana and other parts of Africa. The CPP was in a better position than any other party on the continent to set the stage and provide a sterling example as it related to gender equality.

Nkrumah said to African women in his opening address to the CWAAD that:

“Your role in this direction is of great importance. Not only can you carry back this message to the men of your respective countries, but, if you are convinced that unity is the right answer, you can also bring your feminine influence to bear in persuading your brothers, husbands and friends of the importance of Africa unity as the only salvation for Africa. For my part, I stand resolutely and inexorably by this conviction and will work with unrelenting determination for its attainment.

Fathia Nkrumah at CWAAD with Tunisia women delegates, July 1960

There is a great responsibility resting on the shoulders of all women of Africa and African descent. They must realize that the men alone cannot complete the gigantic task we have set ourselves. The time has come when the women of Africa and of African descent must rise up in their millions to join the Africa crusade for freedom.”

Women were in the forefront of the movement for national liberation in Ghana, then known as the Gold Coast prior to 1957. The early efforts of Nkrumah sought the full participation of women in the initial phases of organizing with the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) and the Committee on Youth Organization (CYO).

Although it was the UGCC which invited Nkrumah back to the Gold Coast his organizing efforts would place him at loggerheads with its middle-class and royalist leadership. The formation of the CYO mobilized the students and youth of the country along the lines of Pan-Africanism and immediate national liberation. By June 1949, the supporters of Nkrumah urged that he form a political organization to demand independence now. The CPP was launched on June 12, 1949 with 60,000 people in attendance and consequently from its initiation the party was a mass force playing a vanguard role in the struggle for national liberation from British imperialism.

Historical events since Nkrumah had left the Gold Coast for the U.S. in 1935 served to catapult him into national and international prominence. Nkrumah had returned to the Gold Coast from a two year stay in England where he studied at the London School of Economics and organized the historic Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester held in October 1945. The gathering was characterized by the emergence of a mass Pan-Africanist movement led by revolutionary intellectuals, students, workers and farmers.

Dr. Evelyn Armarteifio with Fathia Nkrumah at CWAAD, July 1960

Prior to his stay in Britain, Nkrumah had studied for ten years in the United States from 1935-1945. He obtained undergraduate and graduate degrees from the Historical Black University of Lincoln in Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania. As a student Nkrumah led the African Students Association of the U.S. and Canada, wrote for student and academic newsletters and journals, belonging to numerous left-wing and anti-imperialist groups including the Council on African Affairs (CAA), the Universal Negro Improvement Association (African Communities League), among others. His tenure also involved the study of theology and the licensing as a Presbyterian minister where he traveled extensively speaking in African American churches.

Some of the most advanced organizers and party propagandist within the CPP were women from its inception extending to the overthrow of the Nkrumah government on February 24, 1966 at the aegis of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) utilizing disgruntled elements within the Ghanaian military and police. Over the course of the period between 1948 and 1966, CPP women held positions as journalists, intelligence operatives, fundraisers and political officials.

The Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent was convened on the initiative of the Ghana Women’s movement represented by the consolidation of the two main organizations concerned with gender issues in 1960. The CPP (Ghana) Women’s League and the National Federation of Ghana Women merged to form the National Council of Ghana Women at the urging of the Nkrumah and the party leadership.

CWAAD Panel Discussion, July 1960

The Women’s League was a CPP-led organization where the Federation, led by Secretary General Dr. Evelyn Amarteifio, was perceived as being more politically independent. The League was directed by CPP Propaganda Secretary Hannah Cudjoe who served as the principal organizer of the CWAAD in July 1960. Cudjoe had been recruited by Nkrumah doing the early days of the UGCC work and when the British arrested the top leaders of the group in the aftermath of a national strike and rebellion in February 1948, led protests demanding their release.

On an institutional level the leadership of the CPP as early as May 1951 in the wake of the release of Kwame Nkrumah from a one-year prison term for his anti-colonialist activities and the party’s triumph in the local elections earlier that February, the mass independence party had appointed four women: Letitia Quaye, Miss Sophia Doku, Hannah Cudjoe and Ama Nkrumah, as propaganda secretaries charged with the duty of organizing women and others. During the period surrounding the convening of the All-African Women’s Conference, the Ghanaian parliament at the aegis of the CPP passed the Representation of the People (Women Members) Bill in 1960. The legislation was passed on June 16, 1960.

This act facilitated the unopposed election of ten women as Members of Parliament (MPs). These women were Susana Al-Hassan, Ayanori Bukari and Victoria Nyarko, all representing the Northern Region, Sophia Doku and Mary Koranteng, Eastern Region, and Regina Asamany, Volta Region. The others were Grace Ayensu and Christiana Wilmot, Western Region, Comfort Asamoah, Ashanti Region, and Lucy Anim, Brong Ahafo. Later in 1965, Dr. Nkrumah appointed Madam Susan Al-Hassan as the Minister of Social Welfare and Community Development, while other women were appointed as district commissioners.

Consequently, the Conference gathering attracted hundreds of women who were playing an integral part in the national liberation process in Ghana, across Africa and the world. Delegations attended the Conference from various geo-political regions of the continent. From outside of Africa there was representation from the United States where the likes of Shirley Graham Du Bois attended and delivered an important policy address.

Shirley Graham DuBois, the second wife of W.E.B. DuBois and an accomplished writer, organizer and committed socialist in her own right, was in Ghana at the time of the founding of the First Republic along with the inauguration of the NCGW and the Conference of Women of Africa and African Descent. She stated in an address before the Women’s Association of the Socialist Students Organizations in Ghana that “the advancement of Ghanaian women in recent years has been amazing and now with ten women Parliamentarians in Republican Ghana, this country had achieved what took Europe centuries to accomplish.” (Evening News, July 14, 1960)

In supporting the-then movement toward socialism in Ghana, DuBois recounted her travels to the People’s Republic of China and the achievements of women since the revolution of 1949. She noted in her address “the women of Socialist China were advanced in all spheres of useful activity and enjoyed equal rights with men politically, economically, culturally, socially and domestically.”

CPP Women’s League Leader Hannah Cudjoe with child

Kwame Nkrumah in delivering the opening address to the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent on July 18, 1960 said:

“I am indeed happy to be here this morning to open such a conference. Who would have thought that in this year of 1960, it would be possible to even hold a conference of all Ghanaian women, much less of women of all Africa and African descent! But today, that is a reality and an achievement which constitutes another landmark of progress in Africa’s irresistible march to emancipation and victory.”

The president and leader of the CPP went on to note that: “All of you are aware of the present trend in Africa. The whole continent is ablaze with the fire of nationalism. This great giant Africa, which was anaesthetized for so long, is now awake and has shaken itself out of the slumber that for so many years enabled exploiters and marauders to plunder its wealth. The new African has arrived on the scene. Colonialism and imperialism are on the run, fleeing from the blows of African irredentism. What is woman’s part in the great struggle for African liberation? You have to provide an answer to that question. But I can say something of the role adopted by Ghanaian womanhood in the past. The women of Ghana have played a most glorious part in our struggle for independence. They were solidly behind the Ghana revolution. Guided by the Convention People’s Party, thousands of our women flocked to the nationalist banners and, side by side with the men, fought heroically until freedom was achieved for Ghana.”m of apartheid-colonialism women had led the anti-pass campaigns of the early 1950s. In 1954, the Federation of South African Women (FEDSAW) was formed bringing together progressive forces within the African, Colored, Indian and white communities in alliance with the African National Congress. Women were indicted under the treason trials that were held against the revolutionary democratic movement between the years of 1956-1960.

On August 9, 1956, 20,000 South African women marched against racism and national oppression in Pretoria setting the stage for a broadening of the mass struggle against the exploitation and repression of the apartheid system. Within the ANC as an organization there was a process of historical transformation that mirrored the development of the nationalist movement from its beginnings in the early decades of the 20th century until the post-World War II period.

Although in the Gold Coast (Ghana) during the incipient phase of the development of the CPP under Nkrumah, women were in the leadership of the party as organizers, journalists, propagandists and fundraisers, the situation was quite different in relationship to the ANC, which was formed as the South African Native National Council on January 8, 1912 in Bloemfontein in the Orange Free State.

According to the South African History website,

“When the African National Congress (ANC) was formed in 1912, it did not accept women as members. In 1918, the government threatened to reintroduce pass laws for women that had been relaxed after the success of earlier resistance to passes. In the light of these events, the Bantu Women’s League (BWL) was formed in 1918, as a branch of the ANC. It became involved in passive resistance and fought against passes for Black women. During this time the Bantu Women’s League was under the leadership of Charlotte Maxeke. The ANC only accepted women as members at the Congress’s 1943 conference and in 1948 the ANC Women’s League was formed. The first official president of the League was Ida Mntwana who was appointed after a brief stint by Madie Hall-Xuma.

This same site goes on to note:

“The women became active in the Defiance Campaign of 1952 where they played a leading role. In the Eastern Cape 1067 of the 2529 defiers were women, with Florence Matomela at the forefront. The Women’s League was then asked by the Congress Alliance to assist in organizing the 1955 Congress of the People, where the Freedom Charter was to be adopted. This gave the women an opportunity to lobby for the incorporation of their demands into the charter. In 1955, the issue of passes came forth again as the government announced that it would start issuing reference books from January 1956. A demonstration was held on the 27th of October 1955 and was attended by 2 000 women. On the 9th of August 1956, the women of the league confronted Prime Minister J.G. Strydom, under the auspices of the Federation of South African Women with a petition against pass laws.” (http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/anc-womens-league-ancwl)

In Egypt during the 1919 uprising against British imperialism, women came into the streets in the thousands. Nabila Ramdani has researched the intersection between Egyptian nationalism and feminism tracing back the role of women in literary, cultural and political circles into the late 19th century.

Ramdani emphasized in a research paper that: “During the 1919 Revolution, Huda Sha’arawi led veiled women demonstrators in the struggle against the British. Female solidarity with the Egyptian nationalists was exemplified by Sha’arawi’s close collaboration with Sa’ad Zaghlul (1859-1927), leader of the Wafd (‘delegation’) – the Egyptian nationalist movement which was formed in 1918 at the end of the First World War. It was at the forefront of the push for independence from Britain, with both men and women lending their support to the ‘party of the nation’. What women also made clear, however, was that they were equally campaigning for equality of the sexes – so engaging in a ‘dual struggle’. Egyptian women first took part in nationalist demonstrations in March 1919, but they were to become crucial to the partial removal of the British from Egypt in 1922.” (Journal of Women’s Studies, March 2013, Vol. 14, Article 5)

Women’s participation in other nationalists and Pan-Africanist struggles were also notable in Nigeria with the rebellion of women in the southeast region of the country in 1929. The British had consolidated control of what became known as Nigeria in 1914 through a system of indirect rule which facilitated the super-exploitation of the African people.

According to blackpast.org, “The “riots” or the war, led by women in the provinces of Calabar and Owerri in southeastern Nigeria in November and December of 1929, became known as the ‘Aba Women’s Riots of 1929’ in British colonial history, or as the ‘Women’s War’ in Igbo history.  Thousands of Igbo women organized a massive revolt against the policies imposed by British colonial administrators in southeastern Nigeria, touching off the most serious challenge to British rule in the history of the colony.  The ‘Women’s War’ took months for the government to suppress and became a historic example of feminist and anti-colonial protest.

The roots of the riots evolved from January 1, 1914, when the first Nigerian colonial governor, Lord Lugard, instituted the system of indirect rule in Southern Nigeria.  Under the plan British administrators would rule locally through ‘warrant chiefs,’ essentially Igbo individuals appointed by the governor.  Traditionally Igbo chiefs had been elected.”

After the independence of several states within North Africa, with the exception of Algeria, which waged an armed struggle against French imperialism from 1954-1961, where women played a pivotal role as well, along with the breaking away of Sudan in 1956 and the Gold Coast the following year, Nkrumah and other African leaders convened the First Conference of Independent African States in Accra from April 15-22, 1958. The gathering was chaired by Nkrumah and attended mainly by foreign ministers of the-then existing independent states of the United Arab Republic (Egypt), Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Liberia and Ethiopia.

This conference paved the way for the All-African People’s Conference of December 1958 in Accra which attracted participation from 62 independence organizations and sovereign states. The AAPC was held under the banner of “Hands off Africa!” Several political figures in attendance would later become prominent in the struggle for national liberation, Pan-Africanism and Socialism, such as Patrice Lumumba of the Belgian Congo and Dr. Frantz Fanon of Martinique in the Caribbean.

Both Lumumba and Fanon would be dead by 1961. Lumumba was overthrown in the machinations of imperialist politics of 1960. By January 1961, he had been kidnapped, tortured and murdered by agents of Belgium, the U.S., Britain and other western states. Fanon died in the U.S. from leukemia after serving as an ambassador and editor for the National Liberation Front (FLN) of Algeria.

The decolonization process would prove to be violent one. Nkrumah and other revolutionaries in Ghana served prison time during the late 1940s. In Algeria, the French engaged in a series of massacres from the period of World War II through the early 1960s. South Africans were gunned down at Sharpeville in March 1960. In Congo, Lumumba and his comrades, Maurice Mpolo and Joseph Okito, would be assassinated amid a counterinsurgency war that destroyed the liberated territories in the vast country that sought to make real the vision of Lumumba and other revolutionary nationalists and Pan-Africanists.

However, 1960 was later designated as the “Year of Africa” where eighteen former colonies gained some form of national independence. Ghana extended its sovereignty by moving from an independent state within the Commonwealth to a Republic on July 1, 1960. Therefore the convening of the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent was in line with the continental and global struggle for African emancipation.

Women’s Emancipation and the Convention People’s Party (CPP)

Within this politico-historical context the CPP in Ghana would have been the ideal sponsors for such a conference. Women were already taking on leading positions within national liberation and Pan-Africanist movements throughout the continent and the Diaspora as Ghana was considered the citadel of the independence movements sweeping Africa and the Diaspora.

The CPP women were maintaining their role as propagandists and recruiters for the party in 1960. In a report published by the Evening News, a state-sponsored party newspaper started by Nkrumah in 1948 even prior to the formation of the CPP, in a section entitled “Party News and Notes” it says: “Madam Ardua Ankrah of Korie Wokon alias “Mrs. Nkrumah”, continues her membership drive in Accra with increasing vigor. More U.P. (United Party opposition group) adherents at Ayalolo and Amamomo have approached her for enrollment into the dynamic CPP. Yesterday a delegation of 27 members from James Town called at her home and asked for admission into the CPP. In a short address Madam Ardua said to them, ‘This is not a time for play. It is a time for hard work in the interest of Ghana. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah who released us from foreign bondage has again committed himself to the task of freeing us economically. Let us all unite as one man and follow Dr. Nkrumah even unto death.’” (Jan. 14, 1960, p. 5)

CPP Women Leaders and Parliamentary Members Sophia Duku and Susan al-Hassan

This trend towards national liberation and Pan-Africanism was not confined to Ghana alone. In South African under the vicious syste

Earlier that same month on January 6, a photograph in the Evening News on page 10 under the headline “Evenews Picture Page” it depicts “Madam Lydia Addo, an organizer of the Convention People’s Party, seen addressing a rally at the Bukom Square yesterday.” This photograph appears alongside four others illustrating the first overhead bridge in Accra which was nearing completion on Boundary road near the Makola Market; the Omanhen of Sefwi, Wiawso Nana Kwadwo Aduhene, who was celebrating his annual yam festival; Minister of Finance K.A. Gbedemah, a co-founder of the CPP, who later fled into exile after the dockworkers strike of September 1961; and Bediako Poku, the Ghana ambassador to Israel who had served for two years as the General Secretary of the CPP.

A major source for the political recruitment of party cadres and the financing of its organizational work was the strategic role of the market women of Accra. C.L.R. James, the Trinidadian-born Marxist-Leninist historian and political analyst, said of the situation in Ghana during the anti-colonial and post-colonial phase that “one market woman was worth any dozen Achimota graduates,” many of which were hostile to the national liberation movement. (Nkrumah and the Ghana Revolution, 1976)

In the January 2, 1960 edition of the Evening News a brief article entitled “Nkrumah Chats With Guests” it reports

“Varieties of Ghanaian dishes were served at a luncheon party organized by the Life Chairman of the Convention People’s Party, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, in honor of members of the Ghana Market Women Traders Association and members of the women section of the CPP at the Flagstaff House in Accra. As the party progressed, Dr. Nkrumah who is also Life Patron of the Market Women Traders Association spent several minutes chatting with his guests. Proposing a toast on behalf of the women at the party, Madam Rebecca Dedei Aryeetey, Special Women Organizer to the Life Chairman of the CPP and the Association, assured Premier Nkrumah and his Government, the support of the 50,000 market women of this country.” (Peter Plange, p. 6)

Leading up to the convening of the Women’s conference in July 1960 tense negotiations between the Federation and the League resulted in the founding of the National Council of Ghana Women (NCGW). The task related to the merger of the two women’s organization is recounted in a political biography by Tawia Adamafio, the former Vice-Chair of the CPP who would later in August 1962 fall from grace within the party after being accused by Nkrumah of being involved in an assassination attempt against the Osagyefo in the northern town of Kulungugu near the border with Upper Volta.

Adamafio stated in his book published in 1982 entitled “By Nkrumah’s Side: The Labor and the Wounds”, that he was forced into leading negotiations for the merger between the Federation and the League. He expresses fear over the role of women within the party saying they could become such a force as to neutralize the men leaders.

Nkrumah suggests to Adamafio that:

“Our women must take over completely as private secretaries, stenographers and copy typists. They should branch into engineering services, pharmacy, bus and taxi driving, law and medicine and all the other fields. They should go shoulder to shoulder with our men. At the time, and as Adamafio explains, there were two large women’s groups in the country, one led by Dr. Evelyn Amarteifio and the other, the Ghana Women’s League, led by Hannah Kudjoe. Nkrumah wanted all women’s groups in one organization: ‘We must organize the women . . . as a distinct identity and keep them under our wings.’” (Jean Allman, “The Disappearing of Hannah Cudjoe: Nationalism, Feminism and the Tyrannies of History”)

In the Adamafio book he further describes the challenge put before him by Nkrumah leading up the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent saying: “The Party women’s solidarity was so all-inclusive when organized, that nothing could escape its steam-roller pressure. The Party women could not be bullied into submission by any party leader including Nkrumah himself on any matter…. If necessary the women did not hesitate to boo me or any other leader for that matter, and cause severe embarrassment and confusion to achieve their objective. . . . No, I cannot adequately convey to you an expression of the actual difficulty involved in organizing women, but if you could imagine their gossip, bitter quarrels and bickering and the acrimony of the lashing tongues, you would be getting nearer the truth than I could describe. I did not cherish this new task at all.”

From Adamafio’s account of the period the women within the two organizations exercised significant degrees of independence of thought and action. He says of the discussions among male members of the party and trade union movement that:

“We foresaw a situation where this NCGW [National Council of Ghana Women] would grow so monolithic and powerful that the party could lose control of it. When you had its leadership bristling with dynamic women intellectuals and revolutionaries and the organization had become conscious of its strength, it could break off in rebellion, form a party by itself and sweep everything before it at the polls. The ratio of women voters to men then was about three or more to one and the position could well arise, where Ghana would be ruled by a woman President and an all-woman cabinet and the principal secretaries and Regional Commissioners were all women and men would be relegated to the back room! It would be disastrous for Ghana, for, I could see men being ridden like horses! A male tyrant could be twisted round a woman’s little finger. An Amazonian tyrant could only probably be subdued by a battery of artillery!”

These stories reflect the role of Hanah Cudjoe, Ardua Ankrah, Lydia Addo and other women as public speakers, community organizers and recruiters. An understanding of these factors is essential to grasping even a rudimentary view of the growth and influence of the CPP. Ghana as a result of the national development policies of Nkrumah became the most advanced country in Africa during the 1950s and 1960s in part by emphasizing primary, secondary and higher educational attainment. Over a period of a six year transition from 1951-1957 and approximately nine years of independence with only five-and-a-half years as a republic, the CPP under Nkrumah founded three universities, hundreds of public schools and provided scholarships to Ghanaian students to study abroad as well as other Africans to matriculate inside of Ghana itself.

This level of literary and scholastic achievements was illustrated in the CPP press. Outstanding journalists and writers from Ghana and other states were published on a daily basis. One leading woman journalist and CPP operative was Mabel Ellen Dove. She was one of the most interesting figures within the upper echelons of the party since Dove had once been married to UGCC leader J.B. Danquah, who later became a staunch opponent of Nkrumah and the CPP after the split in June 1949.

Dove wrote extensively on issues involving national liberation, Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism. On the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the Positive Action campaign, a general strike called by the CPP on January 8, 1950, which was so effective that it landed Nkrumah in prison for a year, Dove published an article in the Evening News entitled “Africanism unto Calvary.”

She describes the party rally to commemorate the anniversary saying

“A sea of eager, dedicated faces, thousands upon thousands of them in the historic Arena. Men, women and children, individuals, voluntary organizations, trade unions, benevolent societies and still they come. On the tree tops they hang precariously on the branches, on the top of the ‘mammy lorries’, there is no more room in the Arena but thousands are still thronging outside waiting to hear the Leader.” (Evening News, Jan. 12, 1960, p. 3)

The article continues observing “On the wooden platform could be seen the old fighting warriors still consistent, still loyal to the Leader in the fight for the ‘redemption and liberation’ of all Africa. The Leader is calling on them once more to rededicate themselves to the economic and social reconstruction of Ghana and the coming together of the nations of Africa—Africanism the new ideology. Other peoples and races of the past had to creep, walk and run but as the Leader said for us ‘The Time is Short’. The African has to run and leap and to move with extended hand towards his brother. Pettiness, envy, selfishness, greed, vanity, vindictiveness, hatred, malice, cannot be indulged in by the African, dedicated to the service of his country and his continent, Mother Africa.”

In this same essay Dove asks

“What is Africanism? Africanism is the belief by patriots in the new and emerging nations of Africa that this great continent of Africa is made by the almighty the Creator of all men for Africans and that Africans should live in this continent in dignity and pride, to work and enjoy the fruits of their labor and that the natural resources of this great continent should be exploited for the progress of the Africans and that they should walk with uplifted heads and a song in his heart in any part of Africa….. Despite all the set-backs in the way of the African he has shown again and again that brutality, auto-suggestions, exploitation, poverty, disease and illiteracy have not been able to destroy him physically and spiritually and when imperialism is destroyed Africans may produce the first super-men…. The supposed Christians of Western civilization have to throw away their cant, humbug, hypocrisy and sheer malevolent brutality in Africa or take the consequences of their inhumanity to man. Africanism is the new religion to be practiced and propagated by the patriots of the new and emerging nations of Africa even unto Calvary.”

The general atmosphere surrounding the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent gathering was Pan-Africanist and internationalist. Ghana’s First Lady Madam Fathia Nkrumah, who was born in the North African state of Egypt, greeted delegations from her home country as well as neighboring Tunisia.  Panel discussions at the conference featured presentations by Cudjoe and Armarteifio sharing platforms with women from other regions of the continent.

Nkrumah during his speech at Baden Powell Memorial Hall stressed: “I repeat what l have many times stated before, that the independence of Ghana is meaningless, unless it is linked up with the total liberation of Africa. Therefore, the struggle in Ghana still continues and our women are still combatant troops. I would like to take this opportunity today to pay tribute to them.

This Conference, organized by the Ghana Women’s Movement which represents all women’s groups in the country, must ask the questions: why the women of South Africa must be in possession of passes in order to go about their ordinary business? Why apartheid overlords should shoot down defenseless women and children in their God-given land in order to maintain white supremacy? Why is Africa an extension of Europe? Why Algeria, a country on African soil, should be claimed as French? Why South Africa should flout the authority of the United Nations over South-West Africa? What part can the women of Africa and of African descent play in the struggle for African emancipation? What part can the women of African descent anywhere in the world play in the struggle for African emancipation? You must ask these questions not by word of mouth, but by action — by positive action, which is the only language understood by the detractors of African freedom.”

Less than two weeks prior to the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent the CPP women’s section attended a party at the presidential office in Flagstaff House. Nkrumah hosted ten representatives from each of the eight regions of Ghana. Officers of the CPP national headquarters were in attendance as well. (Evening News, July 8, 1960)

On a personal level Nkrumah was very close to his mother and took good care of her during his tenure in political office. Members of the National Association of Socialist Students Organizations (NASSO) paid tribute to Madam Nyaniba, the mother of Nkrumah, at a gathering in Accra. According to the January 25, 1960 edition of the Evening News on its front page it notes that Madam Nyaniba told the students “Anything that has not the blessing of God will not succeed. The Voice of the People is the Voice of God.” Madame Nyaniba encouraged the youth to be honest and sincere in their dealings with their comrades and all their endeavors.

Women and Historical Pan-Africanism

The CPP and the Ghana government were committed to the realization of a United States of Africa under socialism. The party viewed the struggle for national liberation as an initial step towards continental unity and non-capitalist development. The editorial policy of the party press was to provide unconditional political and ideological support to the national liberation movements still fighting to throw off the yoke of colonialism along with those anti-imperialist states such as Guinea-Conakry under President Ahmed Sekou Toure and Malian President Modibo Kieta. In 1960 the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union was formed pledging to work towards political and economic integration.

Mabel Dove wrote on January 8, 1960, the tenth anniversary of the Positive Action Campaign of 1950, about the plight of Nyasaland African National Congress leader Dr. Hastings Banda who was incarcerated by the British at the time. Dove noted that Dr. Banda said when he was sentenced to prison that it fulfilled one of his ambitions “to be put in prison for my people like Dr. Kwame Nkrumah.” (Evening News, Jan. 8, p. 8)

She continued in this same report emphasizing “Imperialism is actually desperate in Central Africa and the arrest of African leaders like Dr. Banda provide evidence of frenzy and uneasiness which have gripped the arbitrary rulers in their murderous campaign which they seek to cloak in their imaginary ‘discovery’ of a ‘Slaughter plot’.”

On the same page of this issue of the Evening News, Dove pens another article entitled “Free Jomo Kenyatta”, the Kenyan nationalist leader who was imprisoned for his efforts aimed at winning independence for this East African settler colony. Kenyatta had worked with Nkrumah at the Fifth Pan-African Congress held in Manchester, England in October 1945.

Dove said: “The trend today is the propaganda that white settlers in Africa are Africans. The white in any part of Africa is not an African and he can never be an African by any stretch of the imagination and the dishonorable action of imperialism of fostering these settlers on Africans and trying willy-nilly to place political power in their hands so that they become another South African horror on the Continent is the danger that is facing Africa and Africans today.”

This same article about Kenyatta goes on stressing: “The physical and mental vigor of the African has saved him from total extermination despite the slave trade, the deadly weapons and the inhuman atrocities against his soul and body, and now with his eyes on the goal of freedom, arrogant and unrepentant imperialism with her greedy eyes on the natural resources of Africa, is still spending sleepless nights and traveling great distances to create by hook or crook White Domination in Black Africa.”

During 1960, despite the proclamations of it being “The Year of Africa”, a serious crisis would erupt which would create divisions within the body politic of the newly emergent continental states. Patrice Lumumba, who had gained considerable support from Ghana while in attendance at the First All-African People’s Conference in Accra in December 1958, was soon arrested after returning to the Belgian Congo in January 1959.

Lumumba was tortured while in detention and the colonialists sought to exclude him from political negotiations that took place in the aftermath of a national rebellion in early 1959. His release and participation in the discussions surrounding the proposed independence of the vast mineral-rich Central African state would enhance his reputation as a Nationalist and Pan-Africanist across Africa and the world.

As the leader of the Congolese National Movement (MNC), Lumumba would garner the largest bloc of votes winning him the prime minister position at the time of independence on June 30, 1960. Nonetheless, imperialism was staunchly opposed to the program of the MNC-Lumumba and worked incessantly to undermine the liberation process.

The Congolese prime minister faced a mutiny of the para-military Force Publique in the immediate aftermath of the declaration of independence. Lumumba would appeal to other African states such as Ghana and Guinea to provide assistance in the stabilization of the country. Eventually he requested the intervention of the United Nations then under Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold.

When the UN troops entered Leopoldville, the Congolese capital, they objectively worked in the interests of imperialism. A contingent of Ghana troops were deployed as part of the UN force under the command of British Major General Henry Templer Alexander. The outcome of this project would be disastrous. Nkrumah perceived the performance of Alexander as defying the foreign policy objectives of the Ghana government and eventually dismissed him from his post by 1961.

Lumumba was overthrown in a military coup backed up by the UN peacekeeping forces. He later escaped from Leopoldville to join his supporters in the East of the country where they had sought to establish a genuine people’s republic. However, Lumumba was tracked and captured by the Belgian and other imperialist military forces that were still operating inside the country delivering him to the reactionary political puppet functionaries working on behalf of Moise Tshome, the secessionist of the Katanga province, and Joseph Mobuto, who at the aegis of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other Western interests, was placed in power for the express purpose of liquidating Lumumba and his MNC party.

Since the time of the death of Lumumba and his comrades, various operative of the CIA, the U.S. State Department, the Belgian colonial authorities and the British intelligence services (MI6) have admitted to the plot to kill Lumumba. Initial efforts were made to poison the Congolese leader which failed. The kidnapping place Lumumba at the mercy of his enemies and he was reportedly assassinated on January 17, 1961 in Elizabethville in Congo.

The assassination of Lumumba prompted outrage throughout the African continent and the world. In the U.S. at the UN world headquarters, a group of African Americans, led by women, disrupted a session chaired by American envoy Adlai Stevenson.

Lumumba’s assassination was ordered by the National Security Council of the U.S. under the administration of retired Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Several days later, the administration of President John F. Kennedy took office and continued the same policy towards Congo. (See The Congo Cables: The Cold War in Africa From Eisenhower to Kennedy, by Madeleine G. Kalb, 1982))

The Kennedy presidency presented a false image of support for African independence. This in part derived from a Cold War strategy of outmaneuvering the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the People’s Republic of China and their foreign policies that categorically rejected colonialism and imperialism in defense of the African people’s inherent right to self-determination and national independence.

Kennedy while serving a term in the U.S. Senate from 1954-1960 established a sub-committee on African affairs. This was part of a broader effort to win over not only the emergent African states but also the African American electorate by giving the appearance that he was sympathetic to their interests in the U.S. as well.

Nkrumah came to the U.S. on March 8, 1961 for consultations with Kennedy. Nevertheless, the damage had already been done with the assassination of Lumumba and the derailing of the Congolese Revolution and its Pan-Africanist leanings.

A U.S. State Department synopsis of the meeting between the Ghana delegation and Kennedy administration officials said: “In summary, the two Presidents found themselves in agreement on three principal points on the Congo,

(1) removal of Belgian military and para-military personnel,

(2) neutralization of Congolese military forces and insulation of the Congo against outside influences and military supplies, and

(3) freedom for the Congolese to work out their own political development. On the last point the Secretary called attention to our own history to illustrate the importance we attach to the principle that government must be based on consent of the governed. In addition to examples from our early history he cited our important role in assisting Indonesian independence and President Roosevelt’s heavy pressure on Churchill, even while we were allies in a world war, in regard to India.

There should be no doubt, therefore, in any reasonable mind, that the U.S. would always be basically, and in the long run effectively, on the side of anti-colonialism and independence, whether the problem is Portugal and Angola or France and Algeria or any other.” (U.S. State Dept. archives on Africa policy from 1961-1963)

According to this same declassified report from the State Department: “President Nkrumah exhibited no desire to talk about U.S. – Ghana bilateral relations and at one point turned off the Secretary’s attempt to bring up the Volta project. President Nkrumah did, however, make the point that the U.S. should broaden its view of Africa and look at the continent as a whole, a subject which he said he had raised when he was here in 1958. The President (Kennedy) took this opportunity to explain the difficulties we face in Africa. He cited the resentment inspired in “colonialist” circles by Governor (G.M.) Williams’ (Undersecretary for African Affairs) alleged statement on “Africa for the Africans” in Nairobi and pointed out that despite this, Governor Williams had been given an unfriendly reception by the press in Lagos. The President (Kennedy) also expressed his surprise and puzzlement over receipt of a recent personal message from Sekou Toure accusing him of complicity in Lumumba’s murder. President Nkrumah seemed sympathetic but offered no very specific advice or comment.”

Responses to the Congo crisis would divide the newly-independent African states into two separate political camps: the Casablanca Group characterized by its anti-imperialism and Pan-Africanism and the Monrovia Group, which was perceived as more favorable to the U.S. and other colonial and neo-colonial states. Although Nkrumah sought to maintain cordial relations with the Kennedy administration, the overall domestic and foreign policy orientation of the CPP government was anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. (See Nkrumah’s Challenge of the Congo, 1967 and Revolutionary Path, 1973)

These developments further aggravated relations between Accra and Washington. Nkrumah’s government would soon move closer to the USSR, the COMECON sector in Eastern Europe and the People’s Republic of China. Pressure would escalate against the CPP through the machinations of the CIA and the State Department.

From August 1962 to early 1964, a series of assassination attempts against Nkrumah and mass killings of Ghanaians were blamed on outside interests. The attack on Nkrumah at Kulungugu in the North of the country near the border with Upper Volta set off a massive purge within the CPP.

Leading figures in what was considered the left-wing of the party were accused of being behind the plot. Adamafio and others were put on trial and later acquitted by the Ghana courts. Nkrumah objected to the not-guilty verdicts and dismissed the judges setting up another proceeding that found many of the accused culpable, landing them in prison.

In early January 1964, yet another assassination attempt against Nkrumah by a guard at Flagstaff House increased the atmosphere of siege against the CPP government. A national referendum on making Ghana a one-party state was held solidifying the Revolution as being on a firm socialist path with the central foreign policy objective being the realization of a United States of Africa.

Nkrumah had welcomed several hundred African Americans to Ghana where many played important roles within his government. In October 1961, Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois and Shirley Graham Du Bois would locate in Ghana eventually taking up citizenship in the country.

Dr. Du Bois was appointed as the Director of the Encyclopedia Africana Project which was designed to develop a comprehensive history and political economy of the African people. Shirley Graham Du Bois was assigned to develop a national television network based in Ghana, the first of its kind envisioned on the African continent. Both of the Du Bois’ were well-known leftist and Pan-Africanists. The Du Bois’ were both members of the Communist Party of the U.S. and had traveled extensively throughout the USSR, China and other Socialist states.

During the Cold War hysteria of the late 1940s and 1950s inside the U.S., Dr. Du Bois in 1951, was indicted by the federal government for allegedly being an agent of a foreign belief system simply because he was an advocate of peace with the Socialist camp. The American government’s case collapsed under the absurdity of the charges. However, the couple had their passports seized and were not allowed to travel outside the U.S. during the period of 1950-1958.

A host of other activists were targeted as well including Paul Robeson and Dr. William Alphaeus Hunton, Jr., who with Dr. Du Bois and Robeson headed the Council on African Affairs (CAA). Nkrumah had participated in CAA activities during the mid-1940s when he was a student in the U.S.

When their passports were re-issued in 1958, the Du Bois’ embarked upon a world tour of the Socialist countries and other states in Europe. Graham Du Bois visited Ghana in December 1958 for the All-African People’s Conference where she delivered an address written by Dr. Du Bois, who was not able to attend at that time.

This speech was entitled “The Future of All-Africa Lies in Socialism.” It said in part, in regard to which direction the continent would move as it relates to social development, asking: “Which way shall Africa go? First, I would emphasize the fact that today Africa has no choice between private Capitalism and Socialism. The whole world, including Capitalist countries, is moving towards Socialism, inevitably, inexorably. You can choose between blocs of military alliances, you can choose between groups of political unions, you cannot choose between Socialism and private Capitalism, because private ownership of capital is doomed.”

The Du Bois’ continued saying to the 62 national liberation movements assembled in Accra: “But what is Socialism? It is disciplined economy and political organization in which the first duty of a citizen is to serve the state; and the state is not a selected aristocracy, or a group of self-seeking oligarchs who have seized wealth and power. No! The mass of workers with hand and brain are the ones whose collective destiny is the chief object of all effort.  Here then, my brothers, you face your great decision: Will you for temporary advantage–for automobiles, refrigerators and Paris gowns–spend your income in paying interest on borrowed funds, or will you sacrifice present comfort and the chance to shine before your neighbors in order to educate your children, develop such industry as best serves the great mass of people and makes your country strong in ability, self-support and self-defense? Such union of effort for strength calls for sacrifice and self-denial, while the capital offered you at high price by the colonial powers like France, Britain, Holland, Belgium and the United States, will prolong fatal colonial imperialism, from which you have suffered slavery, serfdom and colonialism.”

Of course there were other African Americans and Caribbean Africans who played a role in the Ghana Revolution and Pan-Africanism. People such as Vicki Garvin, a longtime Communist and activist was in Ghana at the time. Maya Angelou, the writer and dancer taught school in Ghana and worked in defense of the Nkrumah project. Alice Windom, another African American woman was in Ghana participating in national development efforts.

All of these women worked with Julian Mayfield, the novelist and journalist, who after fleeing the U.S. in 1961 amid the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) hunt for Monroe, North Carolina organizer and former local NAACP leaders Robert F. Williams and Mabel Williams, relocated in Ghana becoming a publicity secretary for the parliament and editor of African Review, a journal of Pan-Africanist thought.

Julian Mayfield along with Windom, Angelou and Garvin would host the two visits of Malcolm X to Ghana during 1964.  Malcolm X mentioned in his final speech in Detroit that the first chapter of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) was formed in Ghana. This was initiated after he left of the Nation of Islam in 1964 being patterned in part on the Organization of African Unity (OAU), founded in May 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia with 32 member-states.

Socialism, Women’s Liberation and the Struggle for World Peace

Revolutionary socialists throughout the period from the late 19th century to the middle of the 20th, viewed gender oppression and discrimination as integral to the class struggle against capitalism and imperialism. This was articulated by Clara Zetkin, a German woman who was a leading member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

In her speech delivered to the Party Congress in Berlin on October 16, 1896, she drew a clear distinction between bourgeois and socialist feminism. Zetkin said during the address that the capitalist ruling class had no fundamental opposition to bourgeois feminism since it did not challenge the economic status of the owners of the means of production.

The speech was entitled “Only in Conjunction with the Proletarian Woman Will Socialism Be Victorious.” In this contribution Zetkin maintains: “The liberation struggle of the proletarian woman cannot be similar to the struggle that the bourgeois woman wages against the male of her class. On the contrary, it must be a joint struggle with the male of her class against the entire class of capitalists. She does not need to fight against the men of her class in order to tear down the barriers which have been raised against her participation in the free competition of the market place. Capitalism’s need to exploit and the development of the modern mode of production totally relieves her of having to fight such a struggle. On the contrary, new barriers need to be erected against the exploitation of the proletarian woman. Her rights as wife and mother need to be restored and permanently secured. Her final aim is not the free competition with the man, but the achievement of the political rule of the proletariat. The proletarian woman fights hand in hand with the man of her class against capitalist society. To be sure, she also agrees with the demands of the bourgeois women’s movement, but she regards the fulfillment of these demands simply as a means to enable that movement to enter the battle, equipped with the same weapons, alongside the proletariat.”

During her tenure in the SPD, Zetkin, along with Rosa Luxemburg, who was a close friend and collaborator, were central figures in the left wing of the party. As a result of political developments inside the party, a debate on revisionism erupted at the turn of the 20th century. Zetkin and Luxemburg together waged an ideological and political struggle against the dominant theoretician Eduard Bernstein.

Zetkin wrote extensively on women’s affairs particularly in regard to the movement to end discrimination and the acquisition of women’s suffrage. Her efforts assisted in the development of the social-democratic women’s movement in Germany.  In the years from 1891 to 1917 Zetkin edited the SPD women’s publication Die Gleichheit (Equality). Later in 1907 she took over the leadership of the recently-created “Women’s Office” for the SPD. Zetkin is credited with creating the first “International Women’s Day” on March 8, 1911, having launched the project in Copenhagen, in what later became the Ungdomshuset.

In the aftermath of the Socialist revolution in Russia and the formation of the USSR, the role of women in society was transformed dramatically. Resolutions were passed against institutional discrimination based upon gender and women participated fully in various aspects of Soviet society.

These revolutions would occur in Korea, Vietnam, China, Yugoslavia and Albania during the years following World War II. The international division of political and economic power was growing pitting the Socialist states, the national liberations movements against colonialism and imperialism based in the capitalist countries of Western Europe and North America. The wars waged against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China were also aimed at arresting and redirecting the national liberation movements many of whom were influenced by anti-capitalist ideas.

One key element in the domination of U.S. imperialism in the Post World War II period related to the maintenance of American territory during the fighting and the utilization of the Atomic bomb against Japan in August 1945. The was clearly an act of aggression directed not just against the already defeated Japanese ruling class but its broader purpose was to put the Socialist countries and liberation movements on notice that the number one imperialist state was more than willing to reign down death and destruction at unprecedented levels.

In the period leading up to the Conference of the Women of Africa and African Descent in July 1960, the Ghana government was launching its own campaign against the plans of the French government under Charles De Gaulle to test an atomic weapon in the Sahara on Algerian territory. These plans were taking place in congruity with the armed and mass struggle by the Algerian people for independence.

The Ghana Evening News took a strong position in solidarity with the movement to prevent the test from occurring. In the January 4, 1960 issue of the state-run paper there was a letter to the editor written by O’ba Owusu-Akyem, a Stone Contractor from Tema, who expressed support for a Protest Team seeking to travel to the area of the proposed test.

Owusu-Akyem said in the letter that “by their patriotic action, stubborn France must know that the whole of the continent of Africa is deadly against that terrible test and it must be stopped in the precious name of humanity.”

In another letter to the editor published in the same issue of the Evening News by Kwasi-Kwadjo of Asafo, it says: “I have just heard that the French authorities have arrested the members of the Sahara Protest Team who are going peacefully about their duty in the service of humanity…. Africa has spoken against this Sahara test and the world has supported Africa in her protest and it is left to France to show a keen sense of sympathy and respect for mankind.”

CPP journalist Mabel Dove in her article based upon an interview with French pacifist Pierre Martin, who was staging an ongoing protest against the pending weapons test outside Paris’ embassy at Ghana House in Accra, outlined the solidarity of the Nkrumah government with the hunger strike against the utilization of these weapons in Africa. Dove quoted Martin as saying: “There are two embassies in Ghana today, I Pierre Martin. I am the ambassador representing the people of France and the embassy on the fifth floor of Ghana House represents French Officialdom.” (Evening News, Jan. 4, 1960)

Dove asked Martin did he think his fast could stop the test. Martin responded saying “If General de Gaulle so desires, the atom test in the Sahara could be stopped.”

This article goes on to report:

“In the hands of Pierre Martin was a pamphlet. I (Dove) glanced through it and I will give you the details of the findings of a group of scientists in the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States of America. ‘As surely as a bomb is exploded thousands of persons will fall sick and will die in some part of the world. Carbon 14 the most menacing radioactive substances, is a menace because it lives so long, 8,000 years. Up to the moment biological peril to man of Carbon 14 has been responsible for ‘100,000 major defectives, physical as well as psychological; 380,000 still born children and of infant mortality and 900,000 cases of embryonic and neo-natal deaths. And yet despite all these horrors, France proposed to test in the middle of the African continent, an absolute bomb of no scientific value because according to Christian France, the most powerful countries are those who have these diabolical weapons and France believes that by endangering the lives of 200 million Africans she will become a powerful nation.”

Later on January 15, 1960, the Evening News reported on the mobilization of the Ghana Women’s movement in opposition to the French atomic test. An article on the front page of the paper entitled “Women Federation Presents G21 Cheque”, reported on the contribution to the Ghana Council for Nuclear Disarmament.

The article reveals that Mr. E.C. Quaye, Chairman of the Ghana Council for Nuclear Disarmament, received the gift from a three-member delegation of the Ghana Federation of Women. These women were Mrs. A.M. Akiwumi, the National President, Dr. Evelyn Armateifio, the General Secretary, and Mrs. Elsie Ofuatey Cudjoe, an executive member of the Federation.

This presentation of funds was held at the Accra Municipal Council and Dr. Armateifio “told the Evening News that at the Federation’s annual conference held at Keta, it was unanimously decided to make financial contributions to help the Sahara Protest Team. To this end the conference resolved to organize rallies to launch an appeal for funds. Yesterday’s contribution was proceeds from rallies held at Peki and Half Asini.”

Some ten days later the Second All-African People’s Conference was convened in Tunisia which immediately went on record as condemning the proposed nuclear test by the French government. On the first day of the gathering there was a rally held in opposition to the French test which was sponsored by the ruling Neo-Destour party. The Evening News of January 25, 1960 said:

“The underlying theme of the conference is ‘Freedom and Unity’ and how to complete Africa’s independence and weld it into one unit grouping all 230 million Africans. Delegates from more than 30 nations are taking part in the conference.” (p. 6)

Despite this widespread sentiment in Africa against the French test in the Sahara, it was carried out on February 13, 1960. This was its first atomic bomb and was known as Blue Jerboa. In 2014, declassified documents indicated that radiation emanating from the operation in the Algerian desert extended much further than what was stated at the time.

The Digital Journal noted in an article by Anne Sewell that: “In fact, the radiation fallout is likely to have reached as far as the southern coast of Spain as well as Sicily and Sardinia in Italy, within just 13 days of the blast. The French daily newspaper Le Parisien published the military papers on February 14, 2014.”

Le Parisien emphasized:

“The military recognizes that in some places the safety standards have been widely exceeded: Arak near Tamanrasset, where the water was highly contaminated but also in the Chadian capital N’Djamena….. The documents also show that dangerous levels of iodine-131 and caesium-137 were discovered in Chad’s capital, N’Djamena, along with Arak, near Tamanrasset in southern Algeria. However, it is impossible to tell the exact levels involved. Everyone knows today that these radioactive elements cause cancers or cardio-vascular diseases.”

These documents illustrated there were four atomic bomb tests in the Sahara prior to the independence of Algeria in 1962. In addition, the declassified materials indicate there were 13 additional tests in the post-independence period until 1966 when they were halted. France then resumed atomic testing in Polynesian territory in 1970.

The Digitial Journal report says: “Around 150,000 people living within the blast zone are reportedly yet to be compensated by 2014. On top of this, some illnesses suffered by French soldiers have been established to be the result of exposure to radiation from the blasts. The weapon was detonated atop a 105 meter tower near Reganne, Algeria. According to a description video, the test was a pure fission device with a plutonium core and a one-point initiated implosion system.”

Ghana’s criticism of France and other imperialist states in the early 1960s created animosity towards the Nkrumah government by the most powerful colonial and neo-colonial states. The concerns of the western governments and their allies in the region were fueled by the industrial and modernization program of the CPP. The opening of three universities: Legon, Cape Coast and Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, led to the rapid advancement of the technical and literary capacity of the newly-independent nation.

Nkrumah and the CPP through its coterie of journalists, propagandists, diplomats, educators and organizers welded tremendous influence among the masses of workers, youth and farmers throughout Africa. This dissemination of the Pan-Africanist and Socialist ideology of the party impacted African Americans and other diasporic communities in the Caribbean, Latin America and Western Europe. After 1961, Ghana moved even closer towards the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and other Socialist countries. With the CPP press being openly anti-capitalist in its orientation and editorial policy prompted the accelerated plans aimed at undermining the Nkrumaist project and the African Revolution as a whole.

After the deadly CIA-backed attacks between 1962 and 1964, the CPP government still remained intact. The Volta River Dam being constructed by Kaiser Aluminum was designed to provide the first stage of a rapid industrialization scheme which was spelled out in the party document “The Seven Year Plan for Work and Happiness.”

Therefore by February 7, 1964, just over a month after yet another assassination attempt against President Nkrumah, Shirley Graham Du Bois, then the Director of Ghana National Television, could write to her lawyer Bernard Jaffe in New York City from Accra saying:

“I didn’t expect things to ‘burst’ with such violence, but I am sure you have read enough in your newspaper and heard on the radio that relations between the U.S. and Ghana are ‘strained.’ I heard on BBC last night that the U.S. Ambassador had been recalled from here as a token of ‘displeasure’. I have not yet heard whether or not Ghana’s Ambassador has been recalled from Washington. I do not know what will happen. I do know that had the citizens of a small country, a few years ago, tore down the U.S. flag as was done here Tuesday, gun boats would already be in that small country’s harbor….. For several days the newspapers here really have out-done themselves. Somebody is really fed up!” (Correspondence in files stored at the Univ. of Mass. at Amherst)

Graham Du Bois continues in this same letter to Jaffe noting:

“For some time evidence has been piling up which the Ghanaians accept as proof that the last attempt on the President’s life was engineered by the CIA. A number of persons have been arrested. Last week five American teachers at the University were ordered to leave the country. And this week came the two huge demonstrations around the U.S. Embassy. There is no longer any secrecy about any of this. All I can say is the African Revolution is rolling along. And revolutions are never exactly joy rides.”

Nonetheless, the work of the CPP continued at full speed. Graham Du Bois’ correspondence with Jaffe reports on her trip to Japan in March 1964 where the government in Tokyo was providing considerable technical support for the development of Ghana National Television. She said in a letter dated March 18 that she “came back from Japan fired with an IDEA. I want to start Ghana Television in color! After what I have seen in Japan, after what I have learned, after the contacts I made, etc. etc. etc. I KNOW IT CAN BE DONE.”

Describing her responsibilities as a major figure in the CPP government, Graham Du Bois wrote in her letter to Jaffe that she was the head of an eight million dollar project to establish this television network. That she has “the responsibility to plan, administer, recruit workers, train workers here and decide who shall be sent away for special training, check equipment, choose equipment, buy equipment, watch over the final construction of buildings which is costing the government over three million pounds. The British and Canadians are already in on this project. The fact that I am now going to bring the Japanese in on it is going to be explosive news.”

The Ghana National Television Director tells Jaffe of her exceptional reception in Japan. Graham Du Bois says she was somewhat of a “sensation” in Japan. She was featured on Japanese television twice and in an extended interview over radio which was broadcast to many regions of the world. “The people were wonderful to me and I certainly did tie down their interest in Ghana!”

In addition to being Director of National Television, Graham Du Bois was also a member of the National Planning Commission and the Board of Directors of the State Publishing House, which opened during the latter months of 1964. Other responsibilities included serving on the Publicity Committee of the Secretariat for the Third Organization of African Unity Summit which took place in Accra in October 1965. She told Jaffe that “I am called upon at all hours of the day and night to be advisor, sympathizer, companion, relaxation and stimulation and sources of information, to fill a Consuming Fire of Demands, Visions and Needs!” (Letter to Jaffe, August 16, 1964)

However, by February 21, 1965, Graham Du Bois explains in another letter to Jaffe that the situation in Ghana is becoming complicated due to U.S. interference. She places these problems within the context of the broader instability and Cold War exigencies across the world. Although Ghana appears to be a place of refuge for African and African American freedom fighters with the rapid process of development, the independent character of the CPP government has made it a target of U.S. imperialism.

In response to the Pan-Africanist and Socialist orientation of the Nkrumah administration, Graham Du Bois asks:

“So what happens? Attempts at assassination fail! Attempts at stirring up internal dissension fail! We keep moving forward. So now the World Marketers close in! They are trying to strangle our economy, cut off our trade, freeze certain foreign exchange, while, at the same time, choke us with foreign goods. Nkrumah answers by refusing to release precious cocoa, imposing rigid import restrictions and telling us we must Do Without until new adjustments can be made with socialist countries! It will work. Nobody is going to starve, but new, industrial projects such as TELEVISION have been hard hit. Television must import everything in the line of equipment and working materials. And here we are—in the last quarter, ready to make final for beginning and unable to get final essentials for our work. I must ‘hold the line’ and ‘keep the high morals and spirits of my workers’, continue with everything it is possible to do—and there is much to do—and radiate assurance that everything will be all right!… All the forces of history are on our side. It would be ridiculous to treat it as such. But this kind of situation produces daily a hundred irritating stresses and strains, uncertainties and embarrassments.”

Some four months later, Graham Du Bois records the escalating pressure from the imperialist countries. She notes in her letter to Jaffe on June 17, 1965, that despite the fact of being “shaken, weary and bloody, our heads are ‘unbowed’ and we are now marching forward on firm ground which rises to a higher level than ever before.”

The Ghana National Television Director reports that: “Every possible economic and political device has been used by enemies to prevent the holding of the Third African Summit Conference in Accra next September as scheduled. But last week at the Foreign Ministers Conference in Lagos, Nigeria, the last obstacle was swept away and by unanimous agreement the Conference will be held.”

This OAU Summit held in Accra during October 1965 was the last before the overthrow of the CPP that following February 24, 1966. The summit took place in a brand new conference center that was magnificent in its splendor. American novelist Truman Nelson was interested in traveling to Ghana as an incentive for a writing project on the life of Dr. Du Bois. He arrived during the period leading up to the OAU Summit in Accra and Graham Du Bois felt that the writer was roundly impressed with the political and economic progress being made in Ghana.

In a letter to Jaffe dated November 21, 1965, she says: “In spite of all we tell them, Americans do come to Ghana with certain preconceived ideas. Now, as you know, Ghana is a big surprise when you see it for the first time under normal conditions.”

Of the OAU gathering, Graham Du Bois stressed:

“There is nothing like our Summit Compound in the world. I have seen the United Nations building in New York, the Conference Chambers in Geneva and conference building in many world capitals. But ours is uniquely distinctive! The first time Truman entered the Conference Hall (the Compound is composed of three buildings) he said in a stunned voice, ‘But this is better than the UN Building!’”

Nelson was taken to the site of the Akosombo Dam on the Volta River which was scheduled for a grand opening by January 1966. He was able to return to Accra with President Nkrumah in the state helicopter.

The Director felt the staff of the Ghana network was highly professional in handling the event. Graham Du Bois said:

“In addition to pieces which we had collected from every independent African country and presented to the edification of the Heads of State and their delegations, we covered all open sessions of the Conference live. This meant that some of my teams—with me—were often on duty from early morning of one day until two or three a.m. the next morning. We had both Josephine Baker from Paris and Mariam Makeba from New York as ‘special entertainers’.”

Nevertheless, the OAU Summit in Ghana attracted the ire of the U.S. and other imperialist governments. Many of the Heads of State failed to attend sending envoys instead. The burgeoning crisis over the imminent “Unilateral Declaration of Independence” by the British settler-colony in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) was the focus of the Summit along with the Nkrumaist objective of the formation of a United States Africa encompassing an “All-African Military High Command”, political and economic integration and the consequent breaking down of borders and the adoption of a single currency.

By November 11, the UDI had been adopted in Rhodesia leading to United Nations and Commonwealth sanctions against the settler-colony. However, Nkrumah demanded the total isolation of the settlers even up to the point of military intervention. The CPP government in line with the resolutions passed at the OAU Summit in Accra broke diplomatic relations with Britain along with nine of the 39 governments who were then member-states.

These other OAU member countries included Algeria, Congo-Brazzaville, Guinea-Conakry, Mauritania, Mali, Tanzania, Sudan and the United Arab Republic (Egypt). After the coup against the CPP in February 1966, a number of these states gradually re-established relations by 1967-1968. (Modern Diplomacy, R. P. Barston, Fourth Edition, 2013)

In a December 12, 1965 letter from Graham Du Bois to Jaffe, she remarks: “you can imagine the general state of our nerves here in Ghana. Thursday evening’s television showed me leading all my television workers to sign up for our Voluntary Peoples Militia.

The coup against Nkrumah was engineered by the CIA and the U.S. State Department on February 24, 1966. Acting on behalf of imperialist interests, a group of lower-ranking military officers and police waited until the President left the country on a mission aimed at ending the U.S. war against Vietnam. He stopped over in Peking in route to Hanoi and was informed by Premier Chou En Lai that a coup had taken place in Ghana. Nkrumah acted with disbelief while the Chinese Communist leader told him that these are things which occur during the course of the revolutionary struggle. (See Dark Days in Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, 1968)

Conclusion: Pan-Africanism or Neo-Colonialism in the 21st Century?

“Operation Cold Chop” was conducted with extreme swiftness and efficiency during the early morning hours of February 24, 1966. The top leaders within the Ghana military who did not support the coup were either assassinated or placed in detention. Hundreds of CPP officials were arrested and taken immediately to prison.

At the same time, those held in detention by the CPP government were released in order to lead demonstrations in support of the coup through the streets of Accra. Thousands of party members, functionaries, propagandists and journalists were terminated from their positions. CPP books and other Socialist literature were burned in the streets in an orgy of counter-revolutionary fervor in genuflection to the imperialist countries.

Industrial projects, educational programs and party publications were shut down under the guise that they were not profitable and a liability to the Ghana state. Show trials in the form of tribunals against corruption were held for national and international consumption in an effort to rationalize and justify the unconstitutional removal of an elected and recognized government.

No real appreciation of the challenges facing a post-colonial African state was taken into consideration in developing the narrative against the Nkrumah-CPP era. With Ghana being a former slave and colonial territory, the structural obstacles to national integration and economic development were formidable by the time the country embarked upon an independent path.

During the early to mid-1960s when Nkrumah was in power under the Republic system, approximately 60 percent of the labor force was involved in agricultural production. In 1961, manufacturing generated a mere two percent of the overall gross domestic product. Agricultural production of manioc, maize, yams, plantain, taro, millets, and sorghums, and rice accounted for 80 percent or more of the caloric consumption.  (See Ann Seidman and Marvin P. Miracle, State Farms in Ghana, 1968)

Nonetheless, another impediment in evaluating any form of progress by developing states is related to the limited nature of data which can hamper any substantial assessment and analysis of what is considered success and failure as it relates to post-colonial development projects particularly those that sought to shift production towards state-owned enterprises in the agricultural sector.

As the process of evaluation of Ghana’s largest agricultural export, cocoa, analysts suggest that the data available is much more reliable. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) in its statistical reports on the production of cocoa indicate that there was an increase of 70 percent in the aftermath of World War II. However, there was a decline in cocoa prices on the international market in the early 1960s and consequently foreign exchange earned by Ghana remained stagnant.

By 1961 as the development policies enacted by the Nkrumah government shifted more towards the models in operation in the Soviet Union, China and Eastern European socialist states, the First Republic sought to invest more resources into the creation of state farms. Although the British colonial authorities had established state enterprise projects in agricultural as early as 1950, more of these efforts were undertaken under the Seven-Year Development Plan for 1963-64 to 1969-70, which was designed to institutionalize Socialist economic production inside the Ghana.

Under the rubric of the State Farms Corporation (SFC), the Nkrumah government set about to transform agricultural production with the expressed intent to reduce reliance on the importation of both food stuffs and other commodities. These SFC initiated projects would also be utilized in supplying materials for industrial production as well.

The Development program issued in 1962 says:

“The farming plan for the State Farms Corporation during the next seven years envisages heavy concentration on cereal and basic crops especially to meet demand in the rapidly expanding urban areas and on the establishment of new farming acreages in the savannah zones of Ghana. More specifically, the State Farms Corporation should concern itself with the introduction of new crops and proven techniques and establish itself in uncultivated, rather than already farmed areas. This would be an effective means of popularizing new methods and ensuring that idle land resources are put to productive use. In addition, state farms will play a leading part in the production of sugar cane, cotton, rubber, non-apparel fibers and meat where large-scale organization has decided advantages in production.”

University of Wisconsin-trained economist Ann Seidman working alongside Reginald H. Green at the University of Ghana-Legon from 1962-66 sought to provide an academic framework for the Nkrumaist vision of African Unification and Socialism. Understanding the significance of rejecting the western orthodoxy of economic theory and its applicability to Africa, Seidman and Green worked to provide the empirical data to verify that integration of continental states was a prerequisite to genuine growth and development.

Of course this viewpoint fell into institutional disfavor after the CIA and State Department engineered coup of February 1966. Moreover, the failure to recognize imperialism as the central impediment to African unification and progress hampers any assessment of why the First Republic efforts were thwarted. After 1966, even Seidman and Green in their published 1968 book “Unity or Poverty?: The Economics of Pan-Africanism”, attempts to dislodge the imperatives of African integration from its political and ideological basis. The systematic underdevelopment of Africa is a direct result of the centuries-long legacy of slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism. In order for Africa to advance economically the basis of its continuing exploitation and oppression must be overthrown.

These are clearly political questions that lead to economic visions and solutions and not vice-versa. Without a strategic outlook informed by an anti-imperialist ideological orientation the concept of African unity and economic integration can never come into view.

Furthermore by ignoring or even denying the role of the principal architect of neo-colonialism and imperialism in the second half of the 20th century extending to the first two decades of the 21th century, leaves the African workers, youth and farmers without the ideological underpinning to challenge the status quo. The inability of African states to develop sustainable economic growth and transformation cannot be explained solely from the perspectives of technological, managerial and skill deficiencies. All former and currently existing Socialist states have been plagued by the same challenges and have overcome them as in China, Democratic Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and other areas where advancements have been made even without the realization of a Socialist society, as in African states breaking the chains of European domination.

Seidman in co-authoring a paper on “State Farms in Ghana” with Marvin P. Miracle concludes correctly in the first instance saying: “In sum, Ghana’s state farms programs strongly suggests that for any large-scale farming projects to succeed in Africa there must be careful prior research, adequate numbers of managerial personnel, and trained technicians, and availability of all the complementary resources and marketing facilities.” Nevertheless, these two scholars unfortunately fall into a “technocratic” mode of analysis that nullifies the conceptual basis for Pan-Africanism and Socialism in Africa by stressing that “Initially, at least, such projects should probably be limited to those tree crops and industrial raw materials associated with given processing facilities. Where possible, efforts should be made to stimulate private production of additional supplies.” (p. 46)

From an ideological standpoint this form of economic logic leads right into providing a rationale for what became known as “Neo-Liberal” reforms which took hold when the so-called National Liberation Council” was installed by the CIA and State Department after the police and military coup. Seidman and Green emphasize that: “In the last analysis, all the financial resources of the state (and of Ghana were, for Africa, extensive) are not adequate to meet all the expanding food and raw material needs of a developing economy by means of state-owned projects. If the Government of Ghana had used the same amount of money and organizational talent that were expended on the state farm program to develop techniques and provide incentives for small farmers, there would probably have been a far greater increase in domestic food production.”

As recent as 2014, in a paper published by Gerardo Serra on the work of Seidman and Green in Ghana before and after the CIA and State Department backed coup, entitled “Continental Visions: Ann Seidman, Reginald H. Green and the Economics of African Unity in 1960s Ghana”, the author makes what can only be interpreted as a political attack on Nkrumaist Pan-Africanism by claiming:

“The Kwame Nkrumah Conference Center (of Job 600, as it came to be called since it was the six hundredth project realized by the Ghana National Construction Corporation) estimated to cost between 8 million and 10 million British pounds at a time where foreign exchange reserves were exhausted and shortages of basic goods were plaguing the economy ‘became the symbol of all Nkrumah’s foolish prestige projects’. Amidst this atmosphere of increasing popular discontent at home and isolation from other African leaders, Nkrumah was overthrown in February 1966. Although the reasons behind the his overthrow had more to do with the mismanagement of the Ghanaian economy than with the tension pervading the Pan-African scene, the revolutionary dream of a Union Government and a continental plan ended with the fall of Nkrumah, while the crowds in Accra were cheering and smashing statues of the former leader.”

In following this clearly pessimistic outlook on the capacity of Africans to determine their own destiny and failing to mention the well-documented plotting, machinations and execution of a police and military coup by the CIA and State Department, not only distorts the political history of Africa but also conveniently dismisses the ongoing role of imperialism, led by Washington and Wall Street, in blocking and reversing any gains made during the course of the African Revolution since the beginning of the post-World War II period.

The army and police officials who took charge of the government formed an alliance with the opposition forces many of whom campaigned against national independence in 1957 saying Ghana was not prepared for liberation under a unitary political system. Those Ghanaian nationals and expatriates that worked within the context of the CPP-led revolutionary government were rendered unemployed forcing many into poverty and exile.

Graham Du Bois was placed under house arrest and soon left the country for Egypt. First Lady Madam Fathia Nkrumah was transported back to her Egyptian home in a plane sent by the government of President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

African Americans such as Julian Mayfield and other progressives from the U.S. were forced to abandon projects established by the Nkrumah government. The ideological orientation of the so-called “National Liberation Council” was clearly pro-imperialist since they owed their existence to the extra-legal actions of the CIA and U.S. State Department.

John Stockwell, a former CIA operative, said of the American involvement in the coup in 1966 that: “Howard Bane, who was the CIA station chief in Accra, engineered the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah. Inside the CIA it was quite clear. Howard Bane got a double promotion, and was awarded the Intelligence Star for the overthrow of Kwame. The magic of it was that Howard Bane had enough imagination and drive to run this operation without ever documenting what he was doing and there wasn’t one shred of paper that was generated that would name the CIA hierarchy as being responsible.“(Quote printed in Ghanaweb.com from author of In Search of Enemies, 1978)

The overall status of women in post-coup Ghana was catastrophic with the dismissal of parliament and the removal of cabinet ministers. Most of the women involved in the CPP remained barred and alienated from Ghana politics.

Consequently, the domestic and international influence of women declined. Whereas under the Nkrumah government as early as 1959, African American artist and writer Elton C. Fax wrote in the New York Age of his meeting with Federation of Women Secretary General Dr. Evelyn Armarteifio in Ghana who asked him why Blacks in the U.S. continued to refer to themselves as “Negroes” when the term Afro-American was more appropriate. This sentiment was reflected in the CPP press where the term “Negro” was generally not used.

Such an encounter by Fax while he sketched this woman leader who said to him that she had lived and studied in the U.S., was deemed significant enough by veteran Barbadian-born Socialist and Nationalist leader Richard B. Moore of Harlem to utilize the quote from the New York Age article in his book entitled “The Name Negro: It’s Origins and Evil Use”, published in 1960. (p. 92)

Six years later in 1965, the Assistant Director of the National Council of Ghana Women, Agatha Dumolga, visited the U.S. as a representative of the Nkrumah government. She was one of 15 women selected to visit over a period of 11 weeks.

Making an impression on the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper journalist Elinor Kelley when Dumolga visited this Southern city in July 1965, an article featuring her begins by stating: “Women are taking on more responsibility in running at least one country and they’re getting plenty of help from their parliament. Social welfare is the big area where women are making their presence felt in the government of Ghana on the West African coast.” (July 15, p. 15)

Kelley reported that Dumolga was visiting supermarkets “to see how food was displayed. She will be in Memphis one week visiting welfare agencies, Juvenile Court, hospitals and talking to women’s groups in an idea exchange program. Miss Dumolga said 30 of the 114 members of Ghana’s parliament are women. ‘The women speak for the women and the men speak for the men’, she said.”

The writer noted Dumolga was adorned in traditional attire from Ghana as her picture appears in the Commercial Appeal wearing a dress made of kente cloth, carrying a fashionable purse and wearing her hair in a similar style as many African American women would in 1965. Dumolga was quoted as saying: “We have all these things—homes for children, juvenile courts, hospitals, in my own country. But I want to compare the way things are done here and at home.”

This same article surmises that: “In Ghana, Miss Dumolga does work that might be compared with a home demonstration agent in the United States. She goes from town to town, teaching women about balanced diets, gardening and sewing. Women are best suited for this. It’s easier to make contacts with the women because they take care of the whole house. If they have the understanding they can pass it on to the family.”

The report ends noting that Dumolga was the guest of Mrs. Emalyn Myles of 1390 Chadwick Circle, who was a member of the African American women’s sorority Delta Sigma Theta, which was co-sponsoring the tour with the African Women’s Corps.

Although some of the myths fostered by the NLC and its imperialist backers were that Ghana faced bankruptcy, the deployment of troops to fight in Rhodesia and egregious theft of public resources by Nkrumah himself, these allegations were never proven. The economic conditions inside the country deteriorated in the post-coup period and the clout that Ghana held within Africa and the entire African world has never been retrieved after five decades of both military and civilian rule.

After February 24, 1966, Nkrumah settled in Guinea-Conakry where he was appointed Co-President by the Secretary General Ahmed Sekou Toure of the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG), a fraternal organization. Nkrumah wrote several pioneering theoretical works during the 1966-1971 period while in Guinea. His writings remain an inspiration to revolutionaries throughout the continent and the international community.

President Toure hosted Nkrumah until 1971 when he was flown to Romania for medical treatment after which he was diagnosed with cancer. Nkrumah died on April 27, 1972 and was given a state funeral by the Guinea government.

Based on certain negotiated conditions, President Toure agreed to send the remains of Nkrumah back to Ghana after being requested for burial by a newly-installed military regime which took power in January 1972. Nkrumah was entombed in his village home of Nkroful in the Nzima region. During the early 1990s, his remains were taken to Accra for burial.

Economic conditions in Ghana had so declined by the mid-1980s that it became the first country to impose the dreaded Structural Adjustment Plans (SAPs) in Africa. The SAPs enacted draconian cuts in education and social services, resulting in the decline of currency values and the further privatization of public assets.

Today the African Union (AU) has passed resolutions mandating the participation of women in the political, economic and educational affairs of member-states. Although progress has been made in several states, there is much to be desired. Africa remains under the domination of international finance capital and any movement towards genuine unification and continental socialist development can only occur after a fundamental break with world capitalism.

The Nkrumah years of transition from 1951-1956 and the independence period of 1957-1966, set the standard for African development and political imperatives related to inter-state integration and Women’s affairs. In 1999, former Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi hosted an OAU Summit in Sirte, which drafted resolutions that would bring about the transition from the old continental group to the AU. Many of the aims and objectives of Nkrumah’s Ghana were adopted, if only on a symbolic level, at Sirte in 1999. Subsequently, the first U.S. president of African descent, Barack Obama, serving the interests of the ruling class and the Pentagon, led in the military and economic destruction of this state which was bombed for seven months in 2011 with the approval of the UN Security Council.

Libya, like Ghana before it, illustrates the dangerous nature of imperialism in Africa. Nkrumah in last book published while he was in office entitled “Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism”, correctly identifies the U.S. as the principal enemy of Pan-Africanism and Socialism.

In 2016, with the decline in commodity prices and the increasing military and intelligence penetration of Africa, a struggle must be waged to guarantee the sovereignty and economic independence of the continent. This will prove to be the major challenge of the initial decades of the 21st century not only for Africa but for all oppressed nations and peoples of the world.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pan-Africanism, Women’s Rights and Socialist Development

The German paper Die Welt is staunchly pro-NATO and pro-U.S. It always follows the official, conservative propaganda lines up to the dot on the last i. But in today’s Sunday edition one of its well-connected journalists and department head argues for a change of direction on Syria. Assad is not going to go away and “the west” needs to accept that to prevent a Salafist take-over of that country.

Buried in the German language piece is this version of events of the 2013 Sarin attack in Ghouta and the “lack of response” by the Obama administration (my translation):

When on August 21 2013 the nerve gas Sarin was used in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, [Obama] had to make a decision. He ordered to prepare an attack by sea-launched cruise missiles. But the British secret service was in possession of a sampling of the used Sarin. An analysis showed it not to be Sarin from the Syrian regime, but from the inventory of al-Nusra. Obama dropped his plan.

There are several problems with this line of events. The British parliament had rejected an attack on Syria. The U.S. congress refused to authorize one. If Obama would have attacked, the Republicans would have, without doubt, started impeachment procedures against him. The domestic policy implications, not the origin of the Sarin,  stopped Obama’s attack plans.

The explanation of Die Welt reporter, that al-Nusra Sarin’s was different from Syrian government Sarin, is also dubious. According to a recent extensive report based on interviews with an al-Qaeda aligned “rebel” in Syria, al-Qaeda acquired the Sarin from a storage facility of the Syrian regime when it conquered the Syrian base of Regiment 111 in late 2012. This was before the split of al-Nusra and the Islamic State. There would thus be no difference between “regime Sarin” and “al-Qaeda Sarin”.

But even completely independent of the origin of the Sarin, U.S. missile experts had long concluded that the missiles which carried the Sarin in the attack could not have been fired from government held areas. Their range was simply too short. Thus the event must have been a false flag attack.

Nonetheless, the German newspaper analysis is a sign that the tide has turned and that the official “regime change” storm is calming down. The dismantling of a major official propaganda item, like the Sarin attack, points to the introduction of a new narrative. How that will develop further is yet to be seen.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria’s 2013 Ghouta Sarin Attack Committed by Al-Qaeda. German Media Die Welt

US Embassy in Bangkok sidesteps evidence and calls claims that America supports terrorism and regime change “ridiculous and reckless” even as it supports terrorism and regime change worldwide.

On August 19, 2016, The Nation published an editorial titled, “Is regime change a motive behind the recent bombings?

The editorial reflects growing distrust between Thais and the United States, who has for years now openly undermined political stability and the revered institutions of Thailand through its overt support for the deposed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his political supporters as well as throngs of foreign-funded organisations masquerading as “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs).

The editorial points out several key facts which include:

  • the US having looked the other way when it came to egregious transgressions of the former prime minister, using “democracy” as the excuse;
  • the fact that US Embassy personnel in Bangkok have frequently visited with members of the [Thaksin Sinawatra’s]  red-shirt faction for years since the former prime minister went into self-exile;
  • that the United States has been involved in regime changes around the world more times and in more ways than anybody can count.

The veracity of the 2009 cable released by Wikileaks mentioned in the editorial has never been challenged by the US State Department. The fact that Bradley Manning, who allegedly leaked the US diplomatic cables in the first place, is in prison for violating the US Espionage Act, not for fraud, indicates that indeed the contents of the cables are accurate.

The US and the foreign media who represent both it and its transatlantic partners in Europe have clearly attempted to look past many and egregious transgressions committed by Thaksin Shinawatra and his political supporters, including violence they have carried out in 2009, 2010 and again between 2013-2014. Often the US Embassy, who regularly and very specifically condemns any and all attacks on opposition figures they are supporting, will make no comment at all about opposition violence, or will word condemnations in such a way as to not identify those who are behind the violence.

The US has openly aided and abetted both Thaksin Shinawatra’s “red shirts” (officially: United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD)), with US Embassy staff visiting them in very public displays of support, as well as through large sums of annual funding going to various pro-opposition organisations including Prachatai, the Cross Cultural Foundation, Thai Netizen Network, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, Cafe Democracy and ENLAWTHAI Foundation just to name a few.

Thaksin Shinawatra’s own Thailand-based media organisation, VoiceTV, would brag about US Embassy staff visiting Shinawatra’s “red villages” in an article titled, “US Embassy Official Visits Udorn’s Red-Shirt Village,” which stated:

Jessica Smith, currently attached to the US Embassy to Bangkok, traveled to the upper- northeastern province and were warmly welcomed by dozens of Red Shirt villagers in a suburban area.

Inside the village is a poster with a picture of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, viewed as spiritual leader of Red Shirt activists, and English phrases saying: Long Live the Thai and American Peoples. Long Live the Democracy.

Smith, a former education program specialist at the US Department of Education, met with Kwanchai Praipana, leader of a noted Club of People Who Love Udorn, the official name of the province’s Red Shirt movement, and former foreign minister Prajuab Chaiyasan.

The article would also admit:

Smith and other US embassy officials planned to visit the Red-Shirt Village elsewhere in other provinces to gather more information about the grassroot people’s political attitudes and activities. 

And finally, the US currently is openly pursuing regime change in Syria, with US policymakers and US State Department, openly declaring US intentions to overthrow the government of Syria to replace it with one more to their liking. This is a repeat of what the US has openly done in both Iraq and Libya.

The many other examples cited in The Nation’s editorial (Mexico in 1846, then post-World War II intervention in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), Panama (1989), Kuwait, Iraq (2003), Honduras (2009), Syria (2012) and Ukraine (2014)) are also up for little debate.

(US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) literally on the stage with protesters in Kiev, Ukraine during 2013-2014 US-backed regime change that saw an elected government violently removed from power.)

 

The last nation listed, Ukraine (2014), even featured US politicians quite literally taking to the stage during the violent protests that eventually overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and plunged the nation into dysfunction and civil war ever since.

With all of this in mind, and with the US Embassy’s vitriolic response sidestepping all of these facts, what should Thai people believe?

The US Embassy’s “Rebuttal”

One would expect the US Embassy, staffed by experienced and professional diplomats, to take the waning trust between the US and Thailand and address it seriously. Instead, they dismiss the legitimate concerns and facts mentioned in the editorial as “ridiculous” and “reckless.”

(Peter Haymond, US Embassy Bangkok.)

The rebuttal titled, “Accusing US of complicity |in bombings is reckless and ridiculous,” includes the slanderous and baseless statement:

…we were surprised to see a conspiracy theory dragged from the fringes of the Internet to The Nation’s op-ed pages. Any suggestion that the US in any way supported these cowardly acts of violence is both ridiculous and reckless.

The US Embassy’s response, penned by Peter M Haymond, not only is a personal attack on the author, Pornpimol Kanchanalak, but an attack on millions of Thais who are developing increasing suspicion regarding their American “allies.”

The US Embassy’s response fails categorically to address the US Embassy cables that admit to knowledge of Thaksin Shinawatra’s supporters operating in the deep south and the possibility that violence unfolding there may be connected to Shinawatra’s bid to return to power, rather than to insurgents.

The US Embassy’s response fails to answer for decades of “regime change” and wars worldwide that it has openly led and the destruction of millions of lives that have resulted from it. It has also failed to explain why, when it has committed such widespread criminality against all other nations, it would for some reason “spare” Thailand.

Pornpimol Kanchanalak is not a lone voice raising these concerns. She represents millions of Thais who can hear the US Embassy’s statements, compare them with the US Embassy’s actions and see the immense disparity between the two.

The US Embassy’s response never explains to Thais why it is funding organisations disingenuously posing as NGOs, or why these organisations unanimously support Thailand’s opposition led by Thaksin Shinawatra. Their response also fails to explain why US Embassy personnel regularly and publicly meet with supporters of an ousted prime minster who is a convicted criminal and fugitive and why Thais should not see this as anything but aiding and abetting an enemy of the Kingdom.

Pornpimol Kanchanalak is not a lone voice raising these concerns. She represents millions of Thais who can hear the US Embassy’s statements, compare them with the US Embassy’s actions and see the immense disparity between the two.

When the US Embassy fails to address these concerns and dismisses them as “ridiculous” and“reckless,” they are dismissing the legitimate concerns of millions of Thai people. But as the US has done in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine, disenfranchising the majority while cultivating a dangerous and violent minority appears to be the “American way.”

The US is a guest in Thailand. A guest who dismisses the concerns of a host regarding their actions is a poor guest indeed.

It is a guest who doesn’t deserve the hospitality of a gracious host. And while the US is a powerful, aggressive and dangerous world power making the prospects of removing this unwelcome guest unrealistic, the US Embassy through its own disregard of the anger and resentment it itself has created in Thailand, justifiably is leading to the US being seen as not a guest at all, but an invader, a meddler and a disruptive and dangerous influence both within Thailand and throughout greater Asia.

Thais Aren’t the Only “Ridiculous and Reckless” Victims of American Terrorism 

The United States, who wilfully lied to the world regarding alleged “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq ahead of a highly destructive invasion followed by an equally destructive decade of occupation, has likewise been accused of wielding terrorism in the divided and destroyed nation as a means of weakening Iraqi resolve and keeping Iraq subservient to US regional ambitions for years to come.

(United States Secretary of State Collin Powell provides false testimony in front of the United Nations about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction used as a pretext for the highly destructive invasion and occupation of Iraq by US-led forces. Is there any reason any other nation should be considered “ridiculous and reckless” for fearing such lies, treachery and violence could be eventually used against them?) 

 

US media organisation ABC News in a 2016 article titled, “One Third of Iraqis Think US Supports Terrorism, ISIS,” would admit:

…as many as one third of Iraqis believed as recently as last fall that the U.S. “supports terrorism in general or ISIL [ISIS] specifically,” according to a recent U.S. State Department report. Forty percent of the country said the U.S. is purposefully “working to destabilize Iraq and control its natural resources.” 

The figures come from State Department polling cited in a State Inspector General report that was published online last week.

ABC News would attempt to cite the US “spending billions of dollars and spilling American blood in the fight against ISIS,” as a means of framing the suspicions of Iraqis as likewise “ridiculous and reckless,” despite the fact that the Islamic State specifically arose in the chaos created by US lies and the subsequent invasion and occupation that followed.

And as documents leaked from within the US government itself reveal, the US not only isn’t truly fighting terrorism in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter), they played an intentional, premeditated role in the Islamic State’s rise in the Middle East and North Africa.

The US is a State Sponsor of Terrorism 

The US is currently engaged directly or indirectly in hostilities in at least the following countries: Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mali and Ukraine.

Of these conflicts, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Ukraine are direct results of US-backed “regime change.”

Many of the proxies the US is using, particularly in Syria, are quite literally listed terrorist groups designated as such by the US State Department itself. When earlier this month many of the militant groups funded, armed and trained by the United States fell under the umbrellas of the newly re-branded US State Department designated foreign terrorist organisation Jubhat Al Nusra, the US suddenly found itself openly backing what is quite literally Al Qaeda in Syria.

(Islamic State terrorists using US-made TOW missiles in eastern Syria.)

 

Considering this, is it really “ridiculous and reckless” to suspect the US may be supporting terrorism elsewhere around the world, particularly in regards to pursuing “regime change?”

One must also consider the fact that one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism on the planet, Saudi Arabia, counts the US as its oldest and closest ally. Saudi Arabia is quite literally the prototype upon which the Islamic State was based, and a creation of Saudi and US geopolitical ambitions according to the US’ own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

A leaked 2012 US DIA report (PDF) would admit:

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

To make sure readers understood clearly what the DIA meant by “supporting powers,” the report would state:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

Not only is the US openly pursuing regime change around the world including in Syria, it has admitted itself to seeking the creation of a “Salafist [Islamic] principality [State]” in eastern Syria, precisely where the Islamic State now resides.

(US National Security Adviser and policymaker Zbigniew Brzezinski is pictured with a Pakistani officer as part of efforts to funnel weapons and facilitate training for militants in Afghanistan which included US-Saudi sponsored Al Qaeda.)

 

Readers should note that the Islamic State itself is but an offshoot of Al Qaeda, whose inception was likewise owed to joint US-Saudi geopolitical ambitions in the 1980s versus the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The real question isn’t whether or not a destabilised Thailand suits the United States, since destabilisation and war seems to suit it everywhere else.

The real question that should be asked of Thais themselves is whether it is worth the risk to believe verified, serial liars and warmongers regarding their assurances that for some unexplained reason, Thailand is the only nation they do not seek to divide and destroy. Thais should carefully think about the answer, particularly considering the consequences of US-led tragedies unfolding right now in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Ukraine. Is it worth the risk to take the US at its word even if the evidence wasn’t already so overwhelming?

For the Thai government, they have attempted to play down the threat the US poses to Thailand and its future, realistically understanding the disparity between US power and Thailand’s ability to defend itself against such power.

It will be up to Thais themselves to expose the US’ role in Thailand’s ongoing political conflict so that each and every time a bomb goes off somewhere in the nation, the US is immediately the first suspect to come to mind, thus disarming their attempts to divide Thailand along politics, religion and class as they have so many other nations throughout the world and throughout history.

It is not that the US at one time in the distant past lit entire nations on fire with its extraterritorial geopolitical meddling, it is that nations right now are burning to the ground because of America’s extraterritorial meddling. Thais are not “ridiculous and reckless” to assume they are simply next in line.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Does the U.S. “Support Terrorism” and “Regime Change” in Thailand? US Embassy Dismisses the Evidence…

Reports are emerging of widespread armed conflict between Kurdish militants and  Syrian forces. Concentrated in and around eastern Syria and the city of Hasaka, reports indicate that Syrian forces may be on the verge of completely withdrawing.

The Kurdish offensive is being backed by US forces, including airpower overhead and special operations personnel on the ground. Syrian attempts to use its own air force to counter the spreading conflict appeared to be checked by what was essentially a defacto no-fly zone established by the US over eastern Syria.

Reuters in their report, “Syria Kurds win battle with government, Turkey mobilizes against them,” would state:

Syrian Kurdish forces took near complete control of Hasaka city on Tuesday as a ceasefire ended a week of fighting with the government, consolidating the Kurds’ grip on Syria’s northeast as Turkey increased its efforts to check their influence.

The Kurdish YPG militia, a critical part of the U.S.-backed campaign against Islamic State, already controls swathes of northern Syria where Kurdish groups have established de facto autonomy since the start of the Syria war in 2011.

Analysts and those sympathetic to the Kurdish cause, including their perceived role in fighting terrorist organizations in Syria including the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS), see this as a positive development toward a greater and independent “Kurdistan.”

However, the facts on the ground appear to suggest a much more likely and unfortunate future.

A Kurdish Version of Israel 

Although U.S. forces in areas controlled by the Kurds declined to be interviewed, there is evidence everywhere of their presence and the focus on Mosul. The United States, in both Iraq and Syria, has sought out proxy ground forces, backed by air power, to fight the Islamic State. It is a policy that recorded a recent success with the recapture of Ramadi by Iraqi forces, but Mosul, one of the first major prizes to fall into the hands of the Islamic State, will provide a significant test for both the Iraqis and Kurds. And U.S. officials say it could be many more months before local forces have the training and equipment needed to move on a city where the militants have hardened defenses.

But clearly, in light of recent fighting between US-backed Kurdish militants and Syrian forces, including a near direct confrontation between US and Syrian airpower, ISIS is not the intended target.The US has indeed sought out “proxy ground forces” in Syria, but long before ISIS was turned into a geopolitical brand, and to topple the Syrian government, not clear Syria of terrorists the US itself helped move onto the battlefield in the first place.

It is within this context that it can be seen that the Kurds are being used to first destroy Syria and then they themselves will be pitted against one another and whomever their neighbors end up being as a perpetually dependent, needy “semi-state” used as a wedge and employed by Washington, London, and Brussels well into the foreseeable future.

Kurdish forces that allowed themselves to be used by Western interests were used as one of several components – the others involving sectarian extremists including Al Qaeda – to divide and destroy Iraq, and now they are being used against Syria, and soon against Iran.

Stratfor’s report titled, “Iranian Kurds Return to Arms,” provides some initial insight into what will undoubtedly evolve into a much wider Iranian conflict in the near future should US objectives be achieved and expanded upon in eastern Syria.The use of Kurds by Western interests is a modern-day example of classical imperial divide and rule in motion. What the Kurds “think” they are fighting for is absolutely irrelevant versus what in reality they are being armed, organized, and used for by Western interests.The most likely scenario – should the majority of Kurdish armed groups maintain this current course – sees them being used to divide and destroy Syria, creating enduring chaos they themselves will be exposed to.

This, by necessity will lead to heavy reliance upon outside support to survive in that chaos leading to the creation for all intents and purposes of a Kurdish-version of Israel – a stunted faux-state perpetually dependent on Western support and ruled through corrupt proxy regimes unrepresentative of the people they presume governance over. It is a future of perpetual war with Turkey, whatever remains of Syria and Iraq, and a growing conflict with Iran driven not by genuine Kurdish aspirations or interests, but exploited ideological aspirations serving Western designs to undermine and topple Iranian power and institutions and reassert Western hegemony across the region.

Kurdish Story Not Quite Over Yet 

Despite the grim prospects that face Kurdish groups that have allowed themselves to be used by Western interests to create chaos they themselves will suffer perpetually within – this is still not an inevitability.Russia and Iran still have significant sway among Kurdish factions throughout the region and could help mitigate the damage a US-led attempt to dismember Syria through Kurdish proxies will exact. While this might involve concessions on Syria’s part regarding degrees of Kurdish autonomy, it will ultimately cut off what has been now several years of continuous conflict consuming the Middle Easte and North Africa.Additionally, should moves by Syria and its allies abruptly change the dynamics on the ground in Syria, including moves made by Turkey should it have truly drifted beyond NATO influence, this could effectively end or at least minimize US operations in eastern Syria and leave Kurdish militants dependent on US support isolated and more willing to negotiate.

While these possibilities exist, they will require immense diplomatic, political, economic, and military effort to bring into reality.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Syria’s Kurds “Think” They are Fighting For Versus Reality

northsyria20160828 turkeyUS-NATO-Turkey Invasion of Northern Syria: CIA “Failed” Turkey Coup Lays Groundwork for Broader Middle East War?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 29 2016

In mid-July,  President Erdogan pointed his finger at the CIA, accusing US intelligence of having supported a failed coup directed against his government.   Turkish officials pointed to a deterioration of US-Turkey relations following Washington’s refusal to extradite Fethullah Gülen, the alleged architect of the failed coup. Erdogan’s Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag was categorical: “If the US does not deliver (Gulen), they will sacrifice relations with Turkey for the sake of a terrorist”. Public opinion was led to believe that relations with the US had deteriorated. This was a hoax.

o-GLOBAL-ECONOMY-facebook

Fabricating Lies, Promoting Imperial Wars, Decimating Countries, Impoverishing Millions: Megaphone for Mass Murder

By Prof. James Petras, August 29 2016

The Financial Times editorial page carries a logo that proclaims: “Without fear and without favour”. Indeed the editors have shown no fear when it comes to. . . fabricating lies, promoting imperial wars decimating countries and impoverishing millions, whether in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and now Venezuela.  The fearless “Lies of Our Times” have been at the forefront forging pretexts for inciting imperial armies to crush independent governments.

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_3_(cropped)

This America, This House Divided, Cannot Stand

By Michael T. Bucci, August 29 2016

In an election cycle that has scored the lowest in human decency, civilized behavior and speech – from Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage to Donald J. Trump; a cycle characterized by hate, viciousness, competing scandals, voluminous unproven allegations, scapegoats, fear-mongering, incitements to violence, death threats, and general moral decline bordering on decadence, I advise no child be exposed to any of it – none!

little-boy-in-aleppo-is-a-reminder-of-wars-horror-1-136842-560x314

Children, the Media, and Political Agendas

By Chandra Muzaffar, August 29 2016

The image of 5 year-old Omran Daqneesh rescued from the rubble in the aftermath of a devastating airstrike in Aleppo on 17 August 2016 has reverberated around the globe. Every major media outlet— from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to the BBC and Al-Jazeera — has highlighted the picture. It shows a little boy “sitting in an ambulance after the attack, his face, arms and legs caked in blood and dust…” It has become “a symbol for the suffering of children in Syria’s brutal five-year conflict.”

burkini

Banning Burkinis: The Politics of Beachwear

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 29 2016

For as long as women have gone to the beach to try to enjoy themselves, it seems, people have followed them there to pester them about their clothes. Selina Cheng, Quartz, Aug 24, 2016 Revolutions are often sparked by folly driven ideas about regulating human behaviour.  Banning the worship of symbols renders them more sacred than not; prohibiting certain items that would otherwise be embraced with general enthusiasm adds unintended zest.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: CIA “Failed” Turkey Coup Lays Groundwork for Broader Middle East War?

The US-backed Turkish invasion of Syria with its proxies in tow now moves further into Syria to seize Al-Bab in a landgrab to create Erdogan’s (and the U.S. neocon Brookings Institute’s) long desired jihadi “safe haven”/”no fly zone” for al-Qaeda & friends to operate and stage from with impunity from Russian and Syrian airstrikes.

Al-Bab is a “backdoor” on key routes south to Aleppo from the Turkish border.

Turkish supplies for the Islamic Army of Conquest offensives in South Aleppo and Latakia: arms, ammo, supplies, even artillery, tanks have been reported as flowing like water over the Turkish border

Turkey is obviously not coordinating its incursion with the Syrian government which condemns it as a violation of its sovereignty. The Kremlin’s impotent calls for Turkey to coordinate with Damascus while waving the old Geneva communique have been completely ignored. Unfortunately there is little they can do at this point without engaging in a full scale war with Turkey and the U.S. in Syria. Something the Kremlin lacks the will to do. Turkey/U.S. intend that their proxies take Aleppo as leverage in settlement negotiations to force Assad to step down, or partition if that fails.

Both the Turkish and FSA flags, (not the Syrian flag), were raised over “liberated” Jarablus

Securing the Jarablus corridor from a westward YPG advance in attempts to link their “cantons” east and west along the Turkish border prevents supply lines to “Syrian rebels” from Turkey from being cut. That’s why Turkey has taken action here while however grudgingly accepting Kurdish control over large stretches of Syrian-Turkish border everywhere else without taking action. The ratlines to the “rebels” are Turkey’s primary concern here. Kurds are an important but demonstratively second concern.

Turkey’s incursion was backed by US air-cover, drones, and embedded special forces per the WSJ. These were there largely to prevent Russia and Syria from even thinking about taking action against the invading forces.

Turkey is moving into Syria not just with its own military, but with thousands of “rebel opposition groups” including US-backed FSA brigades allied with AlQaeda/Nusra/Sham and the child head-chopping al-Zinki who are reported to form the vanguard. Syrian territory is outright being turned over to them by the Turkish military, simply exchanging control from one group of terrorist jihadis (ISIS) to others who are more media acceptable and more direct proxies of the Erdogan regime, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

That said, ISIS has not resisted the Turkish advance at all – simply “melting away” (or exchanging one set of uniforms for another?). No stay-behinds, no suicide bombers, no IEDS, nothing. No fighting. Zero casualties. Turkish and “Syrian rebel” forces literally strolled in to Jarablus taking selfies and posing for cameras. Tag-team turnover.

The Kurdish YPG/SDF have proven that they have become nothing but lickspittle currs for the U.S., despite being betrayed, dutifully responding to the leash and withdrawing from Manbij which they bled for, and all positions east of the Euphrates on Biden’s orders as he staged a press conference in Ankara with Erdogan. They have served their part in providing another layer of pretext for Turkey to invade Syria.

Layers of Pretext for Turkish invasion of Syria:

  1. “Liberating” Jarablus from ISIS to give it to al-Qaeda
  2. Giving Jarablus to al-Qaeda to deny it to Kurds
  3. Safe/No Fly Zone for al-Qaeda
  4. Neocon Plan B – Partition of Syria (if necessary)

The question has been raised about Russia’s and Syria’s supposedly “muted response” to all this and that their existing protestations (linked below) to the contrary are actually “lies” and that both are somehow in agreement and collusion with everything Erdogan is doing above in some kind of grand Eurasian alliance conspiracy and agreement to end the conflict in Syria …

Right? This theory is really too absurd and far-fetched wishful thinking to warrant addressing. See Moscow: Russian Foreign Ministry Expresses Concern About Turkish Operation in Syria”, Damascus: Syria condemns Turkey’s breach of Syria’s sovereignty in Jarablos

What kind of response do you expect? Do you think Russia would shoot U.S. and Turkish planes out of the sky and bomb Turkish forces in Syria? The Turkish coup upheaval aside, the Turkish military is still large enough several times over to crush the small Russian military taskforce in Syria. To say nothing of where things would go from there in a war with NATO.

What did Russia do when U.S., UK, France etc quietly put their own special forces and troops on the ground in Syria over the last year? What was the Kremlin’s response just days ago when the U.S. declared a no fly zone over their SDF proxies attacking Syrian government forces and threatened to shoot down Russian jets?

Nothing. They did nothing then just like their “muted” objections now. Not because they want it to happen or are “in on it” but because there is nothing they can do about it short of openly attacking and going to war with the U.S. and Turkey (i.e. NATO) which the Kremlin is NOT willing to do for Syria.

They are likewise not going to make threats or demands about violations of Syria’s sovereignty that they will not and cannot back up. Such bluster is not their style. It achieves nothing. They will continue to play the long game in Syria and hope events still turn their way without direct military confrontation with the U.S. and Turkey. They continue to push for a negotiated settlement on terms favorable to Damascus. Everyone is still playing the charade that they are all in the conflict in Syria to fight terrorists when we all know that it is just a front and the symptom for regime change. That game goes on, just now with Turkey upping the ante.

The U.S. and Turkey want a negotiated settlement too – they are just not willing to accept the current status of forces and intend to escalate and create new facts on the ground, primarily in and around Aleppo, that they hope will force Russia to accept that “Assad Must Go!” ensuring a settlement more favorable to them.

Erdogan has actually always been much louder and more insistent in demanding a “safe haven”/”no fly zone” for the proxies over the Jarablus corridor than the US. Erdogan pushed for it several times, and Obama refused, apparently infuriating his own State Department, CIA, and foreign policy elite in the process. Now Erdogan’s tantrums and witch-hunt over the lack of Western support during the attempted Kemalist military coup, have blackmailed Obama into acceding to this, in order to restore relations.

Overall, however the US has put the hegemon’s name, power, and prestige on the line for “Assad Must Go!” They simply cannot accept anything less than regime change. In the end, particularly after Clinton comes to power in the U.S. early next year and escalates the situation further than Obama has been willing as he tries to run out the clock, I am afraid that Russia will simply throw up their hands and walk away with whatever they can still get – not willing to go to World War III over Syria. A gambit the U.S. has no such reservations about. And that is the Kremlin’s weakness, and why red line after red line of their’s keeps getting crossed closer and closer to Russia’s borders itself.

When Russia itself is at last on the line and in the targets, it may not have any friends left willing to stand by it.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s Invasion Of Syria: The Roadmap To “Regime Change”?

Last Thursday, former right-wing President Nicolas Sarkozy of the Les Républicains (LR) party declared his candidacy in November’s LR primary for next year’s presidential election, with calls for unprecedented attacks on Muslims’ basic democratic rights. Sarkozy served as president from 2007 to 2012, when he lost his re-election bid to current Socialist Party (PS) President François Hollande.

With France still under a state of emergency, Sarkozy made proposals whose political character is unmistakable: they would convert Muslims to second-class citizens deprived of basic social and democratic rights. He called for trampling Muslim women’s right to exercise their religious freedom and their democratic right to dress as they please, with plans to ban the veil and burqa in workplaces and universities. This means placing Muslim women before an intolerable choice: they must either give up their religion, or the right to work and obtain an education.

Sarkozy had chosen to issue his appeal from the town of Châteaurenard in southern France, where the neo-fascist Front National (FN) made significant electoral gains in the last regional elections.

Most of Sarkozy’s remarks were taken from his new book, Everything for France, which came out last week. In it, he announces his candidacy and calls for suspending the right for immigrants’ families abroad to join immigrants in France, drastically reducing the number of migrants, imposing harsh conditions for obtaining French nationality, and eliminating state medical aid for migrants.

Speaking at Châteaurenard, Sarkozy called for banning the veil including “in the schools, universities, public services, and in the workplaces.” He charged that such practices threaten French identity, brazenly declaring: “Our identity is threatened if we allow minorities to force upon us a lifestyle which will never be ours.” He added, “I want to be the president that re-establishes the authority of the state on every square centimeter of the Republic.”

Such remarks from a former head of state testify to a staggering disintegration of French bourgeois democracy. It is ever clearer that, amid an escalating economic and military crisis of the capitalist system, the French ruling class’ decades-long strategy of dividing the working class along ethnic lines with appeals to anti-Muslim sentiment is taking on vast new dimensions.

An entire religious community of millions of people, consisting of racial minorities largely drawn from the most oppressed sections of the working class in France, is effectively being accused of treason. The implication of Sarkozy’s remarks is that the simple act of peacefully practising a religion shared by millions of people in France means defying the authority of the state and committing an act of disloyalty to the identity of the French ethnicity.

The resurgence of racist policies underscores the deep crisis of bourgeois rule in Europe amidst rising class tensions. As made clear by the growth of neo-fascist movements across Europe—from the FN in France to the far-right Svoboda party in the NATO puppet regime in Ukraine, or the incorporation of the far-right Independent Greeks into the Syriza government in Athens—the European bourgeoisie is moving towards fascistic methods of rule.

Sarkozy’s proposals to ban Muslim women from jobs and universities recall several of the initial anti-Semitic laws of the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime during World War II, when it barred Jews from key professions, like medicine and the public service, and limited their access to university posts. This paved the way for Vichy to ultimately deprive Jews of French citizenship and carry out mass deportations of Jews from France to death camps across Europe.

Then as now, the targeting of entire ethnic and religious groups for persecution by the state was bound up with escalating class tensions and the eruption of imperialist war on a global scale.

Sarkozy’s Châteaurenard speech comes as the French bourgeoisie faces explosive opposition in the working class to the PS’ reactionary labor law, which scraps basic social protections for working people, and a danger of world war unprecedented since World War II. France is deeply implicated in NATO’s ongoing war preparations against Syria in the Middle East and Russia in Europe, and in Washington’s “pivot to Asia” against China.

In this context, Sarkozy pledged in Châteaurenard to introduce the compulsory military service for youth aged 18 who are unemployed or in full-time education. Accusing Hollande of failing to fight terrorism, Sarkozy declared that he would step up the war against terrorism: “In the face of the terrorist threat, I want the French people to feel certain that they are protected, instead of asking themselves why those who should govern react so weakly.”

In fact, if the PS has responded weakly to the rash of terror attacks in France and Belgium, it is because they were carried out by Islamists involved in the NATO wars in the Middle East, who continue to enjoy unofficial protection as tools of French and NATO foreign policy.

Sarkozy himself bears substantial political responsibility for this state of affairs. It was under his presidency that France played a key role in pressing for a NATO war in Libya in 2011, arming and financing Islamist proxy militias to topple Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Hollande continued this strategy, stoking a war in Syria and supporting Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias against the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

If Sarkozy can re-emerge to launch a presidential bid, after having been one of France’s most unpopular presidents in history, it is above all due to the filthy role of the PS government and its pseudo-left allies. Their policies of austerity, war, and law-and-order hysteria paved the way for the reassertion of ethnic and religious discrimination as a key aspect of French politics.

After last year’s Charlie Hebdo and November 13 terror attacks in Paris, both carried out by Islamists known to European intelligence services, Hollande repeatedly invited FN leader Marine Le Pen to the Elysée presidential palace to establish “national unity” against terrorism.

Hollande seized on the terror attacks to legitimize the FN, while imposing a permanent state of emergency in France. The PS imposed a state of emergency, scrapping basic democratic rights, and advocated inscribing the principle of deprivation of nationality in the French constitution.

After Sarkozy’s speech, Prime Minister Manual Valls postured as an opponent of Sarkozy, denouncing “the brutality of his proposals.” Valls added, “He is following the far right, he is taking the democratic right into its camp, and he is dragging the other candidates in the primaries, including Alain Juppé, in this direction, in this path, and it worries me.”

Valls’ comments reek of hypocrisy, as he himself favors anti-democratic policies and the incitement of anti-Muslim sentiment, supporting calls for a burkini ban. He also played the central role in cracking down in social protests against the PS labor law during the spring and early summer.

More broadly, the entire French political establishment is implicated in the stoking of anti-Muslim sentiment over more than a decade. The right-wing government of President Jacques Chirac imposed a headscarf ban in public schools in 2004, followed by a burqa ban introduced by Sarkozy and the Stalinist French Communist Party (PCF) in 2010.

Pseudo-left groups including Lutte Ouvrière (Workers Struggle, LO) and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) backed the headscarf and burqa ban, fraudulently claiming it was a “secular” measure  aimed to defend women’s rights. While supporting anti-Muslim hatreds, they also supported imperialist wars launched on “humanitarian” grounds, including in Libya and Syria. They bear political responsibility for creating the conditions for Sarkozy to run a far-right campaign calling for unprecedented acts of religious discrimination.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sarkozy Launches French Presidential Bid Based on Anti-Muslim Hysteria

Turkey began bombing Kurdish-controlled areas in northern Syria Saturday as the US-backed incursion continued to spread. At least 35 civilians were killed in the air strikes, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

US air power and military “advisers” have been backing the Turkish invasion since it was launched last Wednesday, ostensibly to clear Islamic State fighters from Jarablus, one of the last towns ISIS controls near the Turkish border. But Turkey’s overriding aim is to dislodge Kurdish militia forces previously backed by Washington from areas near the Syrian-Turkish border over which they have gained control, in order to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish enclave in the region.

As for the United States, its motive for supporting the Turkish offensive is its desire to escalate the war in Syria and create the conditions for the overthrow of the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus.

Ankara’s invasion is inflaming the five-year-old civil war, which has already claimed the lives of close to half a million Syrians and reduced the country’s population by over 5 million. It is being carried out in conjunction with US- and Turkish-backed Syrian “rebels” who are hostile to Kurdish forces.

Turkey claimed initially that the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) would have one week to retreat east of the Euphrates River. But within a matter of hours, clashes broke out between the Syrian “rebels” mobilized by Turkey and the YPG. A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army said over the weekend that its forces had seized 10 villages from YPG troops and four from ISIS.

Turkey claimed to have killed 25 Kurdish “terrorists” in a series of bombing raids near Jarablus, and the first Turkish casualty was reported in connection with a grenade attack by the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces.

The anti-Kurdish character of Turkey’s Euphrates Shield operation was underscored Saturday when video footage was released of members of the Sultan Murat brigade, a pro-Turkish Syrian “rebel” group, beating Kurdish prisoners in the village of Yusuf Beg and declaring them to be “PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] dogs.”

Washington’s readiness to throw its weight behind such sectarian forces reflects its contempt for the region’s peoples and stands as an indictment of all those who argue, in the name of “human rights,” that the US should intervene more aggressively in the conflict. The US double-cross of its Kurdish allies underscores the fact that Washington’s chief consideration is the consolidation of its geo-strategic dominance of the Middle East through the installation of a puppet regime in Damascus.

Following talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry stressed that the Kurds had to remain part of Syria.

“We are for a united Syria. We do not support an independent Kurd initiative,” he declared, before claiming that US support for Kurdish forces had been limited. He pointedly added, less than 48 hours after the initiation of the Turkish invasion, “We understand the sensitivities of our friends in Turkey with respect to this.”

The intervention of what is in effect a NATO force into Syria heightens the potential for a direct clash between Russia and the US, which could quickly spiral out of control and draw in the other major imperialist powers.

Following the talks between Kerry and Lavrov, which failed to reach any resolution, the Russian foreign minister took a swipe at the US and the Turkish incursion by noting that only Russia and Iran were operating inside Syria with the consent of the government. All other forces in the conflict, Lavrov said, were in violation of Syrian sovereignty.

At a briefing Friday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest sought to blame Russia and the Syrian government for the ongoing violence in the country, even though US forces were behind the latest Turkish escalation. “As long as Russia is willing to support the Assad regime’s murderous military tactics that often claim the lives of innocent women and children, the more difficult it is for a political solution to be reached,” Earnest stated. He added later that Russia’s actions “only fuel extremism” in Syria.

In response to a question on the creation of so-called safe zones within Syria, Earnest denied that this was being considered as a policy option by the Obama administration because it would require additional military forces. This was thoroughly disingenuous, given that Washington is backing a Turkish operation whose explicit goal is the creation of a zone in northern Syria controlled by Turkish troops.

Violence continued to spread within Turkey following a bomb attack Friday by PKK-aligned militants, which killed 11 Turkish police officers and wounded 78 people. PKK rebels launched a grenade attack on the airport in Diyarbakir Sunday, and a Turkish soldier and 10 PKK militants were killed in clashes in Hakkari province.

Speaking at a rally Sunday in Gaziantep, 30 kilometres from the Syrian border, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made clear that Turkey’s intervention would be a long and bloody one. He indicated that Ankara would not distinguish between the PKK, with which it has been in a virtual state of war since last year, and the YPG in Syria. After vowing to wipe out Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, Erdogan declared, “We are as determined about the PYD [Democratic Union Party], the separatist terror organisation’s Syrian wing… We will continue until we uproot this terror organisation.”

There has been a virtual blackout of the dramatic escalation of the Syrian conflict in the US media and it has not been raised as a major issue by either candidate of the two big business parties in the presidential election campaign. News coverage of Syria on Sunday focused on reports accusing the Assad regime of dropping barrel bombs on a civilian neighborhood in “rebel”-occupied Aleppo, while the killing of civilians by Turkish forces was passed over in virtual silence.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, who enjoys the overwhelming backing of the military and intelligence establishment, has left no doubt about her readiness to vastly intensify US military operations in Syria after November, even if this means direct confrontation with Russia.

The Center for a New American Security think tank, which was co-founded by Michele Flournoy, a former Defense Department official who is reportedly on the short list for the secretary of defense position in a Clinton administration, called in June for a future US administration to authorize military strikes against Assad’s forces.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkish Air Strikes Kill Civilians in US-Backed Invasion of Syria

It’s hard to think of a presidential candidate that has been at the heart of more scandals than Hillary Clinton. Each passing day seems to bring a new revelation which shines more light upon the corrupt and murky world that Clinton operates in. If Clinton is installed into the White House by the elite in the coming months, it will not only be the final death blow to the American Republic, but it will also drastically increase the probability that a major conflagration will occur between the global powers of the world in the near future.

Despite not being a big fan of Trump – due to the fact that I’m not convinced that he is an independent candidate, or that he is not a hawk himself – there is no doubt that Clinton will be a total abomination as President. In the majority of the mainstream media, there has been a clear propaganda campaign to demonise Trump at all costs, focusing the public’s attention on Trump’s antics rather than Clinton’s crimes. The real estate magnate is hardly a difficult person to ridicule, but considering the blatant crimes that Clinton has committed, she has practically been given a free pass by the mainstream media.

There is of course a very good reason why she has been given such a pass by the mainstream media: Clinton is the elite’s puppet of choice for President. Each passing day brings further confirmation of this fact, with her establishment backers including numerous Wall Street giants, the military-industrial complex, in addition to the likes of George Soros. On top of these interests, we can now comfortably add the infamous Rothschild banking dynasty to the list. As Zero Hedge reported in their August 21st article titled, Hillary Clinton Flies 20 Miles In Private Jet To Attend Rothschild Nantucket Fundraiser:

As we reported a few days ago, Bill and Hillary Clinton spent Friday night in Martha’s Vineyard celebrating Bill’s 70th birthday (posted here).  We’re sure it was a grand affair, well worth the heat Obama had to take from Louisiana flood victims to attend. Turns out the following morning, Hillary, not one to be bothered with traditional peasant forms of travel, awoke and took her private jet just 20 miles over to Nantucket where the Rothschild’s will be hosting a fundraiser.  The event is open to all…well anyone who can afford the $100,000 per person price tag.

In reality, this recent fundraiser is just the latest illustration of the connections between Clinton and the Rothschild family. Buried among the tens-of-thousands of emails sent to and from Clinton’s private servers when she was Secretary of State, were a series of exchanges that reveal the very intimate relationship between Clinton and Lynn Forester de Rothschild (or Lady de Rothschild).

In one email sent to Clinton on the 23rd of September, 2010, Lady de Rothschild wrote:

You are the best, and we remain your biggest fans. Sweet dreams and Godspeed with everything you are doing.

Another email sent from Lady de Rothschild to Clinton on April 9th, 2012, read:

Hi Hillary, Trust all is well. I have done some thinking about the ideas we discussed at dinner a couple of months ago. I have some further thoughts that I would love to run by you. Any chance you are free in DC at any time from the 16-20 of May? Or, any time or place that works for you. Lots of Love, Lynn.

Lady de Rothschild wrote in an April, 2010 email (under the subject “miss you”) to Clinton that: “I would love to catch up,” and “I remain your loyal adoring pal.” Hillary responds by writing: “I would love to see you but your days overlap w Karzai’s visit so I will have to get that settled before I can confirm a time but let’s make it happen. So I’m copying Lona and Huma so we can start planning. Much love, H.”

Lady de Rothschild married into the banking dynasty back in 2000, after reportedly meeting the billionaire financier, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, in 1998, at the annual Bilderberg conference – with the  matchmaker in all of this being none other than the war criminal and former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. A long-time fundraiser and supporter of Clinton, Lady de Rothschild is an influential friend to have, considering the power that has been vested in the banking dynasty for centuries.

Hillary is not the only politician who has a close relationship with the “puppet masters” however. In 2009, it was revealedthat the British politician and former European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, who held the position of Business Secretary at the time, was running Britain for a brief period from a Rothschild estate in Corfu.

Rothschild: The Preeminent Banking Dynasty

Although the internet is awash with hyperbolic and speculative articles on the nature of the Rothschild family, there is no question they are one of the most influential, powerful and wealthiest dynasties in modern history. The Rothschild’s emerged as the preeminent banking dynasty in Europe in the latter period of the 18th century, and continued to expand and grow in successive generations. They understood that the most effective way to influence and control the political affairs of a country, was to create and manage the financial system of that country.  As the late Carroll Quigley – a historian, establishment insider and Professor at Georgetown University – wrote in his 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope:

“In time [the merchant bankers of London] brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers” (1998 printing: p.51).

Quigley continues:

The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendents of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, whose male descendents, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces. Rothschild’s five sons, established at branches in Vienna, London, Naples and Paris, as well as Frankfurt, cooperated together in ways which other international banking dynasties copied but rarely excelled (1998 printing: p.51).

Quigley then moves on to document some of the other “banking families” that shared similar traits to the Rothschild dynasty:

The names of some of these banking families are familiar to all of us and should be more so. They include Baring, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Seligman, the Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, Fould, and above all, Rothschild and Morgan. [These banking families] remained different from ordinary bankers in distinctive ways: … (5) They were almost equally devoted to secrecy and the secret use of financial power in political life. These bankers came to be called “international bankers” and, more particularly, were known as “merchant bankers” in England, “private bankers” in France, and “investment bankers” in the United States  (1998 printing: p.52).

What the relationship between Clinton and Lady de Rothschild demonstrates is that the political class, the corporate class and the banking class, are all connected in a shadowy network of super-elites. Or in the words of the legendary American stand-up comedian, George Carlin: “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”

Steven MacMillan is a freelance writer and editor of  The Analyst Report.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Intimate Relationship with the Rothschild Banking Dynasty, The Shadowy Network of Super-Elites

Children, the Media, and Political Agendas

August 29th, 2016 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

The image of 5 year-old Omran Daqneesh rescued from the rubble in the aftermath of a devastating airstrike in Aleppo on 17 August 2016 has reverberated around the globe. Every major media outlet— from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to the BBC and Al-Jazeera — has highlighted the picture. It shows a little boy “sitting in an ambulance after the attack, his face, arms and legs caked in blood and dust…” It has become “a symbol for the suffering of children in Syria’s brutal five-year conflict.”

However, Chinese State broadcaster, CCTV, has suggested that “the video may have been partially staged and criticized the way it was used to stir pro-rebel sympathies.”  The footage of Omran was released by a group called the White Helmets which, it is alleged, is closely linked to the British military. The author of the footage Mahmoud Rslan, who describes himself as a war journalist and activist has ties to the Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, a rebel group which in July circulated a video showing the beheading of a 12 year-old Palestinian boy. It is said that the group had also conducted kidnappings and torture of journalists, aid workers and civilians in Aleppo. It was considered a “moderate” rebel group by the United States and received weapons from it.

It is significant that initially segments of the Western media blamed the airstrike that injured Omran upon the Russian air force. Russian authorities not only denied the baseless allegation but also accused the Western media of “cynical use of this tragedy in anti-Russian propaganda material.” They argued that “the damage shown in the footage published by world media outlets indicates a blast less powerful than that produced by an aerial bomb, considering that some of the glass in nearby buildings was not shattered.”  They instead suggested “that it may have been caused by a mortar shell …”

The cynical manipulation of tragedies in the Syrian conflict has occurred on numerous occasions. One other example that also featured a small boy was the case of 3 year-old Aylan Kurdi who was drowned off a Turkish beach on 2 September 2015 as he and his family sought to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe. The media had hoped that the infant’s death would expose the cruelty of the Bashar Assad government in Damascus and persuade the Western public to endorse direct, active US led military intervention in Syria aimed at ousting Bashar. It did not happen. Instead, Europe was forced to re-appraise its stance towards refugees and compelled to accommodate a portion of them.

That it is ousting Bashar and not the plight of refugees or the suffering of children that is the primary concern of Washington, London and Paris and their regional allies in Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Qatar and Ankara becomes obvious when one looks at other situations in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) involving children.( The attitude of some Western and WANA governments towards Bashar may be changing )  When a UN report in June 2016 criticised the Saudi-led coalition for killing and maiming a large number of children in its military operations in Yemen, there was no moral outrage against Riyadh among ruling elites in the West or within the region. The media downplayed the UN report and when the UN Secretary-General was pressurised to remove the Saudi-led coalition from the black-list of violators of children’s rights in conflict zones, the mainstream media did not even whimper. It is a reflection of how the media protects certain interests in WANA which in turn are linked to global hegemony.

The media’s biased attitude and its utter lack of moral responsibility becomes even more blatant when one considers what happened in Iraq two decades ago. As a result of Anglo-American sanctions imposed through the UN Security Council, as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died in the nineties. Was this stark fact projected through the principal media channels at that time as a way of igniting the world’s conscience so that young lives would not be snuffed out because of the desire of the powerful to control Iraqi oil and strengthen Israel’s position in the region? Did anyone see the victims of these inhuman sanctions on the front page of the Financial Times or through some special programme on CNN?

Perhaps an even worse example of suppression of the truth about the ordeal of the young would be that colossal catastrophe called Palestine. In the 2008-9 Israeli assault against Gaza, a disproportionately high proportion of those killed were children. The same pattern was repeated in the 2012 Israeli bombardment of Gaza. Israel aggression against Palestinian children reached its pinnacle in July 2014. In Operation Protective Edge, of the 1492 Palestinian civilians massacred, 547 were children. There has been no war in recent times in which more than one-third of those killed were children.

And yet how did the media react? Did the media put Israel in the dock? Apart from some principled voices on the margins, the mainstream European and American media were deafeningly silent in the face of this heinous crime against humanity.

All the examples we have provided illustrate a crucial point about the media.  When the major media outlets dramatize a particular event especially in relation to children and ignore or downplay other episodes, they are advancing the political agenda of some powerful actor. We should not be deceived. We would do well to remember the words of John Pilger, one of the most honest journalists of our time, “It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas and myths that surround it.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Children, the Media, and Political Agendas

In a column mocking the political ignorance of the “dumbed-down” American people and lamenting the death of “objective fact,” New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma’am mainstream media.

Egan states as flat fact, “If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it — two years after they had, in fact, invaded it.”

But it is not a “fact” that Russia “invaded” Ukraine – and it’s especially not the case if you also don’t state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched “special forces.”  Yet, the Times doesn’t describe those military operations as “invasions.”

Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law, although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country’s sovereign territory without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically  an act of illegal aggression.

In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey’s recent invasion of Syria was just an “intervention”) as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.

Biased on Ukraine

The Times’ reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should lead the new government and how to “midwife this thing.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria "Toria" Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria “Toria” Nuland, addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo]

The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times’ coverage, you’d have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia “invaded” Crimea, although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea’s coast or Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine’s border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.The reason such evidence of an “invasion” was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious “invasion” indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the “invasion” and their involvement after the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime’s neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych’s political base and where many Ukrainians opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled Ukrainian army.

But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also would resist pejorative phrases such as “invasion” and “aggression” – unless, of course, they applied the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its “allies.”

That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its “group thinking” writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it’s Cold War-style propaganda, day in and day out.

And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S. foreign policy decisions.

A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly “objective” news (because it is anything but objective).

Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they’re not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dumbed-Down New York Times. Americans Know They’re not Getting the “Straight Story”…

Jan Tombinski, the European Union’s outgoing ambassador to Ukraine, has revealed that the EU’s sanctions against Russia are not really connected to the Minsk agreements on peace in eastern Ukraine, but on ‘Russian aggression’ against Kiev. Accordingly, the diplomat implied that anti-Russian sanctions may be extended indefinitely.

Interviewed by Ukrainian radio station Radio EC-Evropeiska Stantsiya on the eve of his departure earlier this week, the ambassador, who played a critical support role in the EuroMaidan riots which culminated in the February 2014 coup d’etat in Kiev, explained that Russia’s ostensible obligations under the Minsk agreements were in no way connected to European officials’ decision to prolong anti-Russian sanctions.

Accordingly, Tombinski noted, the sanctions can be extended whether Russia ‘complies with its obligations’ or not. The diplomat did not reveal what exactly those “obligations” might be, given that Moscow is not even a direct party to the conflict, but a mediator. Instead, he suggested that the sanctions were connected with Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine and the “annexation” of Crimea, whose population voted overwhelmingly to break off from Kiev and rejoin Russia amid the instability that followed the 2014 coup.

Tombinski’s remarks, essentially revealing that EU sanctions against Russia might remain in place indefinitely, come at an unfortunate time for German Chancellor Angela Merkel. A day prior to his comments, Merkel reiterated to Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka the oft-used mantra that the EU’s sanctions were directly connected to Moscow living up to its commitments under Minsk.

Commenting on the apparent inconsistency between the talking points used by Brussels and Berlin, Azhdar Kurtov, a senior expert at the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, told the Svobodnaya Pressa online paper that this not the first time Western leaders have effectively lied to Moscow about sanctions being connected to concrete actions. In fact, he suggested, it’s become somewhat of a tradition.

“It’s worth recalling that during the Soviet period, there was a legislative amendment created by US congressmen which limited US trade with our country.” Called the Jackson-Vanik Amendment and in 1974, “it was approved in connection with alleged Soviet violations of the rights of citizens of Jewish nationality.”

“This piece of legislation remained in force several decades after the legal basis itself disappeared,” (and long after the Soviet Union itself ceased to exist). That law, Kurtov suggested, was never really connected to the persecution of Soviet Jews in the first place.

Now, the situation surrounding the modern-day anti-Russian sanctions is much the same, the expert suggested. “We’re seeing the same thing today. There is the formal aspect, linked to the fact that Russia is always being urged to ‘fulfill its obligations’, even though it is not even a subject to the Minsk agreements. But that’s not the main issue: even sticking to formalities, it’s necessary to read the text of these agreements. And that’s something no one wants to do, apparently.”

Kurtov pointed out that simply going back and reading the Minsk peace deal’s 13 points confirms that neither Moscow nor the self-declared Donbass republics are responsible for violating the agreement.

“These violations don’t exist because Minsk provides a coherent chain of actions [which must be fulfilled in order]. And this chain was broken – in the sense that it’s points were not carried out, not by the Donetsk or Lugansk republics, but by Kiev authorities. Therefore, even formally, there are simply no grounds for blaming Russia.”

In reality, the expert said, Western countries’ sanctions policy against Russia has never been about things like the alleged violation of human rights or failure to live up to some agreement. After all, Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s decision to fire into the Russian parliament in 1993 was, “from the perspective of refined Western democracy, a clear violation, for which sanctions could have followed, but they didn’t. This indicates that some other issues are at stake.”

“In my opinion, these circumstances are obvious: Russia has begun to consistently pursue an independent policy.” Throughout the 1990s, Kurtov recalled, Russia held a pro-American line in international relations, and eagerly listened to Western advisors’ advice on reforming the economy, which virtually collapsed as a result. The country’s armed forces were degraded, the latest weapons systems systematically destroyed, and Moscow withdrew from the areas around the world traditionally considered part of its sphere of influence.

Now, when we have begun consistently and firmly asserting our national interests, and have even come to serve as a kind of ‘guide’ to other countries wishing to do the same, the main blow [from the West] has been directed against us. Sanctions serve as one form of this kind of pressure. And so an excuse was invented – and more precisely, not invented but artificially constructed. After all, the coup in Kiev took place with the direct involvement of the West.

Fire, smoke and protesters on Maidan square in Kiev. February 22, 2014.
©Sputnik/ Andrey Stenin
Fire, smoke and protesters on Maidan square in Kiev. February 22, 2014.

Effectively, Kurtov suggested that the Ukrainian crisis beginning in 2014 “was just an excuse used to try to stop a trend that started in the early 2000s – the trend of Russia strengthening itself as an active player in global geopolitics.”

Of course, the analyst admitted that Western sanctions are harmful to Russia, insofar as they limit bilateral contacts, and damage economic and trade relations. On the other hand, Kurtov emphasized that Russia “must not allow the sanctions to string us along. It’s not necessary to fulfill their requirements, since new requirements will always appear in their place so long as their reasons are contrived and artificially constructed.”

Ultimately, the expert suggested that whatever else happens, Russia must push for cooperation on an equal basis, must strive “to make it so that the Russian position is properly understood not only by the political elites of other countries, but also by their people.”

For his part, Sergei Kalmykov, the deputy director of the Association of Military Diplomats, generally agreed with Kurtov’s assessment, suggesting that unfortunately, Washington “has always regarded Russia as a strategic adversary.”

This has been the case not just for decades, but for over a century. It’s worth recalling that as soon as the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which continued to function for an unjustifiably long period, was repealed [in late 2012], it was immediately replaced by the so-called Magnitsky Act.  Now, the Magnitsky Act has faded into the background, because the ‘Crimean issue’ and the whole situation around Ukraine has taken its place.

“What we’re seeing is a pure political con game – a con game which simply involves the juggling of a variety of motives and terminology, but which only has one goal: to prevent Russia from emerging as a leader in global geopolitics. And today the West is using any excuse to try to carry out this policy,” Kalmykov concluded.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Geopolitics: EU Economic Sanctions against Russia “Might Remain in Place Indefinitely”

The Financial Times editorial page carries a logo that proclaims: “Without fear and without favour”. Indeed the editors have shown no fear when it comes to. . . fabricating lies, promoting imperial wars decimating countries and impoverishing millions, whether in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and now Venezuela.  The fearless “Lies of Our Times” have been at the forefront forging pretexts for inciting imperial armies to crush independent governments.

Despite its pretentious scribblers and prestigious claims, the FT is seen by the Anglo-American financial class as a belligerent purveyor of militarist policies designed for the most retrograde sectors of the ruling elite.

What is most striking about the FT fearless fabrications on behalf of imperial militarism is how often their political and economic prognostications have been incompetent and flat out wrong.

Professor James Petras (right)

For the past ten years, the FT editorial pages have described China in economic crisis and heading for a fall, while in reality, the Chinese economy has grown at between eight and six percent a year.

For over a decade and a half, the FT editors claimed Russia under President Vladimir Putin presented an international existential threat to ‘the West’. In fact, it was the ‘Western’ armies of NATO, which expanded military operations to the borders of Russia, the US, which financed a neo-fascist coup in Kiev and the US-EU which promoted an Islamist uprising in Syria designed to totally undermine Russia’s influence and relations in the Middle East.

The FT’s economic gurus and its leading columnists prescribed the very catastrophic deregulatory formulas which precipitated the financial crash of 2008-09, after which they played the clownish role of “Mickey the Dunce” – blaming others for the failed policies.

The fearless FT scribes are currently leading a virulent propaganda campaign to promote the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro.

This essay will identify the FT’s latest pack of fearless lies and fabrications and then conclude by analyzing the political consequences for Venezuela and other independent regimes.

The Financial Times and Venezuela: From War in the Suites to Terror in the Streets

In covering the crisis in Venezuela, the FT has systematically ignored the ongoing campaign of assaults and assassinations against elected officials, security officers, military and police who have been murdered by the FT’s favored ‘opposition’.

The FT did not cover the horrific murders of an elected Chavista congresswoman and her two young children, who were executed (shot in the head) in broad daylight by opposition-paid hitmen.

These ongoing opposition terror campaigns against the elected government and the general public are systematicallyignored in the FTs ‘reports’ and on its editorial pages, which focus more on the shortages of consumer items.

The FT cover-up of rightwing terror extended to inventing a ‘possible’ army or National Guard plan to open fire on opposition demonstrators. In this case, the FT anticipated rightwing violence by laying the blame on the government in advance.

The FT covers-up the opposition business elite’s campaign of hoarding essential goods to create artificial shortages and panic buying. They deny the ongoing price gouging and pin the blame for shortages and long consumer lines exclusively on ‘regime mismanagement’.

The FT conveniently omits to mention that the decline in world oil prices has affected not only the economy of Venezuela but all countries dependent on commodity exports, including the Financial Times favorite neo-liberal regimes in Brazil and Argentina.

The Financial Times cites bogus ‘opinion’ polls, which wildly exaggerate the government’s declining popularity: In the recent elections Maduro’s supporters secured 40% of the popular vote while the FT claims his support to be 7%!

US client regimes (Mexico, Peru, and Colombia) are the largest producers of illegal drugs and US banks are the largest launderers for narco-money. Yet the FT reports on “Venezuela’s role as a conduit for illegal drugs smuggled north to the US and east into Brazil, Africa and thence to Europe”. Drug enforcement experts all agree that Colombia,home to seven US military bases and with a regime closely linked to paramilitary-narco gangs, is the source of drugs smuggled through Venezuela. That Venezuela has become a victim of the violent Colombian narco-trade is never acknowledged by the elegant City of London pen-prostitutes.

The FT blames the re-emergence of ‘malaria and other possible diseases’ on the leftist Maduro government. In fact the recent ‘malaria outbreak’ (also cited by the New York Timespropagandists) is based on a single illegal gold miner.

The FT ignores how the US- backed neo-liberal regimes in Argentina and Brazil, which rule by presidential decree, have slashed public health programs setting the stage for much greater public health crises.

The Financial Times: Big Lies for Mass Murder

The Financial Times is waging an all-out propaganda war with one goal: To incite the violent seizure of power in Venezuela by US political clients.

In line with the Obama-Clinton ‘regime-change by any means’ policies, the FT paints a deceptive picture of Venezuela facing  ‘multiple crises’, representing a ‘destabilizing’ threat to the hemisphere, and on the brink of a global ‘humanitarian crisis’.

Armed with these deadly clichés, the FT editorial pagesdemand  “a new government soon and certainly before the 2018 elections”.

Recently, the FT proposed a phony legal gimmick – a recall referendum. However, since the opposition cannot initiate the vote in time to oust the elected President Maduro, the FT calls for “events which precipitate changes sooner” – a violent coup!

FT’s scenarios aim to precipitate a violent rightwing “march”, eventually provoking civil bloodshed in early September of this year.

The FT expects that “blood in Caracas will require an active Latin America response”(sic). In other words, the FThopes that a US-backed military invasion from neighboring Colombia would help eliminate the Chavistas and install a rightist regime.

The Financial Times, which actively promoted the NATO-led destruction of the government in Libya, now calls for a US-led invasion of Venezuela. Never ones to re-assess their promotion of ‘regime change’, the FT now calls for a violent coup in Venezuela, which will exceed that of Libya in terms of the loss of thousands of Venezuelan lives and the brutal reversal of a decade of significant socio-economic progress.

Without fear and without favor”, the FT speaks for imperial wars everywhere.

Conclusion

The US presidential elections take place just as the Obama-Clinton regime prepares to intervene in Venezuela. Using bogus ‘humanitarian’ reports of widespread hunger, disease, violence and instability, the Obama will still need Venezuelan thugs to provoke enough violent street violence to trigger an’ invitation’ for Washington’s Latin American military partners to ‘intervene’ under the auspices of the UN or OAS.

If ‘successful’, a rapid overthrow of the elected government in Caracas could be presented as a victory for Hilary Clinton’s campaign, and an example of her policy of ‘humanitarian-military interventions’ around the world.

However, if Obama’s allied invasion does not produce a quick and easy victory, if the Venezuelan people and armed forces mount a prolonged and courageous defense of their government and if US lives are lost in what could turn into a popular war of resistance, then Washington’s intervention could ultimately discredit the Clinton campaign and her ‘muscular’ foreign policy. The American electorate might finally decide against four more years of losing wars and losing lives. No thanks to the ‘fearless’ Financial Times.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fabricating Lies, Promoting Imperial Wars, Decimating Countries, Impoverishing Millions: Megaphone for Mass Murder

As the US presidential election fast approaches in November, the greatest political spectacle of the year is in full swing. Say what you want about the US, but there is no other country that knows how to put a show on in the same way as our American friends. Trump vs. Clinton is the pay-per-view event of 2016, and it will continue to dominate the media headlines.

 Yet many media outlets fail to ask the most important and fundamental question pertaining to the presidential contest: is the fight rigged so that the establishment is the only winner? Clinton is evidently controlled by the establishment and will serve her masters loyally if installed into the White House, although her deterioratinghealth will be a worry for the puppet masters, as even puppets need to be able to dance on strings when needed. The real issue is whether or not Trump is the establishment outsider he claims to be, and will actually challenge the parallel government. Judging by the Wall Street connections of Trump’s advisers however, the elite seem to be in control of both major candidates, with the election merely serving as a political circus to distract the masses from the bankrupt economy and the perennial foreign wars.

Both Trump and Clinton Supported the Libyan War

The more digging you do into Trump, the more he seems to be just another flavour of the establishment. By looking at Trump’s stances on two previous wars, we can get an indication of what US foreign policy will look like under Trump. Although the real estate magnate has criticized both the wars in Iraq and Libya after the fact, he did support both imperial endeavours before they were launched. In a September, 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Trump was asked whether he would support a war in Iraq, in which he replied: “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.” To be fair, this is hardly the most belligerent comments you’ve ever heard, but it is still disingenuous for Trump to claim he was against the 2003 war.

What should really worry those who are opposed to Western imperialism however, is the position Trump took on the 2011‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya, which led to the complete destruction of the country. Despite criticizing Clinton for her pivotal role in the war, Trump himself was a major cheerleader of the intervention. In a video posted on one of Trump’s official YouTube channels from the 28th of February, 2011, the reality TV star couldn’t be more in favour of the war that caused such widespread devastation:

I can’t believe what our country is doing. Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around – we have soldiers all have the Middle East – and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage… You talk about things that have happened in history; this could be one of the worst. Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives… Ultimately, the people will appreciate it; they’re going to end up taking over the country eventually, and they should pay us back.

Trump continues:

But we have to go in to save these lives; these people are being slaughtered like animals. It’s horrible what’s going on; it has to be stopped. We’re making decisions like trade embargoes – what does this have to do with a trade embargo? He’s [Qaddafi’s] killing people with machine guns in the streets. We should do it on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya [and] knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives. After it’s all done, we go to the protestors who end up running the country… and we should then say: by the way, from all of your oil, we want reimbursement.

Hillary the Hawk

Out of the two candidates, Clinton is clearly the number one pick of the establishment. Clinton is one of the most hawkish individuals in Washington, and she has supported every US military venture in recent decades. Clinton has received over$300,000 from war contractors in her presidential bid so far, the second highest amount (after Bernie Sanders) out of all the candidates who initially ran for the White House.  There is not one thinking person on earth that disputes Clinton’s hawkishness, as the evidence is too insurmountable to challenge.

Apparently establishment academics live in a world of their own however. In an article published by Vox – and republished by theBrookings Institution and European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) – on the 8th of August, two establishment academics engaged in the most absurd argument one has read in a while. Written by Jeremy Shapiro, a nonresident senior fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy and the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution, and Richard Sokolsky, a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the article was titled: Why Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be a foreign policy hawk as President.

Shapiro and Sokolsky start by acknowledging that every human being who has an IQ above single digits believes Clinton is a hawk, and that US foreign policy will be more aggressive under a Clinton administration. They then progress to document that she has supported countless wars and interventions in the last two decades: including in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya and in Syria. So far, so good. But then, with a not-so-subtle flip of reality, they try to argue that her hawkish history is not a good indication of how she will behave if she becomes President, claiming that Clinton will be more focused on domestic policy rather than foreign affairs.

From this article we can draw the following conclusion: Clinton’s reputation is so tarnished, and her warmongering so transparent, that the establishment has to engage in total damage control to try and keep her in the race. If Hillary wasn’t a woman, and didn’t have the weight of the establishment behind her, there would be absolutely no chance that she could win in a fair vote, considering the array of scandals she has been at the centre of. As Clinton has supported at least five major wars and interventions over the past two decades, there is no question that she would be hawkish as Commander-in-Chief.

Although Hillary is (rightly) lambasted for being a hawk, Trump should also be criticized for supporting illegal and immoral wars in the past. Trump’s brazen endorsement of military intervention in Libya in 2011 should be a warning as to the type of administration a Trump one would be. The evidence indicates that regardless of who is crowned the champion in November, we can expect US foreign policy to continue to be destructive and belligerent.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Battle of the Hawks? Both Trump and Clinton Supported the 2011 War on Libya

Banning Burkinis: The Politics of Beachwear

August 29th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

For as long as women have gone to the beach to try to enjoy themselves, it seems, people have followed them there to pester them about their clothes. Selina Cheng, Quartz, Aug 24, 2016

Revolutions are often sparked by folly driven ideas about regulating human behaviour.  Banning the worship of symbols renders them more sacred than not; prohibiting certain items that would otherwise be embraced with general enthusiasm adds unintended zest.

Women have never been allowed much truck when it comes to fashion, even in areas of life where relaxation has been assumed.  The beach as place of relaxation became, in time, a place of police and religious control.  Sand, the sea, and titillation; permitting women a certain freedom of wear was all too much.  Those in the United States of the pre-First World War era, for instance, faced the ubiquitous tape measurer and expulsion for revealing too much leg, and much else besides.

Even after the slaughter of millions of human beings on the Western front between 1914 and 1918, with millions more perishing to Spanish influenza, a tired globe might well have given up on such urgent strictures on clothing.  The onset of global Depression, and collapsing markets, may well have encouraged people to throw in the towel and relax amidst the ruins.  Not in the US, with California’s Redondo Beach Ordinance in 1933 prohibiting swimsuits shorter than three inches.[1]

The reaction in France to the burkini, a claimed hotchpotch attempt to navigate the injunctions and directives of the Quran, while feeding off the supposed permissiveness of a Western society, has become a trigger-active minefield.  This is the flipside of Talibanised thinking, where fashion police move around and punish detractors for not abiding by the set code.  The more imaginative censors may well have had visions of sexed up Jihadists, feminised svelte terrorists keen to undermine a state not merely with purpose but appearance.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls had a very clear reading about women rushing around in their newly made burkinis, nothing less, he suggested, as revolution in dress tampering with the normal order of things. “It’s the translation of a political project for a counter-society based on women’s enslavement.”

The humble burkini, in other words, was a battering ram against the secular idea, not to mention notions of gender equality (for one member of the National Assembly of France, a “gender prison” no less!) and national security.[2] Never mind that in appearance it looks awfully much like an adjusted wetsuit.

Cannes Mayor David Linsard was one of the first out of the blocks, insisting that clothing restrictions be introduced in the Riviera city.  Those not abiding by the ban face fines up to 38 euros.  Ange-Pierre Vivon from Corsica followed suit.  “Islamist fundamentalists,” he trumpeted, “have no business” on the island.

All this was too dramatic for Aheda Zanetti, the Australian designer behind the outfit, who was perplexed from the start at the zealous reaction from French authorities. “My first reaction is… Oh my God, it is just a swimsuit, for God’s sake.”[3]  Perhaps Zanetti was being genuine in her puzzlement, though it has been a masterstroke of free marketing.  Naturally, items of clothing can themselves become symbolic reference points, the mote in the eye of some institutions keen to stamp out a form of behaviour.  Not that they necessarily know how to do so.For Zanetti, the matter has been unnecessarily complicated by politically dirty hands and overly paranoid minds.  Choice is assumed on the part of the wearer. “Its symbolising freedom, healthy living, confidence; it’s symbolising a choice [these women] make.”  It hides the new mothers conscious of their post-natal figures; it conceals those concerned that they might be cooked to a pilchard before the summer sun.

Not so, insist such figures as journalist Hala Arafa, who sees direct links between fashion and fundamentalism.  “The fashion worn in the 21stcentury reflects the progress of (women’s rights)… The clothes worn by Muslim fundamentalist women are based on seventh century beliefs.”[4]

Arafa goes even further, insisting that the burkini itself promotes a “rape ideology,” an excuse for men to behave badly by “linking a woman’s honour” to her clothing.  This excuse has certain historical truck, though the issue of a fashion ban smacks of the very policing and linking of honour to clothing (in this case, forced adoption of a code) that should be avoided regarding women.

Gradually, the mines are going off in this debate, niggling the beasts of censorship.  For one, various social experiments are being conducted.  The group Trollstation, which entertains itself with gauging public reaction to such matters as the burkini, decided to conduct a simulated experiment on a British beach.

The designated “police officer” garnered some reaction from individuals after telling, as part of the prank, a burkini wearer to remove the outfit. “She’s obviously a Muslim… You cannot discriminate against her religion,” tooted a lady who rushed to rescue the damsel as guinea pig.  “You cannot do that.”[5]

So the tendency continues; woman wears an outfit either provocative in its skimpiness or provocative in its conservativeness. Authorities beset by ideology intervene.  The idea of control is never far away.  Nor is the morally obsessed tape measurer and politically charged censor.  Beaches as bastions of freedom?  Forget it.

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

Notes

[1] http://qz.com/765675/photographic-proof-that-women-just-cannot-get-a-break-even-on-the-beach/

[2] https://theconversation.com/banning-the-burkini-reinforces-a-single-story-about-muslim-women-they-need-saving-64180

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-18/burkini-australian-designer-mystified-by-french-ban/7764422

[4] http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/292335-burkini-toxic-ideology-not-a-dress-choice

[5] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-28/burkini-clad-woman-asked-to-leave-british-beach-in-experiment/7792462

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Banning Burkinis: The Politics of Beachwear

The ugly legacy of George W. Bush’s torture program continues to haunt U.S. foreign policy as the “poster child” for waterboarding, Abu Zubaydah, makes an appeal for his release from Guantanamo, writes Marjorie Cohn.

Last week, Abu Zubaydah, who has been imprisoned at Guantanamo for 14 years without being charged with a crime, appeared for the first time before the U.S. military Periodic Review Board, which determines whether Guantanamo detainees will continue to be held as “enemy combatants.”

Zubaydah argued he should be released because he has “no desire or intent to harm the United States or any other country.” During his hearing, Zubaydah also said he had been tortured by the CIA, an allegation confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee’s torture report. The U.S. government maintains he is an enemy combatant.

Guantanamo Bay prisoner Abu Zubaydah

Guantanamo Bay prisoner Abu Zubaydah 

When Zubaydah was apprehended in Pakistan in 2002, the Bush administration characterized him as “chief of operations” for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden’s “number three” man. This was untrue, according to John Kiriakou, who led the joint CIA-FBI team that caught Zubaydah. Kiriakou confirmed that Zubaydah did not help plan the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Dan Coleman, a leading FBI expert on Al Qaeda, said Zubaydah “knew very little about real operations, or strategy.” Coleman’s observations were communicated to President George W. Bush. Nevertheless, the President scolded CIA Director George Tenet, saying, “I said [Zubaydah] was important, You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?”

Zubaydah was tortured repeatedly at the “black sites,” where the CIA subjected him to waterboarding 83 times. On one occasion, Zubaydah had to be resuscitated. An observer at the scene was quoted in the Senate torture report as saying Zubaydah was “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth.”

In 2005, after the Abu Ghraib torture photos came to light, the CIA destroyed several hundred hours of videotapes of the interrogations of Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The tapes likely depicted waterboarding.

Waterboarding is designed, according to Bush lawyer (now federal judge) Jay Bybee, to induce the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic,” i.e. the perception of drowning.

The Bush administration claimed it only used waterboarding on three individuals (the third being alleged 9/11 organizer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed). But a footnote in one of Bush lawyer Stephen Bradbury’s memos says waterboarding was utilized “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” with “large volumes of water” rather than small quantities as required by the CIA’s rules.

The CIA also withheld Zubaydah’s medication (as he recovered from severe injuries), slammed him into a wall, threatened him with impending death, shackled him in uncomfortable positions, and bombarded him with continuous deafening noise and harsh lights.

In one of his memos, Bybee wrote that the CIA told him, “Zubaydah does not have any pre-existing mental conditions or problems that would make him likely to suffer prolonged mental harm from [the CIA’s] proposed interrogation methods.”

Coffin-like Box

Bybee granted the CIA’s request to confine Zubaydah in a cramped box with a harmless insect and tell him it will sting him but it won’t kill him. Even though the CIA knew that Zubaydah had an irrational fear of insects, Bybee decided there would be no threat of severe physical pain or suffering if it followed this procedure.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking to the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking to the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

“[Zubaydah] spent a total of 266 hours (11 days, 2 hours) in the large (coffin size) confinement box and 29 hours in a small confinement box, which had the width of 21 inches, a depth of 2.5 feet, and a height of 2.5 feet,” according to the Senate torture report.

The torture of Zubaydah did not yield useful information. FBI agent Ali Soufan, who interrogated him, wrote in the New York Times that any useful information Zubaydah provided was given before the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — Bush-speak for torture — were used.

In response to the torture, Zubaydah told his interrogators that Al Qaeda was planning terrorist attacks against the Brooklyn Bridge, Statute of Liberty, shopping malls, banks, water systems, supermarkets, nuclear plants and apartment buildings. He said Al Qaeda was close to building a crude nuclear bomb. None of this was ever corroborated.

The Torture Statute punishes conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct, specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. “Severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from either the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, or from the threat of imminent death.

It is undisputed that waterboarding constitutes torture, which is considered a war crime under the U.S. War Crimes Act. Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is also outlawed by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty the United States has ratified.

Despite his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” President Barack Obama refuses to bring the Bush officials who tortured Zubaydah and others to justice.

Donald Trump has pledged to keep Guantanamo open and advocates a resumption of waterboarding. Indeed, he promised a Trump administration would “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

Hillary Clinton opposes waterboarding. She said torture is an “open recruitment poster for more terrorists,” and “over the years, Guantanamo has inspired more terrorists than it has imprisoned.”

Meanwhile, Zubaydah languishes at Guantanamo, with no hope of release.

Joseph Margulies, one of Zubaydah’s lawyers, said his client is “the poster child for the torture program, and that’s why they never want him to be heard from again.”

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse. Visit her website at http://marjoriecohn.com/ and follow her on Twitter at https://twitter.com/marjoriecohn

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Abu Zubaydah: Guantanamo’s Torture’s ‘Poster Child’. Imprisoned for 14 Years without being Charged…

It has been a quarter of a century now since the fall of the Soviet Union and yet the memory of the Soviet Armed Forces is still vivid in the minds of many of those who lived through the Cold War or even remember WWII. The NATO-sponsored elites of Eastern Europe still continue to scare their citizens by warning of a danger of “Russian tanks” rolling down their streets as if the Soviet tanks were about to advance on Germany again.

For a while, the accepted image of a Russian soldier in the West was a semi-literate drinking and raping Ivan who would attack in immense hordes with little tactical skills and an officer corps selected for political loyalty and lack of imagination.

Then the propaganda narrative changed and now the new Russian bogeyman is a “little green man” who will suddenly show up to annex some part of the Baltics to Russia. Putatively pro-Russian “experts” add to the confusion by publicly hallucinating of a Russian deployment in Syria and the Mediterranean which could wrestle the entire region away from Uncle Sam and fight the entire NATO/CENCOM air forces and navies with confidence. This is all nonsense, of course, and what I propose to do here is to provide a few very basic pointers about what the modern Russian military can and cannot do in 2016. This will not be a highly technical discussion but rather a list of a few simple, basic, reminders.

Russia is not the Soviet Union

The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that the Russian military is truly focused on the defense of Russian territory. Let me immediately say that contrary to much of the Cold War propaganda, the Soviet military was also defensive in essence, even if it did include a number of offensive elements:

1) The military control of all of Eastern Europe as a “buffer zone” to keep the US/NATO away from the Soviet Union’s borders.

2) An official ideology, Communism, which was messianic and global in its stated goals (more or less, depending on who was in power)

3) A practice of global opposition to the US Empire anywhere on the planet with technical, political, financial, scientific and, of course, military means

Russia has exactly zero interest in any of these. Not only did the nature of modern warfare dramatically reduce the benefits of being forward deployed, the messianic aspects of Communism have even been abandoned by the Communist Party of Russia which is now focused on the internal socio-economic problems of Russia and which has no interest whatsoever in liberating the Polish or Austrian proletariat from Capitalist exploitation. As for a global military presence, Russia has neither the means nor the desire to waste her very limited resources on faraway territories which do not contribute to her defense.

Anton Gvozdikov / Shutterstock.com

Anton Gvozdikov / Shutterstock.com

 

But the single most important factor here is this: the overwhelming majority of Russians are tired and fed up with being an empire. From Peter I to Gorbachev, the Russian people have paid a horrific price in sweat, tears, blood and Rubles to maintain an empire which did absolutely nothing for the Russian people except impoverish them and make them hated in much of the world. More than anything else, the Russians want their country to be a “normal” country. Yes, safe, powerful, wealthy and respected, but still a normal country and not a global superpower. Many Russians still remember that the Soviet Politburo justified the occupation and subsequent war in Afghanistan as the completion of an “internationalist duty” and if somebody today tried that kind of language the reply would be “to hell with that”. Finally, there is the sad reality that almost all the countries which were liberated by Russia, not only from Nazi Germany, but also from the Turkish yoke show exactly zero gratitude for the role Russia played in their liberation. To see how our so-called “Orthodox brothers” in Bulgaria, Romania or Georgia are eager to deploy NATO weapons against Russia is nothing short of sickening. The next time around, let these guys liberate themselves, everybody will be happier that way.

It is a basic rule of military analysis that you do not look at the intentions but primarily at capabilities, so let us now look at Russian capabilities.

The Russian armed forces are relatively small

First, the Russian armed forces are fairly small, especially for the defense of the biggest country on the planet (Russia is almost twice the size of the USA, she has a about half the population and land border length of 20,241km). The total size of the Russian Armed Forces is estimated at about 800,000 soldiers. That puts the Russian Armed Forces in 5th position worldwide, somewhere between the DPRK (1,190,000) and Pakistan (643,800). Truly, this kind of “bean counting” makes absolutely no sense, but this comparison is useful to show something crucial: the Russian Armed Forces are relatively small.

SakerRussiaThis conclusion is further bolstered if we consider the fact that it is hard to imagine a scenario in which every Russian soldier from Kalinigrad to the Kamchatka will be engaged at the same time against one enemy. This is why the Russian territory has been broken up into five separate (and, de facto, autonomous) military districts (or “strategic directions): East, Central, Northern, Western and Southern.

While there are a number of units which are subordinated directly to the high command in Moscow, most Russian units have been distributed between the commands of these strategic directions.

[Sidebar: it is also interesting to know that when Putin came to power the Western military district was almost demilitarized as nobody in Russia believed that there was a threat coming from the West. The aggressive US/NATO policies have now changed that and there now is an major program underway to strengthen it, including the reactivation of the First Guards Tank Army.]

There is no US equivalent to the Russian military districts. Or, if there is, it is very different in nature and scope. I am talking about the US Unified Combatant Commands which have broken up our entire planet into “Areas of Responsibility”:


Notice that all of Russia is in the area of “responsibility” of only one of these commands, USEUCOM. In reality, however, in the case of full scale war between Russia and the United States USCENTCOM and USPACOM would, obviously, play a crucial role.

The Russians are *not* coming

The size and capabilities of the Russian Military Districts are completely dwarfed by the immense power and resources of the US Commands: in every one of these commands the USA already has deployed forces, pre-positioned equipment and built the infrastructure needed to receive major reinforcements. Furthermore, since the USA currently has about 700 military bases worldwide, the host countries have been turned into a modern version of a colony, a protectorate, which has no option than to fully collaborate with the USA and which has to offer all its resources in manpower, equipment, infrastructure, etc. to the USA in case of war. To put it simply: all of Europe is owned by the USA which can use it as they want (mainly as canon fodder against Russia, of course).

SakerRussia-2It is important to keep this immense difference in size and capabilities in mind when, for example, we look at the Russian operation in Syria.

When the first rumors of an impending Russian intervention began flooding the blogosphere many were tempted to say that the Russians were about to liberate Syria, challenge NATO and defeat Daesh. Some had visions of Russian Airborne Forces deployed into Damascus, MiG-31s criss-crossing the Syrian skies and even Russian SLBMs cruising off the Syrian coast (though they never explained this one). At the time I tried to explain that no, the “Russians are not coming” (see hereherehere,here and here), but my cautionary remarks were not greeted with enthusiasm, to put it mildly. A Russian task force did eventually materialize in Syria, but it was a very far cry from what was expected. In fact, compared to the expected intervention force, it was tiny: 50 aircraft and support personnel. What this small force achieved, however, was much more than anybody expected, including myself. So what happened here, did the Russians really do everything they can, or did they get cold feet or were they somehow pressured into a much less ambitious mission than they had originally envisioned?

To explain this, we now need to look at the actual capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces.

The true “reach” of the Russian armed forces

First, Russia does have very long range weapon systems: her missiles can reach any point on the planet, her bombers can fly many thousands of miles and her transport aircraft have a range of several thousand miles. However, and this is crucial, none of that amounts to a real power projection capability.

There are two main ways to project power: to take control over a territory or, failing that to deny it to your enemy. The first one absolutely requires the famous “boots on the ground” while the second one requires air supremacy. So how far away from home can the Russian soldiers and pilots really fight? How far from home can the Russian Aerospace forces establish a no-fly zone?

Let’s begin by dispelling a myth: that Russian Airborne Forces are more or less similar to the US 82nd or 101st Airborne. They are not. The 82nd and 101st are light infantry divisions which are typically engaged in what I would call “colonial enforcement” missions. In comparison to the US airborne forces, the Russian Airborne Forces are much heavier, fully mechanized and their main mission is to fight in the operational level support of the front to a maximum depth of 100km to 300km (if I remember correctly, the Russian Aerospace Forces don’t even have sufficient aircraft to airlift an entire Airborne Division although they will acquire that capability in 2017). Once landed, the Russian Airborne Division is a much more formidable force than its US counterpart: not only are the Russians fully mechanized and they have their own artillery. Most importantly, they are far more tactically mobile than the Americans.

But what the Russians gain in tactical mobility, they lose in strategic mobility.: the US can easily send the 82nd pretty much to any location on the planet, whereas the Russians most definitely cannot do that with their Airborne Forces.

Furthermore, even a Russian Airborne Division is relatively weak and fragile, especially when compared to regular armed forces, so they are critically dependent on the support of the Russian Aerospace forces. That, again, dramatically reduces the “reach” of these forces. All this is to say that no, the Russian VDV never had the means to send an airborne division/Brigade/Regiment to Damascus any more than they had the means to support the Russian VDV company in Pristina. This is not a weakness of the Russian Airborne Forces, it is simply the logical consequence of the fact that the entire Russian military posture is purely defensive in nature, at least strategically.

Like any other modern military force, the Russians are capable of offensive military operations, but those would be executed primarily as a part of a defensive plan or as a part of a counter-attack. And while the Russian Ground Forces (aka “Army”) have excellent terrain crossing capabilities, they are all designed for missions of less than a couple of hundred kilometers in depth.

This is why in the past I have written that the Russian Armed Forces are designed to fight on their national territory and up to a maximum of 1000km from the Russian border. Now, please do not take this “1000km” literally. In reality, 200km-400km would be much more realistic, and I would say that the capabilities of the Russian military diminish in a manner roughly inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the Russian borders. Here is what this maximal 1000km looks like on a map showing the western and southern borders of Russia:

SakerRussia-3

Keep in mind that the real distance the Russian armed forces can “reach” is not primarily determined by distance, but much more by terrain and the possible defenses encountered in this zone. Flying over Estonia to reach the Baltic Sea would be much easier than to fly over Turkey to reach Syria. It is much easier to cross the Ukrainian plains that it would be to cross the snow covered forests of Finland. Again, the conceptual 1000km distance would often be much shorter in the real world.

If we now take a closer look at the Middle-East, here is what we see:

SakerRussia-4

Notice that Khmeimin is just at the edge of this 1000km distance, but only 50km from the Turkish border and that in order to resupply it the Russians would need to either cross Turkish airspace of fly around Turkey via Iran and Iraq. In other words, Khmeimim and Damascus are way too far for the Russian armed forces to insert anything but a relatively small force and give it a relatively limited mission. And while the Russians were extremely successful in Syria, I would argue that Putin took a huge risk, even if he, and the Russian General Staff, calculated the odds correctly and achieved a truly remarkable success.

Has the recent Iranian offer to use the Hamedan airbase made a difference in Russian capabilities?

Yes and no. Yes because it will now make it possible for the Russians to use their Tu-22M3 in a much more effective way and no because this improvement does not fundamentally change the regional balance of power or allow the Russian to project their forces into Syria. To put it simply: the Russians are years away from being capable of executing something similar to what the USA did during “Desert Shield”. In fact, such operations are not even part of the Russian military doctrine and the Russians have no desire to develop any such capability. There is a reason why the AngloZionist Empire is broke: maintaining a global empire is prohibitively expensive, the Russians painfully learned that lesson in the past and they have no desire to emulate the USA today. Doing so would not only require a dramatic change in the Russian military posture, but also to imitate the US political and economic model, something Russia neither desires nor is capable of.

There are, however, also big advantages to the Russian force posture, the main one being that Russians will only fight on “their turf” not only in terms of location, but also in terms of capabilities. The very same inverse square “law” which so severely limits the Russian military power projection capabilities also acts in Russia’s favor when dealing with an enemy approaching the Russian border: the closer this enemy gets, the more dangerous his environment becomes. In practical terms, this means that the three Baltic states, the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Finland, most of the Ukraine, the Black Sea and the Caspian are all, for all practical purposes, “Russkie-land”. The fact that NATO pretends otherwise makes no difference here: the kind of firepower, capabilities which Russia can bring to bear simply dwarfs what the US and NATO can commit. This is not an issue of number of tanks, or helicopters or combat aircraft, it is the fact that over and near the Russian territory the Russian armed forces would act as an integrated whole, exactly what they cannot do as far as, say, in Syria. So even if NATO can in theory bring more aircraft to the battle, Russian aircraft would be supported by the multi-layered and fully integrated Russian air defense network, a large number of sophisticated electronic warfare systems which, together with highly capable and long range interceptors: land based like the S-400 or airborne like the MiG-31BM would make it extremely dangerous for US/NATO aircraft to get anywhere near Russian airspace, especially for the AWACs the US air doctrine completely depends on.

The real meaning of A2AD

SakerRussia-5The US and NATO are, of course, very much aware of this. And as is typically the case, they concealed this reality behind an obscure acronym: A2AD, which stands for anti-access area denial. According to US strategists, Russia, China and even Iran are plotting to use A2AD strategies against the USA. What this means in plain English is simple, of course: some countries out there actually can fight back and defend themselves (hence the burning aircraft carrier on the cover of this book). The arrogance of it all is simply amazing: it is not like the USA is concerned about Iranian A2AD in Paraguay, Russia A2AD in Africa or even Chinese A2AD in the Gulf of Mexico. No, the USA is concerned about these countries defending their own borders. Indeed, how dare they?!

Fortunately for the world, Uncle Sam only gets to whine here, but cannot do much about it except conceal these realities from the general public in the West and obfuscate the dangers of messing with the wrong countries under bizarre acronyms like A2AD. And that brings me to the Ukraine.

A quick look at 1000km map will immediately show that the Ukraine is also well within the conceptual “Russkie-land” zone (again, don’t take 1000km literally, and remember that this is a maximum, a couple of hundred kilometers are much more realistic). This does not at all mean that Russia would want, or should, attack or invade the Ukraine (the the Baltic states and Poland, for that matter), but it does mean that such an operation is well within the Russian capabilities (at least if we forget about public opinion in Russia) and that to try to counter that would take a truly immense effort, something nobody in the West has the means to undertake.

In truth, those kinds of scenarios only exist in the demented minds of western propagandists and in the artifical world of US think tanks which make providing the politicians with frightening fairy tales their daily bread (for an example of the latter, see here). To be sure, the fact that both sides have long-range standoff weapons, including nuclear ones, makes such a scenario even less likely unless we assume that the Russians have gone insane and are trying to force the US to resort to nuclear weapons. The opposite scenario – the US taking the risk of forcing Russia to use her nukes – is, alas, not quite as unlikely, especially if the Neocons take full control of the White House. The difference? The Russians know that they are neither invulnerable nor invincible, the Americans don’t. This is why the latter are far more likely to trigger and conflict than the former.

A full-scale war between the USA and Russia would be far different from anything described here: it would last a week, maybe two, it would involve conventional and nuclear strikes on both the USA and Russia, and it would be fought primarily with standoff weapons, “boots on the ground” or armored warfare would matter very little in such a scenario.

The Ukraine is located well inside Russkie-land

So if in Syria the “Russians are not coming”, then in the Ukraine they are already there. I am not referring to the sending of equipment (the voentorg) or volunteers (the “northern wind”) but to the fact that the Ukraine and, especially, the Donbass are so close to the Russian border as being basically undeniable to the Russians should they decide to take it. Again, I am not suggesting that they will, or even that this should happen, but only that all the hot air from the regime in Kiev about “defending Europe against the Russian hordes” or “teaching NATO on how to fight the Russians” is absolute nonsense. Ditto for the talk about supplying “lethal weapons” to the Ukronazis. Why? Because the situation in the Donbass is extremely simple: it is highly unlikely that the Ukronazis would succeed in taking over the Donbass but if, by some miracle, they did, they would be destroyed by the Russian armed forces. Putin has made it abundantly clear that while he will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine, he will not allow a genocide to take place in Novorussia. Just the Russian artillery deployed along the border has the means to destroy any Ukrainian force invading Novorussia. In fact, that is exactly what happened in July of 2014 when in a single cross-border 2 minutes long fire strike by Russian multiple rocket launchers and long range artillery guns completely destroyed two Ukrainian mechanized battalions (a first in the history of warfare).

As I wrote many times, all parties to the conflict know that, and the only real goal of the Ukronazis is to trigger a Russian intervention in the Donbass, while the Russians are trying to avoid it by covertly supporting the Novorussians. That’s it. It is that simple. But the notion of the Ukronazis ever getting their hands on the Donbass or, even less so, Crimea is absolutely ridiculous as even the combined power of the US and NATO could not make that happen.

Conclusion: Russia ain’t the Soviet Union and it ain’t the USA

It is absolutely amazing how hard it is for so many people to understand the seemingly simple fact that Russia is not a USSR v2 nor an anti-USA. It is therefore absolutely essential to repeat over and over again that the Russia of 2016 has no aspirations to become an empire and no means to become a global challenger to the AngloZionist hegemony over our planet. So what does Russia want? It is simple: Russia simply wants to be a sovereign and free country. That’s it. But in a world ruled by the AngloZionist Empire this is also a lot. In fact, I would say that for the international plutocracy ruling the Empire, this Russian aspiration is completely and categorically unacceptable as it sees this Russian desire as an existential threat to the USA and the entire New World Order the Empire is trying to impose upon all of us. They are absolutely correct, by the way.

If Russia is allowed to break free from the Empire, then this means the end for the Empire’s global domination project as other countries will inevitably follow suit. Not only that, but this would deprive the Empire from the immense Russian resources in energy, potable water, strategic metals, etc. If Russia is allowed to break free and succeed, then Europe will inevitably gravitate towards Russia due to objective economic and political factors. Losing Europe would mean the end of the AngloZionist Empire. Everybody understands that and this is why the ruling 1%ers have unleashed to most hysterical full-spectrum russophobic propaganda campaign in western history. So yes, Russia and the Empire are already at war, a war for survival from which only one side will walk away while the other will be eliminated, at least in its current political form. This war is a new type of war, however, one which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military. This is why the ban on the Russian paralympic team is every bit as important as the delivery of US and British counter-battery radars to the Nazi junta in Kiev.

If militarily and economically Russia is dramatically weaker than the US led block of all the countries forming the Empire, on the informational front Russia is doing much better. It is enough to see all the hysterics of western politicians about RT to see that they are most definitely feeling threatened in an area which they used to completely dominate: information operations (aka propaganda).

The goals of Russia are quite simple:

a) military: to survive (defensive military doctrine)

b) economic: to become truly sovereign (to remove the 5th columnists from power)

c) informational: to discredit and de-legitimize the Empire political and economic basis

That’s it. Unlike the grandiose hopes of those who wish to see the Russian military intervene everywhere, these 3 goals are commensurate with the actual capabilities/means of Russia.

One cannot win a war by engaging in the kind of warfare the enemy excels at. You have to impose upon him the kind of warfare you excel at. If Russia tried to “out-USA the USA” she would inevitably lose, she therefore chose to be different in order to prevail.

There are still many out there who are nostalgic for the “good old days” of the Cold War when any anti-US movement, party, regime or insurgency would automatically get the support of the USSR. These are the folks who deeply regret that Russia did not liberate the Ukraine from the Nazi junta, who fault Russia for not standing up to the USA in Syria and who are baffled, if not disgusted, by the apparently cozy relationship between Moscow and Tel Aviv. I understand these people, at least to some degree, but I also see what they plainly fail to realize: Russia is still much weaker than the AngloZionist Empire and because of that Russia will always prefer a bad peace to a good war. Besides, it is not like there was a long line of countries waiting to defend Russia when her interests were affected. Does anybody know which countries, besides Russia, have recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Answer: Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru! Yep, not even Kazakhstan or Syria… Isn’t friendship and partnership a two-way street?

The truth is that Russia does not owe anything to anybody. But even more importantly, Russia does simply not have the means to engage in a planetary zero-sum game against the AngloZionist Empire. Since Vladimir Putin came to power he achieved a quasi-miracle: he made Russia into a semi-sovereign state. Yes, I wrote semi-sovereign because while Russia is militarily safe she remains economically subservient to the AngloZionist Empire. Compared to the Empire, her economy is tiny and her armed forces only capable of defending the Russian homeland. And yet, just as the tiny Russian contingent in Khmeimim achieved results way superior to anything which could have been expected from it, Russia is still the only power on the planet who dares to openly say “niet” to the AngloZionist Hegemon and but to even openly challenge and even ridicule its legitimacy and so-called ‘values’.

The war between the Empire and Russia will be a long one, and its outcome will remain uncertain for many years but, as the Russian saying goes, “Russia does not start wars, she ends them”. The Papacy fought against Russia for 1000 years. The Crusaders for roughly a century. The Swedish Empire for 21 years. Napoleon for just a few months. Queen Victoria, Napoleon III and Abdülmecid I (what I call the “Ecumenical Coalition against Russia) for about 3 years. The Kaiser Wilhelm II also for 3 years. The Trotskysts for a decade. Hitler for 4 years. The Jewish mobsters (aka “oligarchs”) for 9 years. And yes, they all eventually were defeated, even after a temporary victory, but each time Russia paid a huge price in blood and suffering. This time around, the Russian leaders have chosen a different strategy, they try as hard as possible not to give the West a pretext for a full-scale military confrontation. So far, this strategy has been successful and besides a two terrorist attacks (in Egypt and Syria) and a two-year long recession (apparently ending soon), Russia did not have pay the horrendous price countries at war with the West typically have had to pay. It would be delusional to expect the Russians to change course at this time, especially since time is now clearly on the Russian side. Just look at all the problems all the enemies of Russia have to which she does not have to contribute at all: the US and EU are both in a deep and potentially devastating political crisis, the US is sitting on an economic time-bomb while the EU is quite literally imploding. The Ukraine has turned into a textbook example of a failed state and is likely to break apart, while Turkey is undergoing the worst crisis since its foundation. And each passing day just makes things worse and worse for the Empire. This reminds me of the monologue of Captain Willard in the movie “Apocalypse Now”: “I’m here a week now… waiting for a mission… getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the bush, he gets stronger. Each time I looked around the walls moved in a little tighter”. Replace Charlie with Ivan and the jungle with the taiga, and you get a pretty good picture of the dynamic taking place: every days the walls of the Empire are moving in a little tighter while the AngloZionists are completely clueless as to what to do to stop this.

Conclusion

In international affairs, as in many other areas, it is better to never say never. So I will only say that to see the Russian armed forces going into an offensive operation remains exceedingly unlikely. Nor will Russia defend even an important partner at “any cost”. The primarily mission and military posture of the Russian armed forces will remain fundamentally defensive and while Russia might use her armed forces in support of a political goal or to help an ally, she will do that with extreme caution not to allow that engagement to escalate into a regional war or, even less so, a direct war against the Empire.

Unlike the West where a possible war with Russia is almost never discussed (and, when it is, it is done in an absolutely ridiculous manner), the prospects of war with the West are discussed in the Russian media on an almost daily basis, including on the main, state-funded, TV stations. As for the Russian armed forces, they are engaged in huge rearmament and force-training program which, so far, has been roughly 50% completed. These are all clear signs that Russia is preparing, very intensively, for war. Should the Neocon “crazies in the basement” trigger a war they will find Russia ready, militarily and psychologically, to fight and to win, no matter what the costs. But Russia will never again volunteer for the role of global anti-US agent or engage her armed forces if there is a viable alternative to such an engagement. So no, most definitely not, the Russians are not coming.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Assessing the Russian Military as an Instrument of Power

Until the July 15th US-backed (or so the Turkish government alleges) coup-attempt to overthrow Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, Erdogan was trying to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, whom the US regime likewise wants to overthrow.

However, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin saved Erdogan’s Presidency, and probably Erdogan’s life, by contacting him hours prior to the pending coup and thus enabled him to plan and prepare so as to overcome the attempt, and crush the operation.

Putin wouldn’t have known ahead-of-time about the coup-plan unless Russian intelligence had provided to him intelligence that it was coming. This intelligence might have included information about whom the source of it was. If Putin had intelligence regarding that matter, then he presumably shared it with Erdogan at that time – prior to the coup.

Turkey’s New Relationship with Russia – and Assad

Promptly on July 16th, Erdogan announced that the source of the coup was his long-time foe (but former political supporter) Fethullah Gulen, who in 1999 had relocated himself and the headquarters of his multibillion-dollar Islamic organization to Pennsylvania in the United States. Erdogan said that he would demand Gulen’s extradition to stand trial in Turkey. However, the US State Department said it had not yet received a «formal extradition request».

On August 4th, «Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said Ankara had submitted a second extradition request», but the US ‘Justice’ Department was «still trying to evaluate if the documents can be considered a formal extradition request».

The ‘Justice’ Department is still trying, 16 days later, as of the present writing.

Meanwhile, on August 9th, Erdogan flew to Moscow to meet privately with Putin – the man who had saved his Presidency if not his life. Presumably, Erdogan wanted to see all of Russia’s intelligence on the matter. After that meeting, he may be presumed to have seen all of the intelligence on it, both from Turkish and from Russian intelligence agencies.

Erdogan continued his demand that the US extradite Gulen. Evidently, after his having seen all of the intelligence from both Turkey and Russia, he remained convinced that Gulen was behind it.

Putin is determined to prevent what the American-Saudi-Qatari-Turkish alliance have been demanding on Syria: the ouster of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad prior to any election being held in Syria. The repeated demand by Putin has instead been that only the Syrian people themselves, in a free and fair internationally monitored election, can decide whether or when to terminate Assad’s present term of office, and that Russia will accept whatever the voters of Syria decide as to the identity of Syria’s President going forward.

The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has, on at least two occasions, publicly stated that he supports Putin’s position on this, and that there would be no legitimacy for a forced ouster of the current Syrian President.

On Saturday August 20th, the AP bannered «Turkey: Assad can be part of transition in Syria», and reported that «Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Saturday his country is willing to accept a role for Syrian President Bashar Assad during a transitional period but insisted he has no place in Syria’s future… ‘Could Syria carry Assad in the long-term? Certainly not… The United States knows and Russia knows that Assad does not appear to be someone who can bring (the people) together’».

Of course, Russia does not «know» that (and, in fact, more than 50 % of Syrians even when polled by western firms, want Assad to continue being President of Syria, and more than 80 % blame the US for backing the jihadists), but Turkey’s statement that Russia does «know» it, will help the Turkish public (whom the Erdogan regime has indoctrinated to consider Assad evil) acclimate to thinking of Assad’s ally Russia as being actually a friend, no foe, of Turkey; and this will, in turn, assist Erdogan going forward, especially if he’s aiming to, for example, remove Turkey from the NATO alliance and align with Russian foreign policy.

What’s happening here is the setting of the terms for the next Presidential election in Syria. Washington and its allies (which used to include its fellow-NATO-member Turkey) demand that the Syrian ‘democratic revolution’ (or foreign invasion by fundamentalist-Sunni jihadists hired and armed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE) succeed and establish a fundamentalist-Sunni leader for Syria, who will then, perhaps, hold elections, which, perhaps, will be ‘democratic’ instead of imposing Sunni Islamic law. But Assad, and Russia, demand that there be no such overthrow prior to the election; and, now, Turkey has stated that this would be acceptable to them. That’s a big change in Turkey’s international relations.

How seriously should one take Turkey’s continuing demand that «Certainly not» could the Syrian people re-elect Assad to be their President? One should take it with a grain of salt that would easily be washed away if Assad does win that election.

In other words: Turkey has announced, on August 20th, that, at least on the Syrian issue, it’s no longer an ally of the US

An earthquake has thus happened in international relations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s New Relationship with Russia — and Assad

This America, This House Divided, Cannot Stand

August 29th, 2016 by Michael T. Bucci

In an election cycle that has scored the lowest in human decency, civilized behavior and speech – from Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage to Donald J. Trump; a cycle characterized by hate, viciousness, competing scandals, voluminous unproven allegations, scapegoats, fear-mongering, incitements to violence, death threats, and general moral decline bordering on decadence, I advise no child be exposed to any of it – none!

These public displays are not examples of an “indispensible”, “exceptional” and “greatest” nation in the world. Great leaders don’t sink to adolescent catcalls, jeering mockery, vulgar insults and verbal abuse, or instigate violence. Great nations don’t threaten other countries and sovereigns with regime change, assassination or war if they recoil from its political and economic diktats.

Said about some people can be said of some Americans: They don’t ever point out a pink elephant in the room! They sweep it under the rug. If it is too big to hide, they blame it on Putin, Russia, China, terrorists, foreign hackers, socialists, environmental fascists, “baby killers”, atheists, Black Lives Matter, welfare cheats, humanists, tax-and-spend liberals – even FDR.

Be a “good American” – don’t question? Stand in line, keep your mouth shut and believe what you’re told to believe?

Don’t ever question the supremacy of money, markets and property – the Holy Trinity of the Austrian School, the Chicago School, and the neoliberal and libertarian?

Don’t ever question the unassailable military-industrial-intel complex – the largest brute-force cartel in the world?

Don’t ever question the corrosiveness of fiercely competitive dog-eat-dog living at a vulture stage of capitalism where selfishness and profiteering are virtues and mutual cooperation and respect are Deadly Sins?

Don’t ever question Corporate America that has outsourced jobs; keeps profits in offshore tax havens; seeks to privatized government itself; controls the flow of commerce; restrictsMain Street, small business and the entrepreneur; disavows innovation to meet quarterly analyst expectations and pay insider bonuses?

Don’t ever question the usury of bankers who manipulate the money supply, dominate the markets, set interest and finance rates and have weaved almost every American into a web of life-long debt?

Don’t ever question flagrant consumerism – the sanctified and obligatory acts of buying, buying, buying, buying non-essential products produced by slave-labor in Southeast Asia and sold by slave-wage laborers here inAmerica’s retail mega-chains?

Don’t ever question the markets – the “indicator of the nation’s health”. Disregard any fall in pension payments, interest, retirement benefits or freezing of COLA because the “indicators” all say the patient is in ideal health?

Don’t ever question if any Republican is an agent of the ubiquitous downturns in personal fortunes. Always remember: These events are due to liberals and leftists, the people who are destroying this country?

Don’t ever question the superior white male that “manifest destiny” (allotted by Providence itself!) has entrusted with safeguarding the nation’s pure stock and who is granted inalienable rights over the alien – especially the non-Christian Muslim – and over the inferior races of black-, brown-, yellow- and red-skin, as well as nearly half the world population who are women?

Don’t ever question the morally righteous religionist who throws the first stone? They think themselves God’s judge and jury and want to save you from Hell.

Don’t ever question police brutality and the murders of innocent young black males; or ever question why police have been militarized by Homeland Security to fight against their own townspeople?

Don’t ever question America’s seamless dragnet surveillance state that protects you from terrorists; or question the harmlessness of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and friends sweeping, collecting, analyzing and profiling every last measure of your privacy (it’s “only to sell advertising”)?

Don’t ever question the objectivity of mass-media news that earns its keep from advertising dollars? Advertisers who have the most to spend get the most copy, and the most protection. Those who have no money you’ll never learn about.

Don’t ever question Rush Limbaugh who will convince you Hitler was a Leftist and the Pope a Marxist; or question Elmer Gantry demagogues on TV and AM radio who will convince you Satan rules the world?

Most importantly, don’t ever, ever, ever, ever, ever question the Second Amendment? Even if the Constitution needs to be suspended in order to save it, retain the “2nd Amen”.

Finally, don’t ever sayAmericais a divided nation when almost every American AGREES on how divided it really is.

Somewhere underneath the rising rubble formed by collapsing jobs, wages, infrastructure, institutions and civility; underneath citizens chaotically spinning and dizzy from civil, political, religious, gender and culture wars; awash in high-velocity propaganda and psychological conditioning; witnessing neighbors thrash against other neighbors and identity groups and wedge issues fight for supremacy over others … is to be found … America.

But this historic and singular melting pot of immigrants, ethnics, races and creeds, thisAmerica, this house divided, cannot stand.

Michael T. Bucci is a retired public relations executive who currently resides in New England. He has authored nine books on practical spirituality collectively titled The Cerithous Material.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This America, This House Divided, Cannot Stand

In mid-July, President Erdogan pointed his finger at the CIA, accusing US intelligence of having supported a failed coup directed against his government. Turkish officials pointed to a deterioration of US-Turkey relations following Washington’s refusal to extradite Fethullah Gülen, the alleged architect of the failed coup.

Erdogan’s Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag was categorical:

“If the US does not deliver (Gulen), they will sacrifice relations with Turkey for the sake of a terrorist” 

Public opinion was led to believe that relations with the US had not only deteriorated, but that Erdogan had vowed to restore “an axis of friendship” with Moscow, including “cooperation in the defence sector”. This was a hoax.

Turkey’s Invasion of Syria

The implementation of the Turkish invasion required routine consultations with the US and NATO, coordination of military logistics, intelligence, communications systems, coordination of ground and air operations, etc. To be effectively carried out these military endeavors required a cohesive and “friendly” US-Turkey relationship.

We are not dealing with a piecemeal military initiative. Turkey’s Operation Euphrates Shield could not have taken place without the active support of the Pentagon, which ultimately calls the shots in the war on Syria.

The likely scenario is that from mid July to mid-August US, NATO and Turkish officials were actively involved in planning the next stage of the war on Syria: an (illegal) invasion led by Turkish ground-forces, backed by the US and NATO.

Map of the Turkish-led offensive in the northern Aleppo Governorate, showing the ongoing developments in west of Euphrates River. Source Wikipedia

The Failed Coup Sets the Stage for a Ground Invasion

1. Massive purges within the armed forces and government were implemented in the immediate wake of the July coup. They had been planned well in advance.  “Arrested immediately were 2,839 army personnel with 2,745 Judges and Prosecutors ordered detained… In under a week 60,000 people had been fired or detained and 2,300 institutions closed” … “   (See Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, August 2, 2016)

2.The coup was intended to fail. Erdogan had advanced knowledge of the coup and so did Washington. There was no conspiracy directed by the CIA against Erdogan. Quite the opposite, the failed coup was in all likelihood engineered by the CIA in liaison with Erdogan. It was intended to consolidate and reinforce the Erdogan regime as well as rally the Turkish people behind their president and his military agenda “in the name of democracy”.

3. The purges within the Armed Forces were intended to get rid of members of the military hierarchy who were opposed to an invasion of Syria. Did the CIA assist Erdogan in establishing the lists of military officers, judges and senior government officials to be arrested or fired? The Turkish media was also targeted, many of which were closed down.

4. Erdogan used the July 15 coup to accuse Washington of supporting the Gulen movement while seeking a fake rapprochement with Moscow. He flew to St Petersburg on August 9, for a behind closed doors meeting with President Putin. In all likelihood, the scenario of a rift between Ankara and Washington coupled with the “my friend Putin” narrative had been approved by the Obama administration. It was part of a carefully designed intelligence ploy coupled with media disinformation. President Erdogan, vowed according to Western media reports: “to restore an ‘axis of friendship’ between Ankara and Moscow amid a growing rift between Turkey and the West.”

5. While “mending the fence” with Russia, Turkey’s military and intelligence apparatus was involved in planning the invasion of Northern Syria in liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels. The underlying objective is to ultimately confront and weaken Syria’s military allies: Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

In St Petersburg in the immediate wake of the July 15 failed coup, Erdogan thanked his “dear friend” Vladimir Putin.

“The fact Mr Putin called me the next day after the coup attempt was a very strong psychological factor,” he said at a joint press conference.  “The axis of friendship between Moscow and Ankara will be restored,” he said. Telegraph, August 7, 2016

Did Putin know that the failed coup, covertly supported by the CIA, was meant to fail? One suspects that Russian intelligence was aware of the ploy and was also informed regarding Turkey’s invasion plans:

“Your visit today, despite a very difficult situation regarding domestic politics, indicates that we all want to restart dialogue and restore relations between Russia and Turkey,” Mr Putin said as the pair met in the city’s Constantine Palace.

… Mr Putin on Tuesday said Russia would “step by step” lift sanctions, … Mr Erdogan in turn promised to back major Russian energy projects in Turkey, including the construction of the country’s first nuclear power station and a gas pipeline to Europe.

He also said the two countries would step up “cooperation in the defence sector,” but did not elaborate.

The Putin-Erdogan Saint Petersburg meeting was interpreted by the media as a rapprochement with Moscow in response to the alleged involvement of the CIA in the failed coup.

According to the Washington Post, an improvised about-turn in US-NATO-Turkey relations had occurred despite Erdogan’s “friendly” encounter with Putin:

NATO went out of its way Wednesday to insist that Turkey — whose president this week visited Moscow and promised a new level of cooperation with the man he repeatedly called his “dear friend,” Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — remains a “valued ally” whose alliance membership “is not in question.”

In a statement posted on its website, NATO said it was responding to “speculative press reports regarding NATO’s stance regarding the failed coup in Turkey and Turkey’s NATO membership.”

A nonsensical report. In actuality, the Pentagon, NATO, the Turkish High Command and Israel are in permanent liaison. Israel is a de facto member of NATO, it has a comprehensive bilateral military and intelligence relationship with Turkey.

With the invasion of  the border area of Northern Syria and the influx of Turkish tanks and armoured vehicles,  the Turkey-Russia relationship is in crisis. And that is the ultimate objective of US foreign policy.

Russian forces are acting on behalf of their Syrian ally.

How will the Kremlin and Russia’s High Command respond to what constitutes a US-Turkey-NATO ground invasion of Syria?

How will they confront Turkish and allied forces? One assumes that Russia will avoid direct military confrontation.

After the US, Turkey is NATO’s heavy weight.

Sofar the Turkish op is limited to a small border territory. Nonetheless it constitutes and important landmark in the evolution of the Syria war: invasion of a sovereign country in derogation of international law. Washington’s endgame remains “regime change” in Damascus.

Is the military initiative a preamble for a larger military undertaking on the part of Turkey supported by US-NATO? In many regards, Turkey is acting as a US proxy:

Turkey’s incursion was backed by US air-cover, drones, and embedded special forces per the WSJ. These were there largely to prevent Russia and Syria from even thinking about taking action against the invading forces.

Turkey is moving into Syria not just with its own military, but with thousands of “rebel opposition groups” including US-backed FSA brigades allied with AlQaeda/Nusra/Sham and the child head-chopping al-Zinki who are reported to form the vanguard. Syrian territory is outright being turned over to them by the Turkish military, simply exchanging control from one group of terrorist jihadis (ISIS) to others who are more media acceptable and more direct proxies of the Erdogan regime, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

That said, ISIS has not resisted the Turkish advance at all – simply “melting away” (or exchanging one set of uniforms for another?). (Moon  of Alabama

Do the SAA Syrian forces have the military capabilities of confronting Turkish ground forces without Russian and Iranian support? How will Tehran react to  the influx of Turkish forces? Will it come to the rescue of its Syrian ally?

An “incident” could be used as a pretext to justify a broader NATO-led war. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (NATO’s founding document) states under the doctrine of “collective security” that an attack against one member state of the Atlantic Alliance (e.g. Turkey) is an attack against all members states of the Atlantic Alliance.

Dangerous crossroads. With the incursion of Turkish ground forces, military confrontation with Syria’s allies, namely Iran and Russia, is a distinct possibility which could lead to a  process of escalation beyond Syria’s borders.

The Erdogan-Jo Biden Meeting 

From Washington’s perspective, this ground invasion sets the stage for a possible annexation of part of Northern Syria by Turkey. It also opens the door for the deployment of US-NATO ground force operations directed against central and southern Syria.

Erdogan met up with Vice President Biden on August 23, following the influx of Turkish tanks into Northern Syria. The invasion is carefully coordinated with the US which provided extensive air force protection. There is no rift between Ankara and Washington, quite the opposite:

It [is] difficult to believe that Turkey truly suspected the US of an attempted decapitation of the nation’s senior leadership in a violent, abortive coup just last month, only to be conducting joint operations with the US inside Syria with US military forces still based within Turkish territory.

What is much more likely is that the coup was staged to feign a US-Turkish fallout, draw in Russia and allow Turkey to make sweeping purges of any elements within the Turkish armed forces that might oppose a cross-border foray into Syria, a foray that is now unfolding.  (See The New Atlas, Global Research, August 24, 2016)

Media reports convey the illusion that the Biden-Erdogan meetings were called to discuss the extradition of the alleged architect of the failed coup Gulen. This was a smokescreen. Jo Biden who had also met Erdogan back in January, gave the green-light on behalf of Washington for a joint US-Turkey-NATO military incursion into Syria.

The Kurdish Question

The invasion is not directed against Daesh (ISIS) which is protected by Ankara, it is geared towards fighting SAA forces as well as Kurdish YPG forces, which are “officially” supported by the US. The US supported ISIS-Daesh and Al Qaeda affiliated rebels are working hand in glove with the Turkish invaders.

The invasion is also part of a longstanding project by Turkey of creating a “safe-haven” within Northern Syria (see map above) which can be used to extend US-NATO-Turkey military operations Southwards into Syria’s heartland.

Washington has warned its Kurdish allies not to confront Turkish forces:

Biden said the Kurds, who Turkey claims intend to establish a separate state along a border corridor in conjunction with Turkey’s own Kurdish population, “cannot, will not, and under no circumstances will get American support if they do not keep” what he said was a commitment to return to the east.

Washington will no doubt eventually clash with Ankara with regard to Turkey’s project of territorial expansion in Northern Syria. Washington’s longstanding objective is to create a Kurdish State in Northern Syria, within the framework of a territorial breakup of both Syria and Iraq. (see US National War Academy map below). In a bitter irony, this “New Middle East” project also consists in annexing part of Turkey to the proposed Kurdish State. In other words, Turkey’s  New Ottoman objective of territorial expansion  encroaches upon Washington’s design to fragment Iraq, Syria, Iran  as well as Turkey. In other words, America’s ultimate imperial design is to weaken Turkey as a regional power.

The Pentagon has defined a military roadmap: “The road to Tehran goes through Damascus.” The invasion of Northern Syria creates conditions for a broader war.

Moreover, on the US agenda is a longstanding objective, namely  to wage war on Iran. In this regard, US military strategy largely consists in creating conditions  for America’s staunchest allies (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel) to confront Iran, and act indirectly on behalf of US interests. i.e. “do the job for us”.

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST



Note:
 The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).  

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.  

The failed coup was indeed supported by the CIA, but the failure was coordinated with President Erdogan. It was an intelligence op which was meant to fail and mislead public opinion.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-NATO-Turkey Invasion of Northern Syria: CIA “Failed” Turkey Coup Lays Groundwork for Broader Middle East War?

In a much-anticipated speech Friday to the annual meeting of central bankers held by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen indicated that the US central bank was preparing to raise interest rates at least once this year.

Virtually all attention and commentary on the conference was focused on its implications for the short-term movement of the benchmark US federal funds rate. This reflects the fixation of the financial elite on the near-term implications of Fed policy for its own speculative bets and stock and bond holdings.

Screenshot WSJ

Yellen’s remarks, which kicked off the two-day conference, together with similarly “hawkish” statements by other Fed officials attending the meeting, had a generally negative impact on the stock indexes. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which was up by more than 100 points in early trading, ended the day down 53.

There was little comment on the more fundamental significance of Yellen’s speech, which all but acknowledged that low levels of economic growth and extreme financial instability were permanent features of the US and world capitalist economy, requiring the Fed and other central banks to continue indefinitely their policies of ultra-low interest rates and massive subsidies for the financial markets in the form of bond purchases (so-called quantitative easing).

Citing “solid growth in household spending” and “job gains [averaging] 190,000 per month over the past three months,” Yellen said: “Based on this economic outlook, the [Fed] continues to anticipate that gradual increases in the federal funds rate will be appropriate over time to achieve and sustain employment and inflation near our statutory objectives. Indeed, in light of the continued solid performance of the labor market and our outlook for economic activity and inflation, I believe the case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened in recent months.”

In an interview with CNBC following Yellen’s speech, Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said her remarks were consistent with a possible rate hike at the next meeting of the Fed’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee in September.

More significant were Yellen’s statements about the likelihood of extremely low interest rates for the indefinite future as well as the incorporation of quantitative easing into the permanent “tool kit” of the US central bank. She noted, “Forecasts now show the federal funds rate settling at about 3 percent in the longer run. In contrast, the federal funds rate averaged more than 7 percent between 1965 and 2000.”

She related this to “the marked decline over the past decade, both here and abroad, in the long-run neutral real rate of interest–that is, the inflation-adjusted short-term interest rate consistent with keeping output at its potential on average over time.” She attributed this, in part, to “a paucity of attractive capital projects worldwide.”

This long-term decline in the so-called neutral interest rate, defined as that rate which neither boosts nor slows the economy, is an expression of a systemic crisis, rather than a mere conjunctural downturn, in the American and world capitalist economy. The fact that interest rates have been driven so low—to the point where one-fourth of world output is from countries with negative interest rates—shows that the crisis that erupted in September 2008 with the collapse of Lehman Brothers marked a historic breakdown in the system. It refutes all claims that trillions in bank bailouts and subsidies to the financial markets via super-low interest rates and trillions more dollars in virtually free credit have effected a genuine recovery.

These policies have had the intended result of rescuing the global financial aristocracy and adding to its wealth by massively inflating stock and bond prices. They have also made possible a ruthless assault on the jobs, wages and living standards of the working class and a further redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the very top of the economic ladder.

But they have completely failed to engineer a revival of productive business investment, the original justification given for their implementation. They have done the opposite, encouraging a growth of financial parasitism and speculation even beyond the manic levels that led to the 2008 crash in the first place. Business investment in North America and Europe has failed to return to its pre-2008 levels.

Banks and corporations are hoarding their vast profits and using a portion of them to increase the holdings of executives and big investors through stock buybacks, dividend increases and mergers and acquisitions—all entirely non-productive and socially destructive activities that generally involve job losses rather than gains.

In her remarks, Yellen alluded in passing to the decline in business investment, noting that despite improvements in the job market and consumer spending, this essential barometer of economic health remained “soft.” The other crucial measure of economic strength, labor productivity, is also in decline, having dropped in the US for three straight quarters, the first time that has occurred since 1979. The sharp slowing of labor productivity is bound up with the depression in business investment, an essential catalyst for increasing the rate of output.

The seriousness of the underlying crisis was reflected in Yellen’s further comments on the neutral interest rate. “By some calculations,” she said, “the real neutral rate is currently close to zero, and it could remain at this low level if we were to continue to see slow productivity growth and high global saving. If so, then the average level of the nominal federal funds rate down the road might turn out to be only 2 percent.”

While conceding that a continuation of ultra-low interest rates and massive subsidies to the financial system “might inadvertently encourage excessive risk-taking and so undermine financial stability,” the Fed chair concluded, “Despite these caveats, I expect that forward guidance and asset purchases will remain important components of the Fed’s policy tool kit.”

In fact, these policies have already produced financial and asset bubbles that are unsustainable, and there are increasing signs of financial instability and crisis. There are growing warnings that the spread of negative interest rates is leading to a new financial meltdown even worse than the disaster that struck eight years ago.

Fed Vice Chairman Fischer was more blunt in a speech he gave on August 21 to a conference of the Aspen Institute in Colorado. He noted that the “decline in estimates of the neutral interest rate” was “related to the fear that we are facing a prolonged period of secular stagnation.” The latter term denotes a state of indefinite economic stagnation and slump, in which low interest rates are ineffective in boosting growth.

Noting that real growth in the US gross domestic product over the past year is estimated at only 1.0 percent to 1.25 percent, he focused on the role of what he called “exceptionally low productivity growth.”

He pointed out that “output per hour increased only 1.0 to 1.25 percent per year on average from 2006 to 2015, compared with its long-run average of 2.0 to 2.5 percent from 1949 to 2005.” He called a 1.0 to 1.25 percent point slowdown in productivity growth a “massive change.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Long-Term Scenario of Economic Stagnation and Financial Instability: US Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen

The US Presidential Elections Global Research Dossier

August 28th, 2016 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Presidential Elections Global Research Dossier

The Seralini debacle is a perfect case study of how industry conspires with cooperative scientists to help bury information that is harmful to its commercial interests.

Monsanto is one of the most hated companies on the planet. …Unless you ask FORTUNE Magazine, that is. In that case, it’s apparently one of the world’s most admired companies. But if you actually ask real human beings then it ranks right behind BP and Bank of America as the third most hated company in the world.

Strange, then, that Monsanto’s reputation in the scientific literature is so squeaky clean. Apparently it’s just a bunch of science-hating neanderthals who dislike Monsanto’s products and all of those squeaky clean couldn’t-tell-a-lie, couldn’t-hurt-a-fly scientists know better.

Of course, as readers of this column will know, this seeming conundrum isn’t so strange after all. Scientists aren’t angels and the things they study (as well as the results they get) are all too often influenced by who’s paying for their research. And in the case of the peer-reviewed GMO safety literature, it isn’t hard to tie a lot of it back to the biotech companies themselves, Monsanto foremost among them.

If any more proof of this insidious influence were needed, it just arrived. A set of emails obtained under a freedom of information request has exposed the types of tricks that Monsanto does to keep “problematic” studies out of the literature.

First, some background. If you haven’t seen it already (or even if you have) go back and re-watch or re-read my (award-winning) 2013 report on the Seralini Roundup toxicity study, “Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Dissent” and last year’s follow-up, “Study Linking GMOs and Tumors Vindicated Yet Again…MSM Stays Silent.”

Long story short: French biologist Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini published a feeding study in which rats were fed various levels of Monsanto’s GM maize NK603 and the Roundup herbicide it is grown with. The results were shocking: despite having been cleared by an earlier (industry sponsored) study, Seralini’s study found liver congestions, necrosis, tumors and early death in rats fed Roundup or GMO corn, separately or combined.

As soon as Seralini’s results were announced the biotech industry and their lapdogs in the white lab coats began falling all over themselves, frothing at the mouth, and denouncing the study to anyone and everyone who would listen.

“They used the wrong kind of rats!” they complained. “

And they didn’t use enough rats!” they added. “And…and…uh, the statistical analysis was inadequate!”

As independent researchers like F. William Engdahl pointed out at the time, these criticisms were invalid because all GMO toxicity studies use the exact same type and number of rats as the Seralini study did. But such quibbles were lost amongst the din and bray of the chattering spokesman for the biotech industry, and eventually enough smoke was generated to allow the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) which published the study to retract it.

To order F. William Engdahl’s book from GR, click image

You’ll have to see the full report to fully appreciate how unusual this retraction was (even explicitly going against the journal’s own retraction guidelines), but here’s the upshot. After Seralini’s study was published, the FCT created an entirely new position: “Associate Editor for Biotechnology.” And out of all the people in the world they could have chosen for this new, made-up role, they just happened to choose Richard E. Goodman, who had previously worked in regulatory sciences for Monsanto from 1997 to 2004. After Goodman hopped on board, the journal not only retracted the Seralini study, but also a second, Brazilian study that showed adverse GMO health effects.

At the time it was speculated that Goodman’s sudden appearance on the journal’s editorial board was directly linked to the retraction of the biotech-unfriendly studies. It was a reasonable supposition, to be sure, but still just that: supposition. Well, no more.

French journalist Stéphane Foucart dove into the story for Le Monde and uncovered some damning emails via a freedom of information request. As GMWatch notes in their article on the scandal:

Foucart writes that emails obtained by USRTK show ‘a remarkable closeness’ between Goodman and his old employer. In reality, however, as Foucart points out, the relationship between Goodman and Monsanto is not so old. Goodman himself wrote in a message of 2012 that ‘50% of [his] salary’ actually comes from a project funded by Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Dow, DuPont and Syngenta, and consists of establishing a database of food allergens.

In fact, as Foucart goes on to note, shortly before joining the FCT in his made-up position, Goodman had been called out by a Monsanto employee for not being pro-GMO enough in a newspaper article which quoted him. Goodman went on to issue a formal apology to the six biotech companies (including Monsanto) that funded his work.

But wait, it gets worse! When Seralini’s study was published in September 2012, Goodman actually wrote Monsanto asking the firm to provide him with criticisms of the study. He was then secretly hired by Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal at that time, specifically to organize a response to Seralini’s work. Hayes not only sent an email to Monsanto employees informing him of Goodman’s appointment to the journal, but specifically wrote: “My request, as editor, and from Professor Goodman, is that those of you who are highly critical of the recent paper by Séralini and his co-authors volunteer as potential reviewers.”

From the moment of its publication, the editor of the journal that Seralini’s paper was published in was actively conspiring with Monsanto to undermine it. Strange, indeed…if you think that scientists are only interested in the high-minded pursuit of the truth, that is.

The Seralini debacle is a perfect case study of how industry conspires with cooperative scientists to help bury information that is harmful to its commercial interests. But it is not all bad news. Before Seralini’s study was retracted, it withstood criticism from no less than seven “expert witnesses” who tried to debunk it in a Filipino courtroom; the “experts” lost and helped contribute to a ban on GMO eggplants in the country. And in 2014 the study was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe. And Seralini even won two defamation cases against those who had slandered his research.

In the end, as in so many things, the truth will out. And when it does, it just so happens that those billions of people around the planet who detest Monsanto are on the right side of history. Now if only someone would tell those upstanding “journalists” at FORTUNE.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on GMO Maize Triggers Tumors in Rats: New Email Leak Shows How Monsanto Stifles Criticism

Montreal Declaration For Nuclear Fission Free World

August 28th, 2016 by Countercurrents.org

By Global Network for a nuclear-free world.

As citizens of this planet inspired by the Second Thematic World Social Forum for a Nuclear-Fission-Free World, conducted in Montreal from August 8 to August 12, 2016, we are collectively calling for a mobilization of civil society around the world to bring about the elimination of all nuclear weapons, to put an end to the continued mass-production of all high-level nuclear wastes by phasing out all nuclear reactors, and to bring to a halt all uranium mining worldwide.

This call goes out to fellow citizens of all countries worldwide who see the need, whether as an individual or as a member of an organization, for a nuclear-fission-free world. We are committed to building a global network of citizens of the world who will work together, using the internet and social media to overcome isolation, to provide mutual support and to coordinate the launching of joint actions for a world free of nuclear fission technology, whether civilian or military.

Nuclear-war

We will begin by creating communication channels to share information and educational tools on legal, technical, financial, medical, and security-related matters linked to military and non-military nuclear activities. We will pool our resources across national boundaries in a spirit of cooperation, allowing us to contribute to the formulation of a convergent and unified response to counteract the plans of the nuclear establishment that operates on a global scale to multiply civil and military nuclear installations worldwide and to dump, bury and abandon nuclear wastes.

We recognize each nuclear weapon as an instrument of brutal and unsurpassed terror, designed to kill millions of innocent men, women and children at a single stroke. We realize that even a limited nuclear war can provoke sudden extreme climate change on a global scale, crippling agricultural production and threatening the survival of all higher forms of life. We are grimly aware that a nuclear-armed world will surely destroy itself and set in motion a process that will undo four billion years of evolution. We are determined to help guide the world away from the brink of nuclear annihilation.

We recognize each nuclear reactor as a repository of the most pernicious industrial waste ever known; waste so radioactive that it spontaneously melts down if not continually cooled; waste that, when targeted by terrorists or saboteurs, or by conventional warfare, will render large portions of the earth uninhabitable for centuries; waste that contains material that can be used as a nuclear explosive at any time in the future, for thousands of years to come.

We recognize uranium as the key element behind all nuclear weapons and all nuclear reactors, and we endorse the call by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and by the 2015 Quebec World Uranium Symposium for a total global ban on the mining and processing of uranium.

We will use our networks

  • to pressure governments everywhere to put an end to nuclear fission;
  • to expose the dangers associated with the export and transport of nuclear materials and nuclear waste;
  • to puncture the myths used to prop up and justify our irrational nuclear addiction;
  • to tell the sobering stories of nuclear victims and nuclear refugees;
  • to emphasize our moral responsibilities not to burden future generations with a poisonous nuclear legacy;
  • to warn governments without nuclear facilities to realize the dangers and avoid becoming enmeshed in this technology;
  • to disseminate the findings of engineers, doctors, biologists, ecologists, physicists and concerned citizens having special knowledge and appreciation of nuclear dangers;
  • to promote and popularize the wide variety of renewable energy alternatives that are green and sustainable;
  • to launch lawsuits and to support whistle-blowers to halt the most egregious examples of nuclear malfeasance;
  • to promote non-violent conflict resolution, and
  • to denounce the illegal, immoral, and insane obsession with nuclear weapons arsenals.

We invite all people, groups and organizations involved in the effort for a world without nuclear fission and uranium mining, to commit themselves to this effort. We also ask them to endorse this declaration and to transmit it widely in their networks.

This declaration is partly inspired by the Tokyo Appeal issued by the First Thematic World Social Form for a Nuclear-Free World held in Tokyo and Fukushima in March 2016.

People and organizations who wish to sign this statement should write to [email protected], indicating their e-mail addresses and country.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Montreal Declaration For Nuclear Fission Free World

Just as in all wars, the war against Syria has triggered an avalanche of propaganda. And the use of children is always a winning strategy.

So, at the beginning of the war, Qatar wanted to demonstrate that the Republic, far from serving the general interest, actually despised the People. The petro-dictatorship then broadcast, on its TV channel Al-Jazeera, the legend of the children of Deraa, supposedly tortured by the police. To illustrate the cruelty of its adversary, Qatar specified that their fingernails had been torn out. Of course, despite research, no journalist could find any trace of these children. The BBC broadcast an interview with two of them, but their nails were still intact.

Since the myth could not be proved, Qatar then launched a new story – that of a child, Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb (13 years old), who had allegedly been tortured and castrated by the «regime’s» police. This time, they provided a convincing image. Everyone could see that the body had no sex. However, the autopsy showed that the body had been poorly preserved, and that it had fermented and swollen. The stomach hid the child’s sex, which was still present.

JPEG - 50.1 kb
In this magazine, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle imagined the arrest of a German spy by Sherlock Holmes. The writer was working for the Office of War Propaganda.

At the end of 2013, the British took over the task of war propaganda. They had a long experience in that sector, and are considered to have invented modern propaganda during the first World War, with the Office of War Propaganda. One of the characteristics of their method is to rely on artists, because aesthetics tend to neutralise critical thinking. In 1914, they recruited the great authors of the time – like Arthur Conan Doyle, H.G. Wells and Rudyard Kipling – to publish texts which attributed imaginary crimes to their German enemy. Then they recruited the heads of their major newspapers to publish the imaginary information invented by the authors.

When the United States adopted the British method, in 1917, with the Committee on Public Information, they made a more precise study of the mechanisms of persuasion, with the help of star journalist Walter Lippmann and the inventor of modern publicity, Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud’s nephew). But, persuaded of the power of science, they forgot about aesthetics.

At the beginning of 2014, the British MI6 created the company Innovative Communications & Strategies (InCoStrat) to whom we owe, for example, the magnificent logos of the armed groups, from the most «moderate» to the most «extremist». This company, which has offices in Washington and Istanbul, organised the campaign to convince the Europeans to offer sanctuary to 1 million refugees. It was this company that photographed young Aylan Kurdi, drowned on a Turkish beach, and managed, in two days, to have it published on the front page of the main Atlantist newspapers in all NATO countries as well as those of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

JPEG - 48 kb

Every year, before the war, a hundred people died from drowning on Turkish beaches, and no-one mentioned it. And above all, only the tabloids showed photographs of the corpses. But this photo was so well composed…

Since I noted that a body can not be washed up perpendicular to the waves, the photographer explained later that he had moved the corpse for the needs of the photo.

The photo of young Omran Daqneesh (5 years old), in an ambulance in West Aleppo, is thus accompanied by a video. The two supports enable the information to be exploited by both the written Press and the television. The scene is so dramatic that a news-reader from CNN could not stop herself from crying when she saw it. Of course, when we think about it, we notice that the child was not attended to by the medical personnel who gave him first aid, but by a group of extras, (the «White Helmets»), who placed him facing the cameras.

The British film directors care nothing about the child, whose only interest for them is as a feature in their images. According to Associated Press, the photograph was taken by Mahmoud Raslan, whom we can see in the video. According to his Facebook account, this man is a member of Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki (supported by the CIA, who supplied the group with BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles). Still according to his Facebook account, and as confirmed by another video, it was Raslan who, on the 19 July 2016, personally cut the throat of a young Palestinian child, Abdullah Tayseer Al Issa (12 years old).

European laws lay down strict guidelines for the use of children in publicity. Clearly, these laws do not apply to war propaganda.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on For Britain’s Media and Secret Service (MI6) War Propaganda Is an Art

The mainstream press is accusing Russia of being behind the release of information on NSA hacking tools.

Washington’s Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – what he thinks of such claims.

Binney told us:

The probability is that an insider provided the data.

I say this because the NSA net is a closed net that is continuously encrypted.  Which would mean, that if someone wanted to hack into the NSA network they would not only have to know weaknesses in the network/firewalls/tables and passwords but also be able to penetrate the encryption.

So, my bet is that it is an insider.  In my opinion, if the Russians had these files, they would use them not leak them or any part of them to the world.

Similarly, former NSA employee, producer for ABC’s World News Tonight, and long-time reporter on the NSA James Bamford notes:

If Russia had stolen the hacking tools, it would be senseless to publicize the theft, let alone put them up for sale. It would be like a safecracker stealing the combination to a bank vault and putting it on Facebook. Once revealed, companies and governments would patch their firewalls, just as the bank would change its combination.

A more logical explanation could also be insider theft. If that’s the case, it’s one more reason to question the usefulness of an agency that secretly collects private information on millions of Americans but can’t keep its most valuable data from being stolen, or as it appears in this case, being used against us.

***

The reasons given for laying the blame on Russia appear less convincing, however. “This is probably some Russian mind game, down to the bogus accent,” James A. Lewis, a computer expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, told the New York Times. Why the Russians would engage in such a mind game, he never explained.

Rather than the NSA hacking tools being snatched as a result of a sophisticated cyber operation by Russia or some other nation, it seems more likely that an employee stole them. Experts who have analyzed the files suspect that they date to October 2013, five months after Edward Snowden left his contractor position with the NSA and fled to Hong Kong carrying flash drives containing hundreds of thousands of pages of NSA documents.

So, if Snowden could not have stolen the hacking tools, there are indications that after he departed in May 2013, someone else did, possibly someone assigned to the agency’s highly sensitive Tailored Access Operations.

In December 2013, another highly secret NSA document quietly became public. It was a top secret TAO catalog of NSA hacking tools. Known as the Advanced Network Technology (ANT) catalog, it consisted of 50 pages of extensive pictures, diagrams and descriptions of tools for every kind of hack, mostly targeted at devices manufactured by U.S. companies, including Apple, Cisco, Dell and many others.

Like the hacking tools, the catalog used similar codenames.

***

In 2014, I spent three days in Moscow with Snowden for a magazine assignment and a PBS documentary. During our on-the-record conversations, he would not talk about the ANT catalog, perhaps not wanting to bring attention to another possible NSA whistleblower.

I was, however, given unrestricted access to his cache of documents. These included both the entire British, or GCHQ, files and the entire NSA files.

But going through this archive using a sophisticated digital search tool, I could not find a single reference to the ANT catalog. This confirmed for me that it had likely been released by a second leaker. And if that person could have downloaded and removed the catalog of hacking tools, it’s also likely he or she could have also downloaded and removed the digital tools now being leaked.

Reuters, August 24, 2016

 And Motherboard reports:

“My colleagues and I are fairly certain that this was no hack, or group for that matter,” the former NSA employee told Motherboard. “This ‘Shadow Brokers’ character is one guy, an insider employee.”

The source, who asked to remain anonymous, said that it’d be much easier for an insider to obtain the data that The Shadow Brokers put online rather than someone else, even Russia, remotely stealing it. He argued that “naming convention of the file directories, as well as some of the scripts in the dump are only accessible internally,” and that “there is no reason” for those files to be on a server someone could hack. He claimed that these sorts of files are on a physically separated network that doesn’t touch the internet; an air-gap.

***

“We are 99.9 percent sure that Russia has nothing to do with this and even though all this speculation is more sensational in the media, the insider theory should not be dismissed,” the source added. “We think it is the most plausible.”

***

Another former NSA source, who was contacted independently and spoke on condition of anonymity, said that “it’s plausible” that the leakers are actually a disgruntled insider, claiming that it’s easier to walk out of the NSA with a USB drive or a CD than hack its servers.

Michael Adams, an information security expert who served more than two decades in the US Special Operations Command, agreed that it’s a viable theory.

“It’s Snowden junior,” Adams told Motherboard. “Except he doesn’t want to end up in virtual prison in Russia. He’s smart enough to rip off shit, but also smart enough to be unidentifiable.”

This wouldn’t be the first time Russia has been framed for hacking.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NSA Hack Was Likely An Inside Job. Putin Was Framed, “Russia has Nothing to do with This”. NSA Whistleblowers

The loathsome two are moving into full view, mustering weapons and taking aim at each other in a US election campaign that continues to be filled with colourful missives. But the one to lose most is Hillary Clinton, whose nasty appropriation of the high ground of propriety seems more contemptible by the day.

On Thursday, Clinton pushed further into the field of righteous indignation, traducing extremists all over as the bane of politics.  Trotting out of her stable of suggestions was the testy problem of race, that permanent malady of US political and cultural history.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, she claimed, had direct links to the “alt-right” movement, a closet of white nationalists accused of anti-Semitic leanings mixed with a heady dose of misogyny.

“From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia,” she told those at Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada. “He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party. His disregard for the values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.”

Not wanting to stop there, the Democratic nominee insisted that Trump had been keeping bad company.  White supremacists had been courted; legal actions against Trump had been mounted “for housing discrimination against communities of colour.”

The picture of Trump as serial internet trawler, seeking its “dark reaches” for “dark conspiracy theories” while embracing “a long history of racial discrimination” could only be attributed to a form of attack that often stumbles on the turn: outing your opposite number as a dedicated nutter. “This is not a normal choice between a Republican and a Democrat.”

These tactics may well have made more sense from a position of strength, but the Clinton machine has faced a hailstorm of anti-establishment resentment it has been unable to stymie.  The strategists in the Democratic Party seem to have come to the conclusion that explaining such resentment, while developing coherent policy to counter it, is tantamount to debating flat earth theorists.

Even more outstandingly odd, and risky, is the approach of attacking Trump supporters as delinquents.  In the business of electoral politics, notably the sort that at least aspires to notional democracy, mocking millions is high inadvisable. Denigrating the leader as chief nutter is mild stupidity relative to the blanket dismissal of such a vast electoral bloc.

This is exactly what Clinton sought to do in Reno, trundling out headlines from the Breitbart website, now deemed chief altar of Trump supporters after its former chairman was engaged as Trump’s campaign chief executive.  Choice bits included “Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy” and “Hoist it High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage.”  Read Breibart sites and be damned.

This pulpit of condescension has also been replicated in responding to such symbols of resentment as that British poster boy of anti-European Union persuasion, Nigel Farage.  Rather than understand Farage’s presence at a Trump rally as the logical consequence of a malaise, an institutional rot, she has preferred the see his success as part of a “rising tide of hardline, right-wing nationalism”.[1]

Not to be outdone, Trump chose to mention Clinton’s dirtied paws from previous policy blunders.  Central to such blunders was the issue of race.  Her own failed 2008 presidential campaign was characterised by “racist undertones”, while her past, tarred by the policy of husband Bill, was marked by tough crime measures in 1994 to combat the rise of what she termed “super predators” lacking “conscience” and “empathy”.

Such fear found totemic form in the 1994 crime bill, which came with its racial spin off.  That stood to reason: those particular predators tended to be of the darker assortment.  As Clinton explained in the campaign year of 1996, gangs were no longer “gangs of kids” but “often the kind of kids that are called ‘super predators’… We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Such brutal heeling measures have come back in stormy fashion to haunt Clinton’s current campaign. Black Live Matters protesters have not avoided their chance to remind the Clintons of that odious legacy, referencing the bill which became the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Its cruel harvest for the prison system was vast, seeing an explosion in incarceration rates among the black community.

While both Clintons have expressed regret for the consequences of the law, Bill’s fuse on the issue has been a short one.  “You are defending,” reproached Bill Clinton of Black Lives Matters protesters, “the people who killed the lives you say matter.  Tell the truth!”[2]

Hillary Clinton’s taking of such ground was always going to be creaky. Corrupt and worn, this week proved a bad one for her and the Clinton Foundation, whose donors she regularly met while Secretary of State.[3]  But when cornered, strike out with at least some measure of plausibility.  For the former First Lady, entrusted with the task of rolling back the populist tide, this is proving difficult to do.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hillary-clinton-nigel-farage-attack-brexit-us-election-donald-trump-2016-democrats-a7210741.html

[2] http://observer.com/2016/04/bill-clintons-racist-defense-of-the-super-predator-myth/

[3] https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Extreme End Game: Tags Trump Supporters as “Delinquents” and “Hate Groups”

Turkey, the Kurds and the US Debacle in North East Syria

August 28th, 2016 by Alexander Mercouris

US policy in north east Syria has hugely complicated and exacerbated the situation there, setting the Turks and the Kurds against each other, and provoking threats of US military action in support of a misconceived policy that has not been thought through.

I don’t think this is really true.  The main part of the war is a straight contest between the Syrian government and its Jihadi opponents who are trying to overthrow it.  As our contributor Afra’a Dagher has written, these Jihadis often use different names; however in terms of who they are and what they represent who are their external sponsors, they are always the same.

The situation in north east Syria is however more complex than elsewhere in Syria, so I will try to explain it in more detail.  Whilst it is highly dangerous, as I will show the danger here comes not from what Erdogan and Turkey are doing, but from the US, which has experienced in this area a major debacle.

Turkey and the Kurds

There is much confusion about the Turkish incursion which led to the capture of the previously ISIS controlled border town of Jarablus.

The key point to understand about this incursion is that its intended target is not the Syrian government but the Kurdish militia known as the YPG (the “People’s Protection Units”).

What has upset the situation in north eastern Syria, provoking fighting between the Syrian army and the YPG and the Turkish incursion that has led to the capture of Jarablus, is the dynamic expansion of the territory in north east Syria which is controlled by the YPG.

This map gives an idea of how the area under YPG control expanded in 2015

With US support the YPG – disguising themselves the “Syrian Democratic Forces” – have recently captured from ISIS the town of Manbij, which is located west of the Euphrates river.

This was the key event that provoked the Turkish incursion.

Most Kurds live in Turkey where they may account for anything between 10% to 20% of the population (opinions differ).  Turkey has had a long running problem assimilating its Kurdish minority and there has been a long history of conflict, with some Kurds during some periods of recent Turkish history fighting insurgency wars against the Turkish government and seeking outright secession from Turkey and the formation of an independent Kurdish state.

In light of this Turkey considers the Kurdish problem an existential problem for Turkey, one that places in jeopardy the very existence of the Turkish state, at least in its present form.

During the recent period of rule in Turkey by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) of President Erdogan relations between the Turkish authorities and the Kurds have known periods of improvement.  However they have recently sharply deteriorated, and there is now an ongoing insurgency situation in eastern Turkey pitting the Turkish military and Kurdish insurgents led by the PKK (the Kurdish Workers Party).

The Turkish government accuses the YPG of being in league with the PKK.  It therefore vigorously opposes the establishment of any Kurdish YPG controlled zone within Syria along the border with Turkey.

The Turks have previously made clear that they consider the Euphrates a “red line” beyond which they will not tolerate expansion by the YPG.  The YPG captures of Manbij meant that the YPG had crossed this “red line”.

Manbij lies immediately south of Jarablus.  Had the Kurds advanced north from Manbij and captured Jarabulus and its surrounding areas, they would have connected two Kurdish-held YPG controlled areas in northern Syria, creating precisely the sort of autonomous YPG controlled Kurdish zone along Turkey’s border with Syria that Turkey is determined at all costs to prevent.

The Turkish move towards Jarablus is intended to pre-empt the YPG’s capture of the town and this from happening.

The YPG and the Syrian government

The YPG and the Syrian government have been uneasy allies in the Syrian war.

The ideology of the YPG is secular, Kurdish nationalist and leftist – the diametric opposite of the Wahhabi Jihadist ideology of the Syrian government’s opponents.   That by definition makes the Kurds and the Syria’s government’s Jihadi enemies, enemies of each other.  On the principle that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” that has forced the YPG into an uneasy alliance with the Syrian government.

The YPG’s focus is however not on the survival of the Syrian government but on securing its control of the Kurdish populated areas of northern Syria.  Its alliance with the Syrian government its therefore purely a function of the fact that the two have the same Jihadi enemies in common.

In the longer run it is why relations between the Syrian government and the YPG might fall into conflict. Ultimately the YPG is pursuing a Kurdish nationalist agenda within Syria, which is very far from that of the Syrian government, which wants to re-establish the Syrian state’s authority over the whole of Syria.

The fragility of the alliance between the Syrian government and the YPG was recently exposed when the YPG, emboldened by the capture of Manbij, acted to consolidate its control of north east Syria by seeking to oust the Syrian military and Syrian government from the town of Al-Hasakah at the eastern end of the belt of territory the YPG controls.

This led to armed clashes in Al-Hasakah between the YPG militia and the Syrian army, which spilled over into fighting in Aleppo between Syrian troops there and the YPG militia which is participating in the siege of eastern Aleppo.  There were even reports that for a short period the YPG briefly shelled Syrian army positions on the Castello road.

These moves have been interpreted in both Damascus and Ankara as the YPG preparing to take full control of the Kurdish populated territories in north east Syria.  Both Damascus and Ankara strongly oppose this, Damascus because it threatens the unity of Syria, Ankara because it considers the YPG to be an extension of the PKK, and does not want a YPG controlled independent Kurdish region on its border which could act as a safe haven for the PKK.

Turkey’s Operation ‘Euphrates Shield’

The Turkish incursion and the capture of Jarablus were intended to pre-empt the YPG’s intended capture of Jarablus.

Erdogan and his government have made this quite clear.  The name of the Turkish operation is “Euphrates Shield”, which clearly refers to Turkey’s “red line” against the Kurds along the Euphrates river.  Moreover it seems the YPG did attempt to advance on Jarablus on Monday 22nd August 2016, and were shelled before they got there by the Turkish army.

The Kurds and the YPG for their part have made it quite clear that they understand that the Turkish incursion is ultimately targeted at them.  Redur Xelil, a spokesperson for the YPG, has denounced Turkey’s incursion as an act of “blatant aggression.”  Salih Muslim, the leader of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), has written on Twitter that Turkey is now in the “Syrian quagmire” and will be defeated like ISIS.

Turkey and the unity of Syria

What is perhaps most striking fact about this latest episode is that Erdogan has now come out publicly as the champion of Syria’s unity.  He is reported to have said on Wednesday 24th August 2016 that

Turkey is determined for Syria to retain its territorial integrity and will take matters into its own hands if required to protect that territorial unity.

This is in fact completely logical.  Given that Kurdish separatism is for Turkey an existential question, Turkey – whether led by Erdogan or his opponents – will always prefer to have north east Syria controlled by whatever regime is in power in Damascus – even if that regime is led by Bashar Al-Assad – than have it controlled by the YPG.

What that means is that for the first time since the start of the Syrian war there is a commonality of interest between the Turkish and Syrian governments.  That does not mean that there is a rapprochement underway between them, or that the Turkish government has changed its policy of wanting the overthrow of the Syrian government.  It does however mean that the Syrian government is not as hostile to the Turkish move towards Jarablus as it might otherwise have been, which explains its relatively mild reaction to the Turkish move.

I understand that there are some people who think Erdogan is lying about wanting to preserve the unity of Syria and that his ambitions extend far further and that what he is really aiming at is the conquest of large belts of northern Syria up to and including the city of Aleppo.

I have to say that I doubt this is true.  Conquering these territories and assimilating them into Turkey looks frankly beyond Turkey’s power.  It would antagonise the Arabs to the south and the Russians and Iranians to the north and east.  It would not serve the interests of the US; and potentially, by adding large Arab and Kurdish populations to Turkey, it would only exacerbate Turkey’s already complex internal problems.

Of course Turkey could expel these people from their lands, but doing so would simply create another set of problems and would surely only worsen further the already difficult situation Turkey has with its own Kurds in Turkey itself.

Frankly this project looks like a recipe for endless war, which Turkey in its present state simply cannot afford.

Erdogan is many things but he is not stupid, and I am sure that he understands this.  His objective in Syria is not the conquest of its northern regions by Turkey or Syria’s partition.  It is the conversion of Syria into a Turkish satellite state by the establishment of a government friendly to Turkey in Damascus.

The Turkish incursion and the Battle of Aleppo

Erdogan remains committed to President Assad’s overthrow and publicly supports Jabhat Al-Nusra, the strongest Jihadi group fighting the Syrian government in the battle of Aleppo.

Nothing Erdogan has said or done since the failed coup attempt suggests that he has modified this strategy in any way.  He continues to allow Jihadi fighters and supplies to cross the Turkish border into Idlib province en route to the fighting in Aleppo.  All suggestions that Erdogan is preparing to ditch the rebels in Syria and to reconcile with President Assad is simply wishful thinking.

There are widespread fears that Erdogan’s plan is to create some sort of rebel “safe area” in north east Syria that the rebels can use as a launch pad to support their ongoing offensive against  Aleppo and that is what the advance on Jarablus is all about.

Again I have to say that I doubt this is true.  North east Syria is a bitterly contested area in which the dominant force is not the rebels but the YPG.  It does not look like a credible “safe zone” for the rebels or a credible launch area from which to launch attacks on Aleppo.  On the contrary an attempt to create a rebel “safe zone” in this area would antagonise the YPG, and would restore the alliance between the Syrian government and the YPG to full working order, leading to constant fighting in the area of the so-called “safe zone” between the Syrian rebels and the YPG.  That would surely defeat the whole purpose of the “safe zone”, rendering it unsafe and effectively worthless as a “safe zone”.

Of course the Turkish military could try to garrison the area to defend whatever “safe zone” it created inside it.  That would however require an incursion into Syria that went far deeper than the one to Jarablus, and which would risk the Turkish army becoming bogged down in a lengthy guerrilla war on Syrian territory with the YPG.  I doubt Erdogan, the Turkish military or the US would want that.

I should say the US warning that it will shoot down aircraft that threaten US troops in the area also does not look to me like support for the setting up by Erdogan of a rebel “safe zone” in this area.

Firstly the US warning is simply standard US practice where the US has troops on the ground, as it is known to have in this area.

Secondly the US troops in question were backing the YPG – the same group Operation ‘Euphrates Shield’ is targeted against – which as I have said would be bitterly opposed to the setting up of a rebel “safe zone” in this area.

A warning whose effect was to protect the YPG from air attack by the Syrian air force does not translate into a warning intended to back the setting up by the Turkish army of a rebel “safe zone” in an area against the strong opposition of the YPG.

Besides it is not obvious that the rebels actually need a “safe zone” in this area.   They already have a corridor to send men and supplies to Aleppo through Idlib province, which they already control.  Why add to the problems of setting up a “safe zone” much further away in north east Syria when the rebels already control territories so much closer to Aleppo?

Overall, seeing this Turkish incursion as somehow intended to influence the outcome of the battle of Aleppo looks misplaced.  There are sufficient reasons for it based on concerns about the danger to Turkey – real or imagined – posed by the YPG.  One should not look for more reasons for a move when the already apparent reasons are fully sufficient to explain it.

The US, Turkey and the Kurds

The US is the prime backer of the YPG.  It was US bombing that made the YPG’s capture of Manbij possible.  It was the US that probably encouraged the YPG to turn against the Syrian government in Al-Hasakah, and which may have encouraged the YPG to push on and try to create an autonomous role within Syria.

As I have said previously, this is very much in keeping with classic US “third force” strategies, used by the US in many wars of which this is just the latest example.

What is fascinating about this whole affair is how quickly the US has acted to dump the YPG.

Given the choice between Turkey and the YPG, the US has unhesitatingly supported Turkey.  Not only are US aircraft providing support for the Turkish military in Operation “Euphrates Shield” but Vice-President Biden, on a fence-mending trip to Turkey, has publicly said that the YPG must withdraw to the eastern side of the Euphrates or risk losing US support.  This was it was all explained by a US official speaking to the Wall Street Journal

We’ve put a lid on the Kurds moving north, or at least doing so if they want any support from us, which I think is a fairly significant piece of leverage.  So for the moment I think we’ve put a lid on the biggest concern that the Turks have, which I think gives us some breathing space to make sure this operation in Jarabulus [sic] is done the right way and that we and the Turks do it together.

More remarkable still is that Biden is also reported to have backed Erdogan’s call for the preservation of Syria’s unity.  RT reports him saying at joint press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Binaldi Yildirim

No (Kurdish) corridor. Period. No separate entity on the Turkish border. A united Syria.

This incidentally all but proves that despite tensions between Turkey and the US since the coup attempt, the two countries remain allies.  As I have said previously (see here and here) expectations of Turkey switching alliances, quitting NATO and driving the US out of Incirlik are wrong.

Summary

This crisis in north eastern Syria is a case study in the violence and chaos that flows from the contradictions of US policy in Syria.

The US officially brands Jabhat Al-Nusra a terrorist organisation but denies that the YPG is one.  Turkey – the US’s primary ally in this region – denies Jabhat Al-Nusra is a terrorist organisation but insists the YPG is one.

The US is prepared to defend the YPG if it is attacked by the Syrian military.  However it will not defend the YPG if it is attacked by the Turkish military.  On the contrary it will act to facilitate the Turkish military’s attack – as it is in fact doing.

The US backed the YPG when it attacked Manbij, which lies west of the Euphrates.  However it now insists that the YPG must withdraw back to the eastern side of the Euphrates – which means it must evacuate Manbij – or forfeit US support.

The US appears to have incited the YPG to attack the Syrian military in Al-Hasakah so that it could consolidate its control of the territories in which it operates and form an independent zone there.  Following protests from Turkey it now says the YPG cannot have an independent zone there under its control.

It is impossible to see any coherent strategy here.  Rather it looks as if CIA and military officials on the ground in Syria have been going their own way, encouraging the YPG to expand as fast as it can, heedless of the larger consequences.

The political leadership in Washington, when it finally woke up to what was happening, then had to take disproportionate steps to bring the situation back under control.

In the process two US “allies” – the Turkish military and the YPG – have practically come to blows with each other, and Turkey has suddenly discovered a commonality of interest with the Assad government in Damascus to block the setting up of an autonomous YPG controlled Kurdish region in north east Syria, probably sending the deputy head of its military intelligence service to Damascus to coordinate policy there.

It is this very lack of coherence in US policy which however is what is so dangerous about this whole situation.

The US has pursued a policy in north eastern Syria that led it to give a warning of military action a few days ago.  However it is now clear that this policy was never properly thought through.

To say that this is an irresponsible and reckless way of going about things in a conflict situation where the Russians are also involved is a gigantic understatement.  Yet there is no public debate or discussion about it either in Washington or in Western capitals.

If US policy is being made on the hoof in Syria in such a careless and irresponsible way then the danger of something going catastrophically wrong is hugely magnified.  Yet it is clear that that is precisely the situation we are looking at, and be it noted that this is before the hawkish Hillary Clinton has become US President.  It is impossible to look at this situation without being seriously worried.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey, the Kurds and the US Debacle in North East Syria

Syria’s permanent Representative at the United Nations Bashar al-Jaafari has stressed that “it is impossible to defeat Daesh in Syria without first defeating it in Turkey,” asking how Turkey can say that it is fighting Daesh in Jarablus if Turkey itself allowed the establishment of Daesh and helped in the development of this terror organization’s abilities.

Interviewed by the Russian Sputnik news agency on Wednesday,  al-Jaafari clarified that the Turkish regime has helped provide “Deash” with thousands of Toyota cars and other branded cars with built-in weapons and with funds from the Gulf states to purchase weapons from Ukraine, Croatia, Bulgaria and other countries.

Under the air cover of the US-led coalition’s air force, the Turkish regime’s tanks and armored vehicles Wednesday morning crossed the Turkish-Syrian borders into the Syrian city of Jarablus, allegedly to fight “Deash”, in a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian state.

Al-Jaafari affirmed that those who actually want to help Syria fight terrorism must coordinate their efforts with Damascus and form a real coalition to help fight the terrorists.

There is no doubt that there is Russian-Iranian pressure on Ankara to change its policy toward Syria. Turkey says one thing and does another. We hear good speeches every day but no real action can be seen. If there were any new actions consistent with their statements, they would not have started the operation in Jarablus,” al-Jaafri pointed out, according to the Russian agency.

He further said that it is wrong for anyone who pleases to fight terrorism to send in their planes into Syria and say, “I will support this but will not support this and that too without any consent of the Syrian government. We live in the 21st century, not in the woods. People have forgotten that there is international law.

Al-Jaafari spoke to Sputnik about the deadly chemical attacks that took place in Syria back in 2013 and the involvement of France in these attacks.

“The case with chemical weapons was initially fabricated to exert pressure on the Syrian government. After the first chemical gas attack on Khan al-Asal in Aleppo, I went to the Secretary-General (UN approx.) to request assistance to the Syrian government in investigation for answering if there actually was a chemical attack and who was behind it?,” he said, noting that the Secretary-General  told him that he must consult with the UN Security Council countries first.

“Three hours later after consultation with the countries of the UN Security Council, he came back to me and said, ‘Tell your government that I will assist and sent a delegation of experts who will be engaged in investigating the chemical attack in Khan al-Asal,” al-Jaafari added. However, according to al-Jaafari, the Secretary-General said that he will not be able to assist in determining the party behind the attack.

“From that moment, it became clear that the UN Security Council members are interested in keeping the party behind the attacks unnamed due to certain political circumstances,” al-Jaafari said.

He further said that the issue of chemical attack has not yet been closed. After the investigation request, it took 4 months and 11 days for Dr. Ake Selstrum and his team to arrive to Khan al-Asal.

“On the same day, when Selstrum was in Damascus and was preparing to go to Khan al-Asal in Aleppo, a second chemical attack took place in the eastern Ghouta in Damascus, after which a political campaign (against Syria) began,” according to al-Jaafari.

The purpose of the Ghouta attack was to distract from Khan al-Asal, to create obstacles to keep Selstrum from traveling there, as well as to focus everyone’s attention on Damascus. The plan was a success, as Dr. Selstrum has not yet visited Khan al-Asal, according to al-Jaafari.

The Syrian diplomat told Sputnik that “according to the French sources and according to the book ‘Road to Damascus’ the famous French journalists Georges Malbruno and Christian Shesno have documented evidence to prove the involvement of the former French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, in the Eastern Ghouta tragedy near Damascus.”

“We have sent hundreds of letters to the UN Security Council, the Commission of Inquiry under 1540 and to the mission of fact-finding and joint investigation. All of them were created after the incident in Khan al-Asal in the Eastern Ghouta near Damascus. In our letters there was transparent information,” the representative said.

However, the UN Security Council member states either ignored the data, or accused it of being unreliable. They did not pass the data to the media, nor did they mention it in their statements. “This was due to the fact that the party behind these chemical attacks has the support of these countries,” al- Jaafari added.

According to the Russian news agency, the representative further said, “Do I have to prove that there are terrorists who arrived on board Libyan aircraft from Libya to Istanbul with two liters of sarin, after which they arrived at the Syrian border in Gaziantep, and then tested sarin on rabbits at the Turkish base in Gaziantep?”

“Later on, these terrorists posted a video proclaiming, ‘Today we have tested it on rabbits and tomorrow we will test it as a weapon on the Syrian Army,’” al-Jaafari added.

He further said that this information did not come from “planet Mars and we provided this evidence.”

“How can the transport of arms across the Turkish border into Syria be justified under the pretext that this is humanitarian aid? This case was raised in Turkey, after which Erdogan imprisoned 18 officers of the customs service and dismissed four judges, because they revealed information about these trucks with ‘humanitarian aid’,” the representative told Sputnik.

He further spoke about how the Turkish people are well aware of this because there have been demonstrations on the matter. Today terrorism has clearly spread to Turkey.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “It Is Impossible to Defeat ‘Daesh’ [ISIS] in Syria without First Defeating It in Turkey”. Syria UN Envoy

A recent “international tribunal” ruling regarding China’s claims in the South China Sea was more than just anticlimactic – it was indicative of the United States’ waning influence as well as the waning legitimacy of the many international institutions it has used, abused, and thus undermined for decades.

The New York Times in an article titled, “Tribunal Rejects Beijing’s Claims in South China Sea,” would claim:

An international tribunal in The Hague delivered a sweeping rebuke on Tuesday of China’s behavior in the South China Sea, including its construction of artificial islands, and found that its expansive claim to sovereignty over the waters had no legal basis.

4534534543

The landmark case, brought by the Philippines, was seen as an important crossroads in China’s rise as a global power and in its rivalry with the United States, and it could force Beijing to reconsider its assertive tactics in the region or risk being labeled an international outlaw. It was the first time the Chinese government had been summoned before the international justice system.

Despite the NYT’s claims that the case was “brought by the Philippines,” it was in fact headed by an American lawyer, Paul S. Reichler, of US-based law firm, Foley Hoag. Just like the court case itself, the apparent conflict in the South China Sea may be portrayed as being between China and its neighbors, but it is in reality a conflict cultivated by the US explicitly as a means of maintaining “primacy in Asia.”

Facing Threats to “US Primacy in Asia”

The corporate-financier funded and directed policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a paper titled, “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” penned by Robert Blackwill – a Bush-era administrator and lobbyist who has directly participated in Washington’s attempts to maintain hegemony over Asia.

Blackwill’s paper states clearly what interests the US has in Asia (emphasis added):

Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.

The CFR paper constitutes a US policymaker openly admitting that the US perceives itself as possessing and seeking to maintain “primacy in Asia,” primacy being defined by Merriam-Webster as“the state of being most important or strongest.”

The notion that the United States, from an entire ocean away from Asia, should proclaim itself “the most important or strongest” nation in Asia is in itself every bit in reality a threat to intentional peace and stability as the US claims Chinese primacy in Asia would be.

The South China Sea “Conflict” as a Pretext

More specifically, Blackwill would mention the South China Sea conflict as the primary pretext with which to further tighten American control over an Asia the paper admits is slipping away.

The paper then enumerates a list of self-serving measures the US should take predicated on the alleged conflict, which include:

  • Defense reform within the Armed Forces of the Philippines to develop a full range of defense capabilities that would enable the government to deter and prevent intrusions on or possible invasion of Philippine territory;
  • Boost Indonesia’s role in joint exercises and expand its scope, symbolically indicative of Jakarta’s growing centrality to security in the Asia Pacific, and gear military aid, training, and joint exercises with Indonesia toward air-sea capabilities; 
  • Help Singapore upgrade its current air force capabilities from F-16s to F-35s;
  • encourage Malaysia to fully participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative, which it agreed to join in April 2014, and promote more active Malaysian involvement in combined exercises, domain awareness architectures, and the like; 
  • Seek to expand the scope of activities during the annual U.S.-Vietnam naval exercises to include joint humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and/or search and rescue exercises, and make more frequent stops at the port at Cam Ranh Bay in the short term; 
  • Establish strategic International Military Exchange Training (IMET) programs with Myanmar, with a focus on professionalizing the military, and continue to integrate the Myanmar military into, and 
  • Expand its participation in, joint international military exercises;  
  • Advocate substantial IMET expansion throughout Southeast Asia; 
  • Help build domestic democratic political capacity throughout the region. 

It is clear that this sweeping military expansion the US proposes not only lends to the United States unwarranted influence over the military forces, governments, and very sovereignty of each respective Southeast Asian state, but includes the transparently self-serving requirement of purchasing immense amount of US weapons to threaten China with. In fact, Blackwill openly suggests Singapore’s F-16s be upgraded to the scandal-ridden, grossly overpriced F-35.

The paper, 70 pages in total, expounds in immense detail this, the latest chapter in Washington’s decades-long effort to encircle and contain China.

It is clear then why the US took the Philippines by the hand to the Hague for its court case against China.

An International Tribunal Not Internationally Recognized 

While the US media attempted to stampede public opinion with the supposed gravity of the tribunal’s decision, it was met by silence worldwide.

China outright rejected the entire proceeding before the ruling was even read, while other nations in Southeast Asia have continued drawing closer still in economic, political, and military cooperation with China.

Thailand, the second largest economy in Southeast Asia’s ASEAN bloc, has recently announced its intentions to buy up to 100 VT-4 main battle tanks from China and has continued exploring the possibility of purchasing several Chinese-made diesel electric submarines. Many of the trains now running in Thailand are Chinese-made as will be new rail lines built across the country. Thailand has also begun conducting joint-military exercises with China to rebalance its fading relationship with the United States.

Thailand, along with other Southeast Asian nations have insisted that they have no stake in the South China Sea dispute, and have refused categorically to take sides in it despite pressure from each nation’s respective US ambassador. Beyond Asia, Europe too has refused to intervene, and failed to decisively recognize the tribunal’s recent ruling.

Reuters in its article, “Discord over South China Sea clouds Asia-Europe summit,” would report that:

A key summit between Asian and European leaders in Mongolia ended on Saturday without direct mention of the South China Sea dispute in its closing statement, with diplomats describing intense discord over the issue between Europe and Asia.

It would also add that:

On Friday, the European Union issued a statement noting China’s legal defeat but avoided direct reference to Beijing, reflecting discord among EU governments over how strongly to respond to the court ruling.

One must wonder then, just how “international” a tribunal is, whose ruling is not recognized internationally.

International Tribunal Serves US, Not Philippine Interests 

Even in the Philippines, whose name the case was brought to the tribunal in, reactions were muted, with the newly elected president, Rodrigo Duterte, calling for calm in the aftermath of the ruling. The Financial Times in its article, “Duterte calls for calm as SE Asia grapples with sea ruling,” would state:

[President Duterte’s] call for peaceful talks instead, echoed across Southeast Asia, highlights the region’s difficult position following this week’s international tribunal ruling at The Hague. Several countries in the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations have territorial quarrels with Beijing, but none want to spark an unwinnable war or alienate a superpower to which they are tied by aid, trade or cultural affinities.

In other words, the ruling and the expected confrontation the US had hoped to spark, benefits Southeast Asia in no shape, form, or way and despite the considerable influence the United States still holds over the Philippines, it is apparent that the will for peace, prosperity, and progress is more considerable still.

Indeed, according to Harvard University’s Atlas of Economic Complexity, the Philippines’ leading trade partner is China, with 26% of its exports and 19% of its imports accounted for amid the two nations’ economic ties. The United States on the other hand, accounts for only 12% of the Philippines exports, and 9% of all imports. It is upon Asia, by far, that the Philippines economy depends – an Asia enjoying peace and stability. And it is this peace and stability that is directly threatened by America’s openly declared plan to militarize the region and confront China.

It is clear that America’s closest allies in the region are disinterested in confronting China, and while the US emphasizes the need to confront Chinese “coercion,” it is clear that the United States has resorted to coercion itself to punish nations unwilling to help it uphold its “primacy in Asia.”

While the US is sure to resort to an array of punitive measures against the Philippines, as well as the rest of Southeast Asia for failing to enable its “primacy in Asia,” one thing is certain. An “international tribunal” the entire world fails to recognize is no longer “international.” The irrelevance of the US-backed tribunal is a harbinger of what’s to come for the “international order” itself that the US poses as head of.

One only hopes that China has paid careful attention to the brutal, bloody, and shameful spread of American hegemony, and its now ignominious retreat – and decides to take another path on its way toward global power – one that bypasses aspirations for global hegemony, and one that instead arrives at leading by example. For Southeast Asia’s part, ensuring their economies, societies, and armed forces remain strong and vigilant, can help guide China toward that destination peacefully and without temptation.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Threatens “US Primacy in Asia”? Hague Tribunal Ruling on South China Sea Falls Short

On July 19, US warplanes dropped bombs on a crowd of civilians in the Syrian village of Tokhar. When the dust cleared, a minimum of 95 people were killed, and some groups claimed that as the wounded began dying, the toll rose to nearly 200.

CENTCOM seems to accept the pieces of this story. There was definitely a crowd of civilians, and there were definitely US warplanes dropping 500-pound bombs on them, and those bombs definitely hit the target. Getting them to the part where bombing a bunch of civilians with deadly explosives meant killing them, however, is a herculean task.

Throughout the ISIS War, CENTCOM has dramatically undercounted the number of civilians killed on so many occasions that it’s become a cliche. More than half of the time, CENTCOM won’t even investigate the incident, insisting there isn’t enough “sufficient verifiable information.”

Amnesty International officials say that this is almost always thew case as far as CENTCOM is concerned, and that they routinely reject information they bring them that includes the names of slain civilians and pictures of the aftermath of the strike. The Pentagon won’t even provide them with criteria on what they actually would want.

Even on those rare occasions, like Tokhar, that CENTCOM is pressured into agreeing to an investigation, such a process regularly lasts months on end, with no transparency, and assuming they ever get around to admitting the incident happened at all, they’ll almost certainly shrug it off with a death toll far lower than the number of bodies shown in pictures after the incident.

It is this process through which US officials have claimed civilian death tolls in this current air war are more than  a factor of  ten fewer than in other recent air wars, including other air wars the US is waging right now. With the US mostly bombing populated areas, analysts are in agreement that this simply isn’t credible.

Still, Pentagon officials want to be able to sell the public in “liberated” ISIS territory on the idea that the US is being extremely careful and limiting the death toll to absolute bare minimum. That the actual evidence shows this is clearly not the case appears to be of no real concern to them.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Killing Far More Civilians in Syria Than They’ll Admit

In December 2014, US President Barack Obama shocked the world by announcing his intention to re-establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. After the initial shock of his announcement wore off, widespread speculation began about the timing and motives behind the US decision to re-engage Cuba after nearly six decades of actively trying to topple its socialist government.

Some viewed the decision as little more than a change in tactics, effectively amounting to an admission that the long standing policy of trying to isolate and destabilize the island has failed; others were convinced that Obama had good intentions and that his decision was based on purely humanitarian and ethical values. However, the idea that American benevolence was the motivating factor is difficult to accept given that one would be hard-pressed to find a single instance of genuine humanitarian intervention on the part of the US in its entire history, despite the lofty rhetoric of its leaders. If history serves as an indication, this move likely fits into a larger geopolitical strategy aimed at advancing American interests and business opportunities.

One possible explanation that has been largely absent from the mainstream media is that the ultimate objective of the decision actually has little to do with American benevolence or the desire to alleviate the disastrous consequences of the trade embargo on Cuba’s economy and the daily lives of its people; rather, it is directed at China with the intent of impeding its growing presence and influence in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In recent years, while US foreign policy was focused on the Middle East, North Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Russia, China has quietly intensified its economic and financial cooperation with many countries in the Caribbean and South and Central America, including Cuba. Washington likely views this increasing Chinese presence in “America’s backyard” as a threat to US diplomatic, political and economic influence on a global scale. Thus, normalizing US-Cuban relations could represent one step in a process intended to constrain China’s investment and influence in the region.

Washington is fearful that China could emerge as the dominant power in Latin America and the Caribbean in the near future on its way to becoming a legitimate global economic, political, and military rival to the US. This is evidenced by a number of statements made by President Obama, where he emphasized the point that “we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy”. He also stated that, “China is negotiating a trade deal that would carve up some of the fastest-growing markets in the world at our expense, putting American jobs, businesses and goods at risk”, which was likely referencing the 16-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that China is working to finalize by the end of 2016.

The US is likely hoping that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement[1] (TPP) and reengagement with Cuba will play significant roles in enhancing the influence of the US in Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Asia-Pacific, while simultaneously limiting Chinese leadership in these regions. President Obama believes that “the TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade[2]” because it is “a trade deal that puts American workers first and makes sure…[that Americans] write the rules of the road for trade in the 21st century”. Furthermore, his belief in American exceptionalism is on full display when he states, “America should write the rules. America should call the shots. Other countries should play by the rules that America and our partners set, and not the other way around”. Such statements are reminiscent of the Cold War era, when Washington was concerned that close ties between Cuba and the Soviet Union could threaten American interests.

The strategic importance of Latin America and the Caribbean to the United States is clearly reflected in the Monroe Doctrine, which was established by the administration of President James Monroe in 1823 and stated “that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention[3]”. Based on the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially regards the Caribbean, and Central and South America as the “backyard” of the U.S., the Soviet Union’s close economic and diplomatic relationship with Cuba[4] was regarded as an act of aggression during the Cold War era. Similarly, the recent Chinese economic and diplomatic advances in these regions[5] could be viewed as acts of aggression depending on how Washington chooses to interpret the Monroe Doctrine.

Historically, Cuba and China have enjoyed friendly diplomatic relations. In fact, Havana’s Barrio China was founded in 1870 with arrival of over 40,000 Chinese people, who have resided in the city ever since. Furthermore, Cuba was the first country in Latin America to establish a diplomatic relationship and enter into trade agreements with China after an official visit by Ernesto Che Guevara in 1961. Since then, China has been a consistent trading partner that Cuba has come to rely on, particularly in difficult times. In recent years, economic ties between these two nations have expanded considerably despite their geographic distance. As of 2005,

China has become Cuba’s largest creditor and second largest foreign trade partner after Venezuela. Meanwhile, Cuba represents China’s largest trading partner in the Caribbean due to significant contracts in a number of different sectors and industries. For instance, in the tourism industry, Chinese firms are currently working on the construction of 13 new Cuban resorts to honor contracts totalling $460 million. Also, the national petroleum companies of both nations, SINOPEC of China and CUPET of Cuba, are cooperating on the development of Cuba’s oil reserves and infrastructure in accordance with an agreement signed in 2008.

In July 2014, only a few months before President Obama announced his intention to re-establish diplomatic relations with the island, Chinese President Xi Jinping embarked on an official visit to Cuba along with a delegation that included 50 businessmen and investors. This resulted in 29 business agreements being signed that further expanded the extensive economic and commercial ties between the two countries. Among them were agreements for Chinese funding for a variety of construction products, investment in oil exploration, financing for the Cuban acquisition of telecommunications equipment, and cooperation on projects in the areas of healthcare, biotechnology, and renewable energy.

Specific contracts included the Cuban-Chinese Biotechnology Working Group ratifying 11 new agreements to cooperate on biotechnology projects over the period of 2015-2017. Also, Cuba recently entered into business agreements to obtain internet services and communications equipment from Chinese companies like Huawei, ZTE and TP Link instead of their American competitors. China also began regular weekly flights from Beijing to Havana in early 2016. All of these agreements indicate a recent deepening of business and economic ties between Cuba and China, building on their history of friendly relations based on cooperation and mutual respect for sovereignty and national interests.

Chinese loans and large-scale investment projects[6] in Latin American and Caribbean countries have significantly increased since 2003. During that time, while China was building important economic and diplomatic relationships in that region, Washington was largely preoccupied with strategies that resulted in the destabilization and destruction of many countries, primarily in the Middle East and North Africa.

To help facilitate its investments and development projects around the world, China created its own financial institution in 2015, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which currently counts 37 countries as members. The AIIB fits into China’s broader strategy of transitioning away from its traditional manufacturing base to a more services-oriented economy. More countries, particularly developing nations[7], are turning to the AIIB as an alternative to the Bretton Woods Institutions (the IMF and World Bank) when in need of financial assistance, because loans and credit are provided on more favourable terms and with fewer conditions attached. China has also proven to be a popular trade partner and source of investment, because its strict business-oriented approach is mutually beneficial, often leads to a reduction in poverty levels[8], and involves no interference in the internal affairs of its partners.

The AIIB effectively changes the rules of international trade, which has been dominated by the Bretton Woods Institutions[9] since WWII. Predictably, Washington is concerned that China will use the AIIB to set the terms and rules of the global economic agenda and threaten the US’s status as the world’s dominant economic power. This is evidenced by a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, where President Obama stated that: “If we don’t write the rules, China will write the rules”. Clearly, the US regards China as its key economic rival and is seeking measures to prevent it from becoming too strong and independent.

In order to forestall China’s emergence as an economic rival and re-establish US economic dominance, the Obama administration is engaging with regional multilateral institutions, in addition to intensifying trade and investment with individual countries through bilateral agreements. This calls into question Washington’s stated motives for reconciling its diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is more likely that the decision to normalize relations with Cuba is part of a larger project aimed at limiting China’s growing role in “America’s backyard”.

Cuba has experienced both the American and Chinese approaches to diplomatic and economic relations. The Cuban experience with China has generally been one of mutual benefit and respect for one another’s sovereignty. This is because China does not behave like a traditional military, colonial or imperial power; instead, it focuses on peaceful economic development, mutual gains, and cooperative relationships. The Cuban experience with the US was vastly different, as the US exercised imperial control over the island, which included exploiting its people and resources, and dictating its foreign policy, effectively transforming Cuba into a US neo-colony from the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898 right up until the Socialist Revolution in 1959.

The two-year anniversary of President Obama’s announcement of his intention to re-establish normal diplomatic relations with Cuba is fast approaching. It is noteworthy that, with only a few months left in his Presidency, the trade embargo has not yet been lifted, nor has President Obama exercised his “executive power will” to bypass Congress and force its elimination. It could be that the US administration is having second thoughts on the prospect of fully lifting the embargo after weighing the potential drawbacks against the perceived gains. For example, eliminating the embargo will result in a massive influx of American tourists and dollars into Cuba that would largely benefit non-US companies, including the Spanish firms that often manage Cuban resorts and the Chinese companies that build infrastructure and export consumer goods to the island.

Furthermore, it is also likely too late for the US to build an economic relationship with Cuba that could realistically rival that of China, given the long history of the Cuba-China economic relationship that respects the sovereignty and socialist principles of the island. Washington would certainly like to avoid any actions that could profit Chinese companies and enhance China’s influence in the region, given their view of China as a major economic competitor with the potential to shape the future global economy according to their own designs.

For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect that Washington will establish relationships and enact policies aimed at countering China’s growing economic influence. Recent examples of this approach include the TTIP and TTP agreements, which explicitly exclude both China and Russia. Obama’s efforts to re-establish a diplomatic relationship with Cuba must be understood in this context. This decision was not motivated by American virtues or good intentions; rather, it was a response to the fear that China has the potential to design and control the rules of the global economy in the foreseeable future. This is clearly evidenced in a Hilary Clinton speech that appeared in Foreign Policy Magazine in 2010, where she stated the following: “As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region”[10]. This excerpt demonstrates that the ideal of a peaceful community of nations will never be achieved as long as dominant military, economic, and political powers like the United States continue to advance their own interests at the expense of the economic well-being, security, and welfare of other countries.

 Notes

[1] In a bid to contain China’s economic growth and political influence, the US drafted the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement on October 5, 2015. Subsequently, on February 4, 2016, it was signed by 11 other countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The signatories of the TPP, including the US, represent a combined share of approximately 40% of the global economy. China was explicitly excluded from the TPP on the pretext of violating human rights. The TPP aims to reverse China’s dominance and return the US to its status as the global economic power. On August 25, 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that “[t]he current agreement, the Trans-Pacific [Partnership], which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year” (https://www.rt.com/usa/357333-mcconnell-tpp-senate-vote/).

[4] US policy has consistently sought to reverse the Cuban Revolution and overthrow the county’s socialist regime. Specific tactics included the planning and support of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, many instances of sabotage and terrorism, hundreds of CIA attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the imposition of economic and political sanctions in order to destabilize the regime by creating disenchantment, disaffection, hardship, hunger, and desperation among the Cuban population. In all likelihood, successive US administrations believed that it was only a matter time before this strategy would lead to the collapse of the socialist system, which would allow Americans to reclaim their preferential status and exercise imperial control over the island.

[5] Over the course of the last decade, China has also made significant progress in building important economic and diplomatic relationships with many nations in addition to Cuba. This is evidenced by the fact that China is now the top trading partner of more than 120 nations. It has also provided loans and investments for a variety of projects in many countries, including the construction and modernisation of infrastructure such as highways, bridges, railroads, canals, hospitals, and energy infrastructure like oil refineries, power plants, and pipelines.

[6] Based on a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), China is now the largest trading partner of the African continent, with over 2,000 Chinese companies investing in 49 African countries. China continues to expand its investments on the continent.

[7] Australia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and many European, African and South American nations are already members of AIIB. Although Washington declined China’s offer for AIIB membership, it was supported by a number of close US allies like France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

[8] In December 2015, the Chinese government offered $60 billion in loans and aid to help African countries build and improve their infrastructure. Generally speaking, Chinese involvement has been beneficial for the economy of the entire African continent.

[9] The IMF and World Bank are well-known for imposing policy changes and structural reforms on borrower nations in exchange for loans. Many of these structural adjustment programs were highly detrimental to these countries and solely served the interests of donors.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Decision to “Normalize” Relations with Cuba: Impede China’s Growing Influence in Latin America?

The US: A Dead Nation Walking. Russia Has Superior Weapons?

August 27th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Here is an informative article by Dmitry Orlov: http://www.cluborlov.comI use the writings of Orlov and The Saker as checks on my own conclusions.

In his article Orlov concludes that the United States is a dead nation, still walking, but no longer a uni-power. I agree with Orlov that US weapon systems are more focused on profits than on effectiveness and that Russia has superior weapons and a superior cause based on protection rather than dominance. However, in his assessment of the possibility of nuclear war, I think that Orlov under-appreciates the commitment of Washington’s Neoconservatives to US world hegemony and the recklessness of the Neoconservatives and Hillary Clinton. Washington is incensed that Russia (and China) dare to stand up to Washington, and this anger crowds out judgment.

Orlov, also, I think, under-estimates the weakness in the Russian government provided by the “Atlanticist Integrationists.” These are members of the Russian elite who believe that Russia’s future depends on being integrated with the West. To achieve this integration, they are willing to sacrifice some undetermined amount of Russian sovereignty.

It is my conclusion that Washington is aware of the constraint that the desire for Western acceptance puts on the Russian government and that this is why Washington, in a direct thrust at Russia, was comfortable orchestrating the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government. I believe that this constraint also explains the mistakes the Russian government made by refusing the requests of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics to be reincorporated as parts of Russia, where the territories formerly resided, and by the premature withdrawal from Syria that allowed Washington to resupply the jihadists and to insert US forces into the conflict, thus complicating the situation for Russia and Syria.

Orlov sees Russian advantage in the ongoing conflict between Kiev and the breakaway republics as the conflict could be leading to the collapse of the US puppet government in Kiev. However, the disadvantage is that the ongoing conflict is blamed on Russia and feeds Western anti-Russian propaganda. It also makes Russia look weak and unsure of itself as if the Western criticism of Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea has struck home and Russia is afraid to repeat it by accepting the pleas of the break-away republics.

Moreover, if the Russian government had accepted the requests of Donetsk and Luhansk to return to Russia from which they were artificailly separated, not only would the conflict have been ended, but also the Ukrainian people would have realized the disaster caused by Washington’s coup against their government, and Europe would have realized from decisive Russian action that it was not in Europe’s interest to provoke Russia in behalf of Washington. The correct Russian response was prevented by the Atlanticist Integrationist desire to appease Washington.

In contrast to Orlov, The Saker underestimates Russian military strength, but he does understand the constraints placed on Russian decisiveness by the Atlanticist Integrationists, who seem to count in their ranks the economic establishment including the central bank and perhaps the prime minister himself. Putin does not seem to be overly concerned with what appears to me to be a fifth column of Washington’s agents as Putin himself has placed heavy bets on achieving accommodation with the West. However, Putin has cracked down on the US-financed NGOs that have tried to destabilize Russia.

Western reporting and think tank and university reports on Russia are propaganda and are useless to understanding the situation. For example, in the current issue of The National Interest Thomas Graham, who had the Russian desk on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush regime, attributes the “destabilization of eastern Ukraine” to “Russia’s annexation of Crimea.” He avoids mentioning the US-orchestrated overthrow of an elected Ukrainian government and that Crimea voted overwhelmingly (97 percent) to rejoin Russia when faced with the Russophobic government Washington established in Kiev.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-sources-russian-conduct-17462

According to Graham, the foul deed of Russia’s acceptance of a democratic outcome upset all of Washington’s very friendly, supportive, and hopeful attitudes toward Russia. With all of Washington’s “assumptions that had guided America’s Russia policy” irreversibly dashed, it is no longer possible to maintain that Russia “is a suitable partner for addressing global issues.” Graham goes on to define Russia as a problem because Russia favors a multi-polar world to a uni-polar world run by Washington.

It is possible to read Graham’s repeat of the propaganda line as Graham genuflecting before the Neoconservatives before going on quietly in a low-key manner to attack their hegemonic attitude toward Russia. In his concluding paragraph Graham says that Washington must find a new approach to Russia, an approach of balance and limits that rejects “resort to force, which would be devastating given the destructive power of modern weaponry.”

All in all, it is an artful argument that begins by blaming Russia’s response to Washington’s provocations for a dangerous situation and concludes with the argument that Washington must adjust to Russia’s defense of her own national interests.

It is reassuring to see some realism creeping back into Washington attitudes toward Russia. However, realism is still a minority view, and it is highly unlikely that it would be the view of a Hillary regime.

In my opinion, the chance of nuclear war from Neoconservative intention, miscalculation or false launch warning remains high. The provocations of US/NATO military forces and missile bases on Russia’s borders are reckless as they build tensions between nuclear powers. It is in times of tension that false warnings are believed and miscalculations occur. In the interest of life on earth, Washington should be de-escalating tensions with Russia, not building them. So far there is no sign that the Neoconservatives are willing to give up their hegemonic agenda for the sake of life on earth.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the WestHow America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US: A Dead Nation Walking. Russia Has Superior Weapons?

Trouble between Moscow and Tehran?

August 27th, 2016 by The Saker

While the granting of the use of the Iranian airbase in Hamedan to the Russian Aerospace forces was greeted with a lot of coverage, the recent departure from Hamedan of the Russian Tu-22M3 has attracted much less attention. The official Russian line on this was very neutral, as shown by this article in Sputnik.

What really took place, however, deserves some further scrutiny.

First, it should be said that the Russians had been using that airbase for a quite a while already, but that the deal between Russia and Iran had been kept secret.  According to Russian sources, it appears that the Iranians were completely surprised when this information was made public and that some factions inside the ruling elites of Iran were outraged at what they saw as a public admission of a compromise of Iranian sovereignty.   First, it was the Iranian Defense Minister, Hossein Dehghan, who expressed his outrage at what he saw was a Russian leak made without Iranian agreement.  According to Dehghan, the Russians wanted to show that they were an influential superpower and that is why they made that information public.  Soon after that, both the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the Russian ambassador to Tehran confirmed that the Russians had left Hamedan and that they would only come back when the two countries would agree to their return.

However, there might be more to this than meet the eye.

According to the same Russian sources, what might be taking place is an internal struggle between different Iranian factions, specifically the Iranian armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).  The Russians believe that the website which initially released this information, Warfare Worldwide, is linked to the Iranian Armed Forces who, according to the Russians, leaked this info (and pictures) through Warfare Worldwide in order to embarrass the Iranian government.  Once this information was made public, the Russians had to confirm it, and that resulted in some very heated exchanges in the Iranian Parliament.  Russian experts have stated that the decision to offer the use of Hamedan to the Russian Aerospace forces could not have been made without the person approval of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, and the Russian Aerospace forces had been using the Hamedan airbase since last year, but the (fully understandable) hyper-sensitivity of the Iranian public to the issue of sovereignty made the publication of this information highly embarrassing for the Iranians, especially the conservatives.  A second problem is that the Russians were mostly working with the IRGC, since they are the ones fighting inside Syria, while the Iranian Armed forces were unhappy with this arrangement.

Whatever may be the case, in the short term this is definitely bad news, not only because this complicates the execution of Russian air strikes against Daesh, but also because it shows that all is not perfect and sunny in the informal alliance between Russia and Iran.  In the mid to long term, I fully expect both sides to mend fences and workout a series of mutually acceptable collaboration protocols between the two countries.  In that sense, this is good news.

In truth, neither Russia nor Iran have any options but to work together.  The Iranians in particular absolutely need a strong partnership with Russia to keep the US-Takfiri-Zionist-Wahabi (what a combo!) alliance at bay and to continue to be the backbone of the resistance against the AngloZionist Empire in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere.  If this leak was truly an effort of the armed forces to sabotage an IRGC run operation, than the Supreme Leader will have to “clean house” and make sure that all the factions of the Iranian government work together rather then against each other.  Considering the kind of vicious infighting taking place for years (and still continuing) in Russia between the Atlantic Integrationists and the Eurasian Sovereignists, I think that Vladimir Putin will have a very great deal of understanding for the difficulty to run a covert operation in a country in which different factions compete against  each other.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trouble between Moscow and Tehran?