Donald Trump has backtracked — sort of — on his assertion that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are “the founders” of ISIS, or the “most valuable players” on the Islamic State team. “Obviously, I’m being sarcastic,” said the self-styled “America-Firster” – quickly adding, “but not that sarcastic, to be honest with you.”

Trump cannot articulate or fully grasp the horrific truth of his original statement because that would require a much more fundamental indictment of U.S. imperial policy in the Muslim world since the last days of 1979, when Zbigniew Brzezinski convinced President Jimmy Carter to set the jihadist dogs loose in Afghanistan.

As stated in his memoir From the Shadow, Brzezinski advised Carter to aid the right-wing Muslim resistance to the leftist, secular government in Afghanistan in order to “induce a Soviet military intervention” and thus embroil the USSR in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Brzezinski viewed the so-called Mujahadeen as potential foot soldiers of U.S. global policy. “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” Brzezinski asked, rhetorically, decades later.

Having acted in accordance with Brzezinski’s counsel, President Carter can accurately be described as a founding “creator” of al Qaida, along with fellow “most valuable player” Ronald Reagan, whose CIA partnered with Saudi Arabia to spend billions drawing Muslims from around the globe into the war in Afghanistan. Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement – a phenomenon that had not previously existed in world history. The jihadists would become an essential weapon in the U.S. imperial armory, a ghastly tool for regime change in the Muslim world which also doubled as justification for the never ending American quest for planetary dominance, now that the Soviet boogeyman was gone.

“In 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars.”

Brzezinski became Barack Obama’s foreign policy guru, with consequences that should have been predictable for U.S. Middle East policy but were largely ignored by liberals and so-called progressives in their euphoria at the exit of George W. Bush.

Clearly, the U.S. public would not tolerate another episode of massive, direct U.S. troop involvement in the region; that was no longer an option. But what force, then, was available to execute Washington’s unfinished agenda for conquest in this part of the world? In 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars, first against Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya, then swiftly mobilizing the totality of the international jihadist network that had been created out of whole cloth under Carter and Reagan nearly 30 years before. Washington and its NATO partners in the Libya aggression, in close concert with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, turned Syria into a cauldron of death, funneling billions of dollars in weapons to literally hundreds of Salafist and outright mercenary militias, with Al Qaida’s regional affiliate, al Nusra, at the core. This was Obama’s idea of a “smart” war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.

The criminal foreign policy pursued by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is rooted in the same worldview arrogantly articulated by Brzezinski when he derided those who fretted over the blowback that might result from deploying “some stirred-up Moslems” as foot soldiers of imperialism. As the U.S. and its allies literally competed with each other to flood Syria with the weapons, funds, intelligence resources and diplomatic and media cover to bring down the government in Damascus, they collectively created both the material basis and political space for the jihadists to pursue their own ideological objectives. ISIS emerged, to establish a caliphate of its own in Syria and Iraq. No one should have expected otherwise.

“This was Obama’s idea of a ‘smart”’war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.”

Back in July of 2014, we at Black Agenda Report described the rise of ISIS as signaling “the final collapse of U.S. imperial strategy in the Muslim world — certainly, in the Arab regions of Islam.” We wrote:

“Think of it as a Salafist declaration of independence…from the Arab monarchies and western intelligence agencies that have nurtured the international jihadist network for almost two generations. The Caliphate threatens, not only its immediate adversaries in the Shiite-dominated governments of Syria and Iraq, but the potentates of the Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and the Mother of All Monarchist Corruption in the Arab Sunni heartland, the Saudi royal family. The threat is not inferential, but literal, against ‘all emirates, groups, states and organizations’ that do not recognize that ISIS in its new incarnation is the embodiment of Islam at war.’”

ISIS did not exist when President Obama took office and put Hillary Clinton in charge at Foggy Bottom. His (and her) regime change in Libya and massive, terroristic pivot to Syria “created” ISIS. And, let’s get the history right, on this score: the U.S. did not reject the jihadist death cult that became ISIS; rather, the Islamic State divorced itself from the U.S. and its European and royal allies. Yet, it still took the Russian intervention in Syria in September of last year to push Washington to mount more than token air assaults against ISIS. Apparently, the U.S. wants to avoid killing too many Islamic State fighters, in hopes that there will be lots of them left to join U.S.-sanctioned jihadist outfits when it gets too hot for ISIS. (Al Nusra has changed its name and resigned from al Qaida — with the blessing of al Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan — so as to better blend in with the other jihadist outfits on western payrolls.)

“U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS.”

You don’t need to take Donald Trump’s word for it, that Obama and Clinton have been “most valuable players” for ISIS. The U.S. military’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) came to much the same conclusion, back in 2012. The military spooks’ reports, declassified last year, showed the DIA had warned that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [which] support the [Syrian] opposition” believe “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.”

The DIA was alarmed that

“…the deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

“This creates the ideal situation for AQI [al Qaida in Iraq, which became ISIS] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [meaning, Shia Muslims]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Thus, a year after Obama and his European and Arab friends brought down Libya’s Gaddafi and shifted their proxy war of regime change to Syria, U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS — and that “this is exactly” what “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey…want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Yes, Obama created ISIS, with the enthusiastic assistance of Hillary Clinton, and he is still nurturing al Nusra, the erstwhile affiliate of al Qaida, which was mid-wifed into existence by Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the intervening years, the jihadists have become indispensable to U.S. imperial policy, but especially so since George W. Bush’s defeat in Iraq, which soured the American public on “dumb” wars – meaning, in Obama-Speak, wars in which large numbers of Americans die. Proxy wars are ideal — “smart,” because only Arabs and Africans and people that Americans have never heard of, die. Libya wasn’t even a war, according to Obama, since no U.S. personnel perished.

“The jihadists have become indispensable to U.S. imperial policy.”

The truth about ISIS and the Obama administration is so obvious that even Donald Trump has a hazy idea of what happened in Syria and Libya. However, the spoiled man-brat white nationalist billionaire from Queens is incapable of putting the Obama/Clinton/ISIS connection in the historical context of U.S. imperial policy. Sadly, most “liberals” and far too many “progressives” (including Black ones) are afflicted with the same disease as Trump: extreme imperial chauvinism — which is practically inseparable from white supremacism.  Extreme imperial chauvinism allows Americans to send to the White House people that should, instead, be sent to the gallows or a firing squad (after a trial, of course). It allows Americans that claim to be on the “left’ side of the spectrum to recoil in horror at Donald Trump (who hasn’t killed anybody that we know of, and who says he will not engage in regime change as president), yet will vote for a woman whose career is soaked in the blood of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and the northern tier of Africa, and whose husband set in motion a genocide that has killed six million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

One candidate, Trump, most resembles the late Alabama governor George Wallace with a “let’s make a deal” foreign policy. The other, Clinton, is a genocidal maniac, whose crimes as president will be Hitlerian in scale.

What is scarier than Clinton or Trump, is that Americans seem to have no visceral aversion to genocide (of non-white peoples). But, unless you’re a Green or some shade of Red, genocide isn’t even an election issue.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Yes, Obama and Clinton Created ISIS – Too Bad Trump Can’t Explain How It Happened

What Became of the American Left?

August 19th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Acquaintances of my generation are puzzled by the disappearance of the American left.  They remember when there was far less war, far less monopoly capitalist theft, a less rich and powerful elite, less police violence against civilians, less militarization, less privatization and deregulation, fewer attacks on the social safety net, less propaganda from the media, and yet, despite the milder state of affairs, the leftwing was present raising hell about it all.

For fifteen years, and more if we go back to the Clinton regime’s destruction of Yugoslavia, the US has been engaged in wars on populations in seven—eight counting Yugoslavia/Serbia—countries, causing millions of deaths, disabled, and dislocated peoples. A police state has been created, the US Constitution stripped of its protective features, and massive crimes committed under both US and international law by three administrations.  These crimes include torture, transparent false flag events, naked aggression (a war crime), spying without warrants, and murder of US citizens.  Yet, the leftwing’s voice is barely heard.

Clearly, my acquaintances are beginning to miss the challenge to explanations and the country’s direction that the left formerly provided.  I know how they feel.  We used to be pushed along by biases and stereotypical thinking, and the left was there to rattle our cage.  Now we are pushed along by propaganda and there is no countervailing force except a few Internet voices.

I remember telling the audience in the Q&A session after my Frank M. Engle Lecture in 1992 that I never realized how much we would miss US Supreme Court Justices Brennan and Marshall.

Today we need a leftwing far more desperately than we did when we had one.  Today governments considered democratic have the powers of a dictatorship. In the United States, for example, habeas corpus has been erased from both law and Constitution.  Even worse, White House officials can create lists of citizens to be murdered without due process of law.  These are the powers of a dictator.  Yet, these attributes of dictatorship are now institutionalized and go unremarked.

One would think that the dispossessed American workers, whose jobs and financial security have been moved offshore and given to foreigners, would be protesting in the streets like the French do.  But not a peep.  When presidential candidate Ross Perot warned American workers of what was about to happen to them, they did not have enough confidence to vote for him. Have the dispossessed American workers gained enough sense—or is the problem a lack of leadership—to vote for Trump who acknowledges the job loss that is eroding the prospects of the 99 percent? If Trump does not intend to deliver or is incapable of delivering, we are still better off because a failure to deliver raises the awareness of the people.

From the standpoint of the left, there is a perfect environment for them in present day America.  So where is the left?

Here is my answer to the question.  The left suffered a tremendous blow when the Soviet Union collapsed.  The Soviet collapse deprived the left of its belief that there was an alternative to American “democratic capitalism.”  The Soviet collapse also disheartened the left because the collapse removed any constraint on Washington’s unilateralism. With China shaking off Mao and moving into the capitalist camp, there was no one to pick up the torch.

People are puzzled why the left goes along with the government’s explanations of what appear to be orchastrated false flag terror events.  If people of no political persuasion, such as architects and engineers, physicists, nano-chemists, firemen and first responders, airline and military pilots, challenge on the basis of evidence the official account of 9/11, why does the leftwing defend the account of a government that in other circumstances the left distrusts 120%?  The left knows that Tonkin Gulf was an orchestration for war, that Saddam Hussein had no “weapons of mass destruction,” that Iran had no nukes.  The left knows that the government lies through its teeth, so why does the left believe the government’s improbable conspiracy theory of 9/11?

The answer, I think, is that with the demise of Marxism, the left’s only hope is that the peoples oppressed by the West will rise up.  The left finds huge emotional satisfaction in 9/11 as blowback of the oppressed against the oppressor.  This is why the left clings to the official story of 9/11.  And to the stories of other “terrorist events,” such as Orlando and Nice despite the lack of any real evidence in behalf of the stories.

I can remember when the Amerian left, if told that a large truck travelling at a reported 56 miles per hour had mowed down 185 people and, then, being shown in the immediate aftermath the truck devoid of a spot of blood, clothing, human flesh, or even a small dent, would have shouted down the obviously false account.

Ask someone who has hit a dog at 56 mph about the blood and damage to the car. Ask someone who has hit a deer and the car is totalled. Ask experts if a large truck hit a person at 56 mph if the person’s body would remain intact and could be viewed lying without any apparant damage or blood in the street.

You don’t need to ask, do you?  You see the point. The force of a large truck moving at 56 mph that hits a human is going to splatter that human all over the street.  Yet, the Nice photos show no such event.

I can remember when the American left, if told by a Nice police official that the French Minister of the Interior in Paris had ordered Nice authorities not to release and to immediately destroy the entire filming of the alleged terror event from security cameras posted along the entire street where allegedly 185 people were hit by a truck and, additionally, to falsify the police report of the event, the left would have been demanding blood from the authorities, not calling those who do demand explanations “conspiracy kooks.”

Today the American left wants to shut down those who do raise questions about such very strange events in which a few Saudis who could not fly airplanes prevailed over the American National Security State and in which 185 people are allegedly hit by a large truck but the photos show no such results and the Paris officials order the destruction of the recorded evidence and the falsification of the report.

The official story of 9/11 is the justification for the wars. It is difficult to oppose wars when you accept the reason for them.  By accepting the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory, the leftwing killed the antiwar movement.

Why does the left trust the government precisely on those matters that the government uses to justify war and a police state?  The answer is that those who challenge the official story deprive the left of the emotional satisfaction that comes from the belief that oppressed peoples are capable of striking back and do strike back.  Alexander Cockburn once explained this to me himself.  He said that when I report the challenges of experts to the official 9/11 story, I am taking away the dignity of oppressed peoples by assuming that they do not strike back against their oppressors.  Alex could not accept the truth, because it meant that the oppressed acquiesced in their oppression.

I understand how Alex saw it. I understand the importance to any movement of hope, and I regret that the left has positioned itself such that facts undermine hope, causing the left to come out against facts.

I offer the left, or the simulacrum that remains, a different hope:  trust the power of truth.  Don’t defend the oppressor, attack him, and as you attack him your might will grow. People are not forever fools.  A time comes when their personal situation contradicts the story fed to them.  But if there is no leadership, awareness cannot graduate into revolt.

The West needs a strong leftwing movement with the strength to challenge the lies that are leading the world to a war of extinction of life.  I would prefer a reformist left to a revolutionary one, but this is not to say that a revolutionary left is not preferable to what exists today, which is revolutionary neoconservatism without opposition from a countervailing force.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Became of the American Left?

The Day Before Deraa: How the War Broke Out in Syria

August 19th, 2016 by Steven Sahiounie

The day before September 11, 2001 was like any normal day in New York City.  September 10, 2001 was unaware of the earthshaking events which would happen the next day.

Similarly, one might think the day before the violence broke out in Deraa, Syria in March 2011 would have been an uneventful day, unaware of the uprising about to begin.

But, that was not the case.  Deraa was teaming with activity and foreign visitors to Syria well before the staged uprising began its opening act.

The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals.  The Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO   regime change  attack on Libya, were in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence.  The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh Ahmad al Sayasneh . He was an older man with a severe eye problem, which caused him to wear special dark glasses, and severely hampered his vision.  He was not only visually impaired, but light sensitive as well, which caused him to be indoors as much as possible and often isolated.  He was accustomed to judging the people he talked with by their accent and voice. The Deraa accent is distinctive.

All of the men attending the Omari Mosque were local men, all with the common Deraa accent.  However, the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover.  Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign Libyan mercenaries/ terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and directed from Jordan.

Enlisting the aid and cooperation of local followers of Salafism allowed the Libyans to move in Deraa without attracting any suspicion.   The local men were the ‘front’ for the operation.

The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria.   With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.

In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed.    This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change.  Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1.

The fact that those so-called teenaged graffiti artists and their parents have never been found, never named, and never pictured is the first clue that their identity is cloaked in darkness.

In any uprising there needs to be grassroots support. Usually, there is a situation which arises, and protesters take to the streets.  The security teams step in to keep the peace and clear the streets and if there is a ‘brutal crackdown’ the otherwise ‘peaceful protesters’ will react with indignation, and feeling oppressed and wronged, the numbers in the streets will swell.   This is the point where the street protests can take two directions: the protesters will back down and go home, or the protesters can react with violence, which then will be met with violence from the security teams, and this sets the stage for a full blown uprising.

The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation in a CIA-Hollywood production.  They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot.  These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps  lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal family and their paid officials.

The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti.  The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst.

The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan.  The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan.   Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen’s relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights.   The King of Jordan has to do a daily high-wire balancing act between his citizens, the peace and safety in his country and America’s interests and projects in the Middle East.   King Abdullah is not only a tight-rope walker, but a juggler at the same time, and all of this pressure on him must be enormous for him, and Queen Rania, who is herself Palestinian.  These facts must be viewed in the forefront of the background painted scenery of The Syrian Arab Republic, which has for the last 40 years had a cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy carved and set in the principle of Palestinian human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice.

The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone of Palestinian rights into dust.  To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.

Deraa’s location directly on the Jordanian border is the sole reason it was picked for the location-shoot of the opening act of the Syrian uprising.    If you were to ask most Syrians, if they had ever been to Derra, or ever plan to go, they will answer, “No.”  It is a small and insignificant agricultural town.  It is a very unlikely place to begin a nationwide revolution.  Deraa has a historical importance because of archeological ruins, but that is lost on anyone other than history professors or archeologists.    The access to the weapons from Jordan made Deraa the perfect place to stage the uprising which has turned into an international war.  Any person with common sense would assume an uprising or revolution in Syria would begin in Damascus or Aleppo, the two biggest cities. Even after 2 ½ years of violence around the country, Aleppo’s population never participated in the uprising, or call for regime change.   Aleppo: the large industrial powerhouse of Syria wanted nothing to do with the CIA mission, and felt that by staying clear of any participation they could be spared and eventually the violence would die out, a natural death due to lack of participation of the civilians.

However, this was not to play out for Aleppo.  Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the Turkey-Aleppo border.  The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia.  The weapons were all supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya.  The US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.

Enter the Libyans stage right. Mehdi al Harati, the Libyan with an Irish passport, was put in charge of a Brigade of terrorists working under the pay and direction of the CIA in Libya.  Once his fighting subsided there, he was moved to Northern Syria, in the Idlib area, which was the base of operation for the American backed Free Syrian Army, who Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for in the US Congress, and personally visited, illegally entering Syria without any passport or border controls.  In Arizona, Sen. McCain is in favor of deporting any illegal alien entering USA, but he himself broke international law by entering Syria as an illegal and undocumented alien.  However, he was in the company of trusted friends and associates, the Free Syrian Army: the same men who beheaded Christians and Muslims, raped females and children of both sexes, sold girls as sex slaves in Turkey, and ate the raw liver of a man, which they  proudly videoed and uploaded.

Previously, Syria did not have any Al Qaeda terrorists, and had passed through the war in neighboring Iraq none the worse for wear, except having accepted 2 million Iraqis as refugee guests. Shortly before the Deraa staged uprising began, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were in Damascus and being driven around by the President and First Lady. Pitt and Jolie had come to visit and support the Iraqi war refugees in Damascus.  Brad Pitt was amazed that the Syrian President would drive him around personally, and without any body guards or security detail.  Pitt and Jolie were used to their own heavy security team in USA.  Pres. Assad explained that he and his wife were comfortable in Damascus, knowing that it was a safe place.  Indeed, the association of French travel agents had deemed Syria as the safest tourist destination in the entire Mediterranean region, meaning even safer than France itself.

However, the US strategy was to create a “New Middle East”, which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka ‘winds of change’.

Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the “Arab Spring”.  But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script.   It went over deadline and over budget.  The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage.

We can’t under estimate the role that mainstream media had to play in the destruction of Syria.  For example, Al Jazeera’s Rula Amin was in Deraa and personally interviewed the cleric Sayasneh at the Omari Mosque.   Al Jazeera is the state owned and operated media for the Prince of Qatar.  The Prince of Qatar was one of the key funders of the terrorists attacking Syria.  The USA was sending the weapons, supplies and providing military satellite imagery, however the cash to make payroll, to pay out bribes in Turkey, and all other expenses which needed cold cash in hand was being paid out by the Prince of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, who were playing their roles as closest Middle East allies of the United States of America.  This was a production team between USA, EU, NATO, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily.  The CIA has no problem with covert operations in foreign countries, and even full scale attacks, but the matter of funding needs to come from a foreign country, because the American voters don’t care about killing people in Syria, but they would never agree to pay for it.  As long as the Arabs were paying for the project, that was OK by Mr. John Q. Public, who probably was not able to find Syria on a map anyway.

Rula Amin and others of the Al Jazeera staff, and including the American CNN, the British BBC and the French France24 all began deliberate political propaganda campaign against the Syrian government and the Syrian people who were suffering from the death and destruction brought on by the terrorists who were pretending to be players in a local uprising.   Some days, the scripts were so similar that you would have guessed they were all written in the same hotel room in Beirut.  Onto the stage stepped the online media personalities of Robert Fisk, from his vantage point in Beirut and Joshua Landis from his perch in Oklahoma.  These 2 men, sitting so far removed from the actual events, pretended to know everything going on in Syria.  British and American readers were swayed by their deliberate one-sided explanations, while the actual Syrians living inside Syria, who read in English online, were baffled.  Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa.  There was one global movie trailer, and it was a low budget cell phone video which went viral around the world, and it sold the viewers on the idea of Syria being in the beginning of a dramatic fight for freedom, justice and the American way.   From the very beginning, Al Jazeera and all the rest of the media were paying $100.00 to any amateur video shot in Syria.  A whole new cottage industry sprang up in Syria, with directors and actors all hungry for the spotlight and fame.  Authenticity was not questioned; the media just wanted content which supported their propaganda campaign in Syria.

Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude.  The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012.  He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Day Before Deraa: How the War Broke Out in Syria

It all goes back to April, when the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court found the Manus Island detention facility, ostensibly directed and run by the Australian government, in breach of the PNG Constitution.

By the order of the court, “Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.”

PNG’s Prime Minister, Peter O’Neill, did not wait long before announcing that the machinery would be put in place to close the centre. He had already been making utterances in March that “we cannot hold the refugees here forever.”[1]

The Australian response to this grim affair had always been crude yet consistent: the asylum seekers housed at the detention centre were not the responsibility of Canberra, despite being there precisely because of its draconian non-settlement policy. Dark, and deeply unsuccessful outcomes, have greeted those few who have resettled in PNG itself.

It all constituted the grand deflection of state obligation, an outsourcing of duties characteristic in its approach to the UN Convention on Refugees. The persistent, gruesome alibi in this awful mess has been the good Samaritan nonsense of preventing asylum seekers and refugees from drowning on route to Australia.

Even as the offshore detention system crumbles, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton insists rather mechanically on that broken theme. “The Labor legacy of the failed border protection policy, not only did it result in 1,200 people drowning at sea, but it resulted in billions of dollars being spent on this program.”[2] Keep them in indefinite detention, in other words, for their own, deeply misunderstood good.

Within Australia, unprecedented moves are being suggested. The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, has broken ranks with the Fortress Australia mentality, expressing his willingness to accommodate asylum seekers from Australia’s other place of detention pain, Nauru. With regards “families, as long as they don’t present a security risk or safety risk, I do welcome them being in Australia.”[3]

Of particular concern to Barnett has been the persistent problem of child detention, something which remains in clear violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. “The one thing I find unacceptable is children in detention.”

Unfortunately, Australian officials and law enforcement authorities across various states have shown a certain enthusiasm, even hunger, for youth detention. In the Northern Territory and Queensland, instances of brutality against juveniles in detention centres have been common and publicised of late. The zeitgeist is very much against the child in such instances.

In the puzzle of outsourced responsibilities, the Australian approach is bound to entail finding a third country for resettlement. In Dutton’s words, “We’re talking to third countries at the moment, to look at settlement options.”

The dogma of never accepting asylum seekers accept via the official humanitarian channels means identifying a state with the appropriate developing status. Poor countries, in other words, are always going to be more attractive in the game of passing the refugee than wealthier ones, despite the standing invitation by New Zealand to accept more of Australia’s forsaken cargo. Suffering, in short, must be emphasised.

For all that, Dutton is not brimming with ideas. True to form in his portfolio, he has refused to clarify when the closure of the detention centre in PNG will take place. There are no schedules, not time tables in the offing. “I’m hoping it can happen as soon as possible but it’s an issue for the PNG Government to work through and we’ll support them in that decision.”

The Labor opposition has decided to monetise the issue, hoping that figures, rather than compassion, will win the day. Instead of focusing on the central premise of international refugee law, the government in waiting has found a different, noble alibi: the Australian tax payer.

“We’d like the minister,” stated Shadow Immigration Minister Shayne Neumann, “to tell us how much is a substantial amount of money. We need to know and the Australian public need to know because these are tax payers’ dollars.”

Neumann, taking the low pragmatic ground, has also sought to speed up negotiations on finding another country willing to accept Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker cargo while working more closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

On costing matters, he would be on even better ground suggesting something unthinkable to policy hacks within his party: closing the centres would achieve staggering savings for the commonwealth government, somewhere in the order of $3 billion. The figure comes straight from the Parliamentary Budget Office, though critics prefer to regard them as contingent at best.

Neither the Turnbull government, nor Labor opposition, accept that the offshore detention system is beginning to implode. The central premise to its existence is not one of facilitating, but detaining. The operating rationale is one of punishment, not processing.

Closing such centres would save billions and achieve something remarkable in Australian foreign policy: upholding international conventions it has long flouted with a sneer. It will also allow individuals kept in detention for over three years to taste something absent in their emotional diet for some time: the prospect of freedom.

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

 

Notes

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/png-pm-calls-for-manus-island-centre-eventual-closure/7217774

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-17/manus-island-to-close-png-prime-minister-confirms/7759810

[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-18/wa-govt-opens-door-to-nauru-refugees-ahead-of-manus-closure/7760854

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Closing Manus Island’s Detention Centre: Australia’s Search for “Alternative Cruelties”

Trolling-in-real-life has become the State Department’s favourite pastime, and recent developments on the Korean peninsula have given the State Department the perfect impetus to further political agitation.

Whilst rightfully acknowledging that the deployment was “a very sensitive issue for the partners throughout the region”, US Defence Secretary Ash Carter enthused that the US was “working closely to ensure the swift deployment of THAAD”, a Defence News article noted.

Regional superpowers Russia and China have also rightfully expressed concerns over the THAAD systems citing America’s Asian Pivot strategy—which feeds off of Pyongyang’s oscillation between brinkmanship and detente—which advanced immediately following the UNCLOS arbitration over the South China Sea.

Many shortsighted Western newspapers even admonished Park’s pivot to American defences, rather than focusing on the long-term specifics of doing so. “The appearance of elements of the US global missile defence system in the region […] can provoke an arms race in Northeast Asia and complicate the resolution of the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula,” the Russian Foreign Ministry mentioned.

He Yafei of the China Daily also referenced two neocon American professors who cheerleadered for America’s Asian pivot and hailed it as “a superior ‘grand strategy’ to be applied seriously by the US in East Asia and Europe in order to contain the two rising powers”, namely by relying “on local powers to contain China’.

If unsuccessful, the report advises the US to “throw its considerable weight behind them’”. That “considerable weight” was reallocating defence funds from backing the Syrian “moderate Mafia” and the Turkish pivot back to Russia, to creating mischief in the South China Sea in order to counteract increasing rapprochement between Japan and Russia, as well as China and the Philippines.

As weapons, THAAD system are relatively useless against North Korea. Throughout 2016, the DPRK tested several Rodong 1-2 medium-range missiles and a Taepodong-2 ICBM in order to launch a Kwangmyŏngsŏng-4 satellite into orbit.

This was verified by Pentagon experts as a harmless experiment, where “Vice Admiral James Syring, director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, told reporters that North Korea’s launch was ‘provocative, disturbing and alarming,’ but could not be equated with a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile,” Reuters stated.

Chinese and Russian officials are also well aware that THAAD systems are ineffective against North Korean Nodong missiles, which travel at lower altitudes. “THAAD is incapable of intercepting Rodong and Scud missiles targeting South Korea as the DPRK missiles travel at an altitude of 20-30 km.

The U.S. anti-missile system is designed to shoot down missiles at a much higher altitude of 40-150 km,” a Xinhua analyst remarked. This was echoed by Chang Young-Keun, professor at the Korea Aerospace University, in who stated “if North Korea launches a medium-range Rodong missile near Mount Paekdu […] it is found that the THAAD missile may not be capable of intercepting it.”

This reveals several discrepancies: (1) that North Korea is wholly capable of using low-altitude (and low cost) missiles to turn Seoul into a “sea of flames”, (2) that short-range nuclear attacks against Seoul, which would share Seoul’s nuclear fallout,  go against Pyongyang’s existential interests, and finally (3) that the expensive THAAD systems are painfully vulnerable to primitive low-altitude attacks from Rodong-1 and Hwasong-series missiles.

Conversely, THAAD technology has tested more successfully since 2005 against terminally-high altitude threats such as nuclear-capable ICBMs and Multiple Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs); weapons that only Russia and China possess.

Adding to this, 38 North analysed THAAD system inefficiencies, such as taking an hour to reload, which North Korea could facilitate by simply launching over 96 missiles.

They are also unable to track more than 20 missiles simultaneously, which effectively overwhelms the radar. Furthermore, the Aegis anti-ballistic systems the ROK Navy already possesses are adequate to deter low altitude missiles, yet Americans insisted on delivering THAAD units to the peninsula on the premise of yet another Pentagon lie.

Speaking of MIRVS, America’s thirsty attitude towards the Asia-Pacific is not rooted in North Korean antics, but in the American War on Terror. No longer bound by the 1972 USSR-US Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence Treaty or the wisdom attained from the Cuban missile crisis, both the Bush and Obama administrations have sought to advance NATO towards Beijing and Moscow by strategically proliferating missile defence systems in Europe, Asia, and the MENA region via their vassal states.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, gains made through negotiations between then-US President Richard Nixon and USSR General Secretariat Leonid Brezhnev were dismantled.

Notably, Article V of the treaty stated that “each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based”, which Lockheed and Martin’s mobile THAAD batteries in Guam and sea-based Aegis units in Japan and South Korea clearly violates.

On 13 June, 2002, George Bush struck gold in the post-9/11 environment when “[…] the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and recommenced developing missile defense systems that would have formerly been prohibited by the bilateral treaty.

The action was rationalized under the need to defend against the possibility of a missile attack conducted by a rogue state. The next day, the Russian Federation promptly dropped the START II agreement, intended to completely ban MIRVs,” a National Defence University publication expressed.

Shortly after renouncing participation in the long-held treaty, NATO allies led by George Bush held the Nov. 2002 Prague Summit in order to cement cooperation on missile defence systems’ within Eastern Europe as well as the Baltics. Poland and Czech Republic accepted Bush’s proposals, but acting President Barack Obama scrapped it in 2009, then reinstated it in Deveselu, Romania in May 2016, citing the usual “Russian aggression” mantra.

Currently, North Korea is that “rogue threat” for the US bureaucracy, but just how much of a threat, in what capacity, and how to neutralise it has proven how woefully misguided and ignorant the Obama administration is.

Russia and China have every right to counteract America’s THAAD systems in the Asia-Pacific and Eastern Europe, and in the process, South Korea may pay a bigger price than the 1.25 billion USD spike in its military budget by risking 25 million people in the Gyeonggi-do province with a false sense of security.

Following the disastrous review of the F-35, THAAD technology may prove a much larger headache for America than its allies and rivals.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on THAAD’s Enough — Analysing the Pentagon’s Korean Missile Deployment

On August 14, in commemoration of Korea’s liberation from Japanese colonial occupation in 1945, 1,000 people from all sectors of the movement for peace and reunification gathered in Seoul’s Gwanghwamun Plaza for an outdoor “roundtable conference.” People from all sectors, including workers, farmers, women, youth and students, urban poor, scholars, media, elected officials and faith-based communities, from all regions between Seoul and Jeju sat around 100 round tables in the plaza to discuss peace and reunification. During this assembly, the 1,000 participants discussed the following questions:

  • What will we do in the face of threats against the peace of the Korean Peninsula?
  • What would a joint reunification movement between South and North Korea look like?
  • What must we do to build a truly mass movement for reunification?

Opposition to the recent U.S.-South Korean decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in South Korea was the subject of much discussion at all the tables.  There was also broad consensus on working towards realizing an inter-Korean conference of government officials, political parties and civic groups as a step towards peace and unification.

Participants agreed to step up pressure on the South Korean government and all political parties to work towards – restoring communication channels between the leadership of the two countries; facilitating talks between the two countries (particularly around military tensions); resuming operations in the Kaesong Industrial Zone and tourist areas of Mount Kumgang; finding solutions for issues surrounding separated families; and guaranteeing people-to-people exchanges between Koreans on both sides of the peninsula.

South Koreans from all sectors of peace and reunification movement join together to make appeal for dialogue and meeting between Koreans.
1,000 South Koreans gather around roundtables to discuss peace and reunification of Korean Peninsula.

The 1,000 people roundtable conference event came a few days following a meeting between North, South, and overseas Koreans, who resolved to work together to realize the Inter-Korean Conference, which North Korea proposed at the end of June. Representatives of the North Korean Preparatory Committee for the Inter-Korean Conference, the Overseas Korean Preparatory Committee for the Inter-Korean Conference, and the June 15th South Korean Committee for Reunification of Korea gathered in China from August 11 to August 12 to discuss how to coordinate efforts in preparation for the proposed Inter-Korean Conference.

Representatives of North, South, Overseas Koreans in meeting in China to discuss coordination of Inter-Korean Conference
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace and Reunification of North and South Korea. Opposition to THAAD Missile System

Botswana’s war on its indigenous population, the Bushmen of the Kalahari, has reached a new pitch, writes LEWIS EVANS. No longer content to arrest and intimidate them as they engage in subsistence hunting on their own land, the state has begun to shoot them from aircraft. These illegal, genocidal acts must stop!

Botswana police scour the Kalahari, looking for people hunting with spears to intimidate and arrest. Planes with heat sensors fly over the Bushmen’s lands looking out for ‘poachers’ – in reality Bushmen hunting antelope for food.

In a healthy democracy, people are not shot at from helicopters for collecting food. They are certainly not then arrested, stripped bare and beaten while in custody without facing trial.

Nor are people banned from their legitimate livelihoods, or persecuted on false pretenses.

Bushmen have hunted at subsistence levels in the Kalahari for millennia. Photo: Survival International.

Bushmen have hunted at subsistence levels in the Kalahari for millennia. Photo: Survival International.

Sadly in Botswana, southern Africa’s much-vaunted ‘beacon of democracy’, all of this took placelate last month in an incident which has been criminally under-reported. Nine Bushmen were later arrested and subsequently stripped naked and beaten while in custody.

The Bushmen of the Kalahari have lived by hunting and gathering on the southern African plains for millennia. They are a peaceful people, who do almost no harm to their environment and have a deep respect for their lands and the game that lives on it. They hunt antelope with spears and bows, mostly gemsbok, which are endemic to the area.

According to conservation expert Phil Marshall, there are no rhinos or elephants where the Bushmen live. Even if there were the Bushmen would have no reason to hunt them. They hunt various species of antelope, using the fat in their medicine and reserving a special place for the largest of them, the eland, in their mythology. None of these animals are endangered.

A shameful history of state persecution

Despite all this the Botswana government has used poaching as a pretext for its latest round of persecution. The increasingly authoritarian government of General Ian Khama sees the Bushmen as a national embarrassment. It wishes to see them forcibly integrated with mainstream society in the name of ‘progress’.

There are huge diamond deposits on, or close to, the Bushmen’s lands, as well as natural gas which is soon to be fracked out of the soil. Botswana would rather see wealthy foreign tourists on the Bushman’s lands – many of them western trophy hunters – as well as foreign corporations digging for resources underneath it. In their eyes, ‘primitive’ hunter gatherers are an inconvenience.

Between 1997 and 2002, hundreds of Bushman families were brutally evicted from their land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Their homes were destroyed, their wells were capped, their possessions were confiscated, and they were moved to government eviction camps en masse. Any who tried to resist were beaten, or even shot with rubber bullets.

There are close ties between the Botswana government and the infamous De Beers diamond corporation, and both have grown rich from the gemstones. Nevertheless, the government was savvy enough to know that diamonds alone would be an ugly excuse for wiping out an entire people, so they circulated absurd rumors.

The Bushmen were ‘poachers’, they said. They rode around in jeeps, they shot game on a massive scale with rifles, and posed a threat to the environment they had been dependent on and managed for millennia. They had to change, for the sake of ‘civilization’.

Despite a landmark court ruling in 2006 which the Bushmen won with the support of Survival International, the situation is still pretty terrible. Most of the Kalahari Bushmen are still living in government camps, and access to the Reserve has only been granted to a limited number of individuals. It is enforced under a brutal permit system, which sees children born in the reserve forced from their homes and family at the age of 18.

The permits are not heritable, and so when the present generation of Bushmen dies, their people will have effectively been legislated into extinction. The system was compared to the apartheid-era South African pass laws by veteran anti-apartheid activist and former Robben Island prisoner Michael Dingake.

The annihilation of a people – genocide in open sight

As if that wasn’t bad enough they aren’t even allowed to hunt to eat. In 2014, Botswana introduced a nationwide hunting ban, but gave a special dispensation to fee-paying big game hunters, who flock to the northern Kalahari and the Okavango Delta in the extreme north of the country to shoot animals for sport.

Such a dispensation was not extended to the tribal peoples who actually live in these territories, who are accused of ‘poaching’ and face arrest, beatings and torture while tourists are welcomed into luxury hunting lodges.

And now they are being shot at from helicopters. Botswana police scour the Kalahari, looking for people hunting with spears to intimidate and arrest. The government has introduced planes with heat sensors to fly over the Bushmen’s lands looking out for ‘poachers’ – in reality Bushmen hunting antelope for food.

Police and wildlife officials then use whatever brutality they consider to be necessary to enforce the ban.

This is an urgent and horrific humanitarian crisis. An entire people’s future is at stake. If the Bushmen cannot enter their land or find food there, they will have no option but to return to the government camps, where vital services are inadequate and diseases like HIV/AIDS run rampant.

Policies like this have been used by governments all over the world. It is easier and less shocking than simply exterminating people, but in the long-term it has a similar outcome. By denying people their land and basic means of subsistence, viable ways of living are abolished, and peoples’ land, resources and labor are stolen.

In a world of larger-scale and more headline-friendly crises, the plight of the Kalahari Bushmen risks being largely ignored. Nevertheless, the Bushmen – portrayed as backward and primitive simply because their communal ways are different – could face annihilation if the brutal shoot on sight policy is left in place.

Lewis Evans is an author, and a campaigner at Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Botswana’s War on Its Indigenous People: Shooting Kalahari Bushmen from Helicopters…

A half-century of African American struggle poses challenges to national oppression

A rebellion erupted on August 13 on the north side of Milwaukee in the aftermath of the police killing of 23-year-old Syville Smith. The outbreak is a clear reflection of the mounting discontent on the part of African American working class youth who are heavily victimized by law-enforcement profiling and state-sponsored violence.

These rebellions have been occurring over the last three years after being triggered by the shooting death of Michael Brown, 18, gunned down on August 9, 2014 by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, right outside St. Louis City. Unrest in Ferguson attracted national and international attention shattering the false notions of the United States having become a “post-racial society.”

Nearly five decades ago, on July 30, 1967, the African American community in Milwaukee had also exploded in rebellion. The unrest prompted the-then local and state officials to deploy the Wisconsin National Guard. Private property was targeted for the acquisition of consumer goods and food as well as arson attacks. There were reports of snipping on the part of African American residents angered over decades of substandard segregated housing, systematic discrimination in the workplace and the persistent harassment by the police.

The rebellion in Milwaukee started after police were summoned to a social establishment ostensibly to break up a fight. It appeared as if it was a tactic that attracted the cops who were pelted with rocks and bottles. The violence against the police and private property quickly spread and after a few hours Mayor Henry W. Maier declared a state of emergency requesting the National Guard and imposing a curfew which lasted for nine days. During the course of the rebellion four people were killed including one police officer and 1,500 were arrested. Property damage was extensive although not on the same level as what occurred in Newark and Detroit earlier that same month.

This city had witnessed an exponential increase in African American migration during and after World War II. Between 1940 and 1960, Wisconsin’s African American population skyrocketed by nearly 600 percent, from 12,158 in 1940 to 74,546 in 1960. African Americans from the southern U.S. were drawn to the city in search of jobs which were prevalent in industrial cities during the war.

Consequently, many African Americans made Wisconsin’s cities their homes. Many of these migrant residents were born in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee. An expanding demand for labor in manufacturing jobs and the payment of much higher wages than they received in the South, served as a magnet for African American migrants to Milwaukee in the 1940s and 1950s.

Nonetheless, the newly-arrived Wisconsin residents faced legalized segregation in housing, employment, and quality education. As a result the community organized in various groups to fight the unequal social and exploitative conditions.

The question of housing was a precipitating factor in fueling the unrest of July 1967 and its aftermath. Milwaukee Common Council members refused to pass ordinances guaranteeing open housing despite the signing into law federal civil rights legislation in 1964 by the-then President Lyndon B. Johnson.

According to an article summarizing these developments: “In August 1967, after five years of inaction by city officials, the NAACP Youth Council marched to Kosciuszko Park (in a predominantly white neighborhood) to protest the Common Council’s refusal to pass an open housing ordinance. Alderperson Vel Phillips had first introduced open housing legislation in March of 1962 and continued to submit it to the council for approval despite being repeatedly voted down. The August 1967 march expressed the frustration of the Black community but also drew the wrath of three to five thousand white residents, who shouted obscenities and threw objects at the marchers, particularly focusing on the march’s leader, Father James Groppi. Groppi, a white Catholic priest, was an important figure in the civil rights movement, playing an instrumental role in dramatizing the segregated housing situation in Milwaukee through his frequent demonstrations and arrests. Daily demonstrations continued throughout the winter of 1967-68.” (wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints)

It was not until April 1968 in the aftermath of the assassination of Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) co-founder Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee that a Federal Fair Housing Act was passed by the U.S. Congress. Nevertheless, the real estate firms and banks found ways to undermine the legislation which represented the last of a series of such civil rights bills extending from 1957 to 1968. The Milwaukee Common Council then grudgingly passed a local ordinance guaranteeing open housing although the problem of residential segregation and inadequate housing remains up until today.

High Tide of Black Resistance: African Americans in Rebellion During 1967

The situation in Milwaukee in 1967 was by no means isolated. A study issued by the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder, the so-called Kerner Commission Report, was actually impaneled by President Johnson amid the Detroit rebellion of July 23-28, the largest of such forms of resistance in urban areas in the history of the U.S. up until that time period, indicated that over 160 incidents of civil disorder occurred that year.

This report’s finding which called for massive federal spending to address the dual and exploitative character of U.S. society was rejected by the Johnson administration. Since 1968, the social conditions in many African American communities in the U.S. are far worse than what existed when the Kerner Commission was in existence.

James Forman, the former Executive Secretary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and the-then Director of International Affairs, described the situation prevailing in 1967 through an essay entitled “High Tide of Black Resistance.” SNCC had made the call for Black Power the year before through Chairperson Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Field Secretary Willie Ricks (now named Mukasa Dada). By 1967, the mood was shifting strongly in favor of urban rebellion and guerrilla warfare.

In this essay published as a pamphlet by Forman, which was originally delivered before an United Nations conference on the liberation of Southern Africa in Zambia in July 1967, says of the period that: “The year 1967 marked a historic milestone in the struggle for the liberation of Black people in the United States, the year that revolutionaries throughout the world began to understand more fully the impact of the Black movement. Our liberation will only come when there is final destruction of this mad octopus–the capitalistic system of the United States with all its life-sucking tentacles of exploitation and racism that choke the people of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. To work, to fight, and to die for the liberation of our people in the United States means, therefore, to work for the liberation of all oppressed people around the world.

Liberation movements in many parts of the world are now aware that, when they begin to fight colonialism, it becomes imperative that we in this country try to neutralize the possibilities of full-scale United States intervention as occurred in Santa Domingo, as is occurring in Vietnam, and as may occur in Haiti, Venezuela, South Africa or wherever. While such a task may well be beyond our capacity, an aroused, motivated, and rebelling Black American population nevertheless helps in our indivisible struggles against racism, colonialism and apartheid.”

This timely contribution by Forman makes the case for the internationalization of the African American struggle. In the 1960s, figures such as Malcolm X, Queen Mother Audley Moore, Shirley Graham Du Bois, Stokely Carmichael, among others, articulated the position that not only were African Americans in solidarity with the liberation struggles and revolutionary governments in Africa and throughout the world but that Africans in America were part and parcel of the African Revolution which is interwoven with the global movement for socialism.

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first prime minister and president of the West African state of Ghana, who served as the chief strategist and tactician of the African Revolution from the late 1940s through the early 1970s, said in the book entitled “Class Struggle in Africa”, that: “Each historical situation develops its own dynamics. The close links between class and race developed in Africa alongside capitalist exploitation. Slavery, the master-servant relationship, and cheap labor were basic to it. The classic example is South Africa, where Africans experienced a double exploitation- -both on the grounds of color and of class. Similar conditions exist in the USA, the Caribbean, in Latin America, and in other parts of the world where the nature of the development of productive forces has resulted in a racist class structure. In these areas, shades of color count–the degree of blackness being a yardstick by which social status is measured.” (panafbooks, 1970)

Therefore, in its most revolutionary form, the African American movement for self-determination and social transformation is consistent with all progressive struggles for national liberation and socialism. These principles of the ideological orientation of the masses of workers and youth must be continued into the present period of globalized capitalist production, divisions of labor and political power.

Will Liberation Still “Come From a Black Thing”?

SNCC, the Black Panther Party (BPP), the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW) and other organizations which emerged from the 1960s and 1970s, viewed the African American struggle as being in the vanguard of social transformation in the U.S. The LRBW advanced the notion of the African American role as being related to their strategic position at the point of capitalist production. Hence, the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM), a key element of the LRBW, was able to shut down one of the main auto plants for Chrysler Corporation in 1968 through a wild cat strike due to the fact that so many African American workers were employed at the facility.

Since the mid-1970s there has been a major re-structuring of industrial production within the capitalist world. Large-scale structural unemployment and poverty has been institutionalized within this economic framework. The “recovery” from the Great Recession of 2008 has been carried out utilizing low-wage labor even within the auto industry which in the post-bankruptcy period imposed two and three tier wage scales designed to maximize profit and undermine solidarity between younger workers and their veteran counterparts. African Americans communities in urban centers have been devastated through the razing of public housing complexes, the loss of meaningful employment and business opportunities, and the disproportionate impact of the foreclosure and eviction crisis caused by the major banks emanating from their predatory lending practices in housing and municipal finance.

The labor participation rate remains at its lowest level in four decades meaning that the monthly jobless statistics are skewed to advance the propagandistic aims of the ruling class in the U.S. This has been aggravated by the failure of the Obama administration and its predecessors to develop policy initiatives that address the special oppression of the African American and Latino communities. African American labor power has been incarcerated where people are forced to work for free producing goods and services that are exported around the world.

Despite these changes it is still the African American masses that are taking the lead in the struggle against racism, national oppression and economic exploitation. The African American working class although suffering from super-exploitation, remains a force to be reckoned with. The millions in prison and under judicial and law-enforcement supervision are no lesser workers than those punching a clock for the enemy every morning, afternoon and night.

The anti-racist movement often self-identified and misidentified as “Black Lives Matter” has shaken up the image of U.S. imperialism in the present epoch. Many within the African American community realize that there is no future for them under the capitalist and imperialist systems. People under normal circumstances do not take militant action against the state and private property. It appears that the African American people are moving into a renewed era of revolutionary resistance, mobilization and organization.

A rejuvenated movement must not only develop a political program in line with the contemporary crises but also build organizations that speak directly to the needs and aspirations of the people. No other sectors of the working class are in a better position today than African Americans to set the stage for a broader struggle to overturn capitalist exploitation and relations of production.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Milwaukee (1967), Half-century of African American Struggle: Urban Rebellion and the Political Imperatives of Social Transformation

Slobodan Milosevic: The Killing of an Innocent Man

August 18th, 2016 by Alexander Artamonov

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague quietly acknowledged the innocence of former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic. Ten years after the very suspicious death of the Serbian leader in a Dutch prison, the 1,300th page of the 2,000-page document on the case of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, acknowledged that Milosevic had not committed crimes against humanity, nor had he organized any mass killings or deportations of Croats and Bosnians. In other words, it was an innocent man who died in a UN prison. French journalist Dimitri De Koshko was working in Yugoslavia at the time of Milosevic’s arrest. Koshko was closely following the parody of the trial in The Hague. In an interview with Pravda.Ru, Dimitri De Koshko talked about circumstances of the possible murder of the Serbian leader in prison.

Today, we are talking about the trial in The Hague that has seen its legal ending only now. Milosevic was posthumously and very quietly acquitted by the Tribunal.

I’m a journalist and I can not judge on the legal side of the case, but I can assure you that a whole sea of lies was created to destroy Milosevic. His name was stained in the era of the Dayton Accords, in 1995, during Bill Clinton’s presidency. The American administration used to have its own approach to the problem. The US used to be most interested in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the three main ethnic groups that had entered into civil strife there, namely the Croats, the Bosnians and the Serbs. The massacre that erupted in that region was especially brutal.

Slobodan Milosevic: The killing of an innocent man. 58646.jpeg

AP photo

One can say that an entire ocean can be reflected in a drop of water. All elements of the Yugoslavian conflict could be found in the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Milosevic was strongly opposed to the division of the territory.

Milosevic continued to insist on his position even when he was taken into custody for the trial in The Hague, where he died ten years ago. It should be noted that he died under very strange circumstances.

Without his knowledge, Milosevic was given a drug that neutralized the effect of the medicines against high blood pressure that the Serbian leader was taking. This is absurd, but the Dutch government refused to share details of Milosevic’s treatment. According to the data made available through Wikileaks, it turns out that the judges in The Hague were discussing details of Milosevic’s treatment with employees of the US Embassy in the Netherlands. This is a direct violation of medical confidentiality. It turns out that Milosevic did not know what medications he was taking in prison. All this is strange, to say the least.

Ten years ago, Milosevic was charged with genocide against Albanians. He refused to acknowledge that he was involved in the crime. According to the Court, 250,000 Albanians were killed in Kosovo. FBI agents and agents from other, so-called Western democracies, went to Kosovo to investigate. Those people found no traces of mass graves there. They did find the remains of Serbs and Roma tortured by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army. The latter used to enjoy NATO’s full support at the time.

Let us not forget that all those terrible events began with the bombings of Yugoslavia, at NATO’ own initiative. It turns out that Milosevic had not succumbed to the provocations. When the judges failed to prove Milosevic’s guilt, they switched to Bosnia. I must say here that Milosevic’s position was very different from that of Karadzic. Milosevic’s entire life was very closely connected with the  principles of the so-called “Yugoslav socialism.” He had been following those principles in Yugoslavia and in his native land, Serbia. At that time, Serbia was the only republic of the former Yugoslavia, where there was no ethnic cleansing. This comes contrary to what my dear colleagues from Western publications were saying.

Additionally, everyone ignores the fact that the Serbs were expelled from Krajina (Croatia) in a brutal way. I mean the crimes committed by pro-Croat Nazi gangs. By the way, they use the same techniques in the East of Ukraine now. It just so happens that the world will learn the truth about the current events in Ukraine in about a decade. The West, including Western media, used to be silent about Iraq and then about Libya. They did not say anything about the blatant crimes that were committed in Yugoslavia.

Milosevic was acquitted on the 1,303rd page of the document against former head of the Croatian Serbs, Radovan Karadzic. One needs to bear in mind the fact that the position of Milosevic was very different from that of Karadzic. Yet, the Western media was hysterically screaming about their common guilt. Western journalists used to call Milosevic another Hitler, but Milosevic had never built any form of dictatorship in his country. Yet, the journalists had to follow the mainstream, to build their careers. Independent journalists would be accused of working for Milosevic. Nowadays, they accuse us, independent journalists, of working for Putin.

We saw the hanging of Saddam Hussein and then the lynching of Muammar Gaddafi. It appears that the crimes that the West has committed during the last 10-15 years were part of the plan to destabilize the state of affairs in the world.”

We were all following the course of the USA. One should give then-French President Jacques Chirac credit for refusing to follow the Americans in Iraq. As for Gaddafi, he was a dictator, but he managed to reconcile different tribes in his country to ensure peaceful life for people.

Now the USA is obsessed with the idea to topple Bashar Assad, who is a member of the Alawite minority. Assad is the key to the rights of minorities in Syria, even though his rule does have certain dictatorial traits.

Now the West has to deal with refugees from Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, a whole region of central Africa and Afghanistan. These days, we can see the Western media demonizing Russia, just like they were demonizing Milosevic and Serbia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Slobodan Milosevic: The Killing of an Innocent Man

Eric Zuesse, commentary on ‘news’ reporting

As part of their campaign for Hillary Clinton to become President, Huffington Post bannered their home-page on the night of Tuesday August 16th, “TRUMP BRINGS KREMLIN APOLOGIST TO INTEL BRIEFING!”, and linked to their news story that’s headlined against Trump, “Donald Trump To Bring Adviser With Russia Ties To Classified Briefing: Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn will join Trump at Wednesday’s top-secret session.” Those “Russia Ties” consist of Flynn’s having appeared as a commenter at Russia’s international television network, RT, which is Russia’s equivalent of Britain’s BBC. This was the day’s big news? Really? Is there an editorial agenda here — or only a low-news day, when the Olympics are on, records are being broken, and the Presidential contest is getting under way?

This is not only a HuffPo problem; and, so, on July 28th, Ireported (with contemporary examples) that, generally, “America’s press cover the Trump campaign with barely concealed hostility toward it, and with an obsessive emphasis upon the candidate’s positions regarding Russia; they’re attacking Trump as being (wittingly or unwittingly) an agent of Russia — and portraying Russia as being America’s enemy.”

How much of this blatant intellectual abuse can America’s news-readers take? No one reasonably alleges that today’s Russia is a dictatorship, such as the Soviet Union unquestionably was. Today’s Russia is perhaps more of a democracy than the U.S. is. Russia’s President shows, even in Western-respected polls, as having an approval-rating of over 80% from the Russian public, whereas our own President has an approval-rating of only more than 40% from the U.S. public. Given the heavy ‘news’-slant of Huffington Post and other major American ‘news’ sources, a reasonable question can be raised as to which of these two nations actually has the freer press, and the more representative government. Is the reason why America’s leader is so low-approved, and Russia’s is so high-approved, that America’s top leader does what the American people want, while Russia’s top leader doesn’t do what the Russian people want? Hardly. The American Establishment want us to believe that our government — the one they control — represents us, more than Russia’s government represents the Russian people. The American Establishment still hate the Russians, and want the American masses (the people who read such media as Huffington Post and the Washington Post) to hate the Russians too. Regardless of whether Russia’s government is trying to destroy America, America’s government (and the aristocracy that control both it and the nation’s newsmedia) is still trying to destroy Russia. The ideologues for this American ideology are commonly called “neoconservatives,” and now neoconservatives represent the mainstream amongst America’s oligarchs. They’re not at all ashamed of pumping it.

The American Establishment has lost the excuse of there being an ideological reason for their hostility against Russia; so, scare-tactics are used, such as that “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.” That “red scare” used to be the particular demagoguery of Republicans — back when there was an ideological excuse for it. But now, it’s even the way of the U.S. press, as it presses forward with the Hillary Clinton campaign, to make her the next U.S. President. With her as the candidate, they’ve got to make it ‘respectable’.

Western media-watchdog organizations demand U.S.-government-approved standards of ‘press freedom’. However, slanting the ‘news’ as HuffPo and other major U.S. ‘news’ media do, is being treated by those organizations as if it were okay, and were a ‘free press’, when perhaps it isn’t, really. Thus, for example, wikipedia’s article on “Media Freedom in Russia” notes that ‘According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, ‘All three major television networks are now in the hands of Kremlin loyalists.’” Aren’t all television networks in the U.S. now in the hands of U.S. loyalists? There’s no more media-diversity here than there. America has its own issues regarding freedom of its press, and is in no valid position to use its standards to evaluate other nations’ standards. America’s main agencies to evaluate ‘press freedom’ in nations around the world are Freedom House, and National Endowment for Democracy. Robert Parry reported, on 8 January 2015: “Documents from the Reagan presidential library reveal that two major institutions promoting ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ — Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy — worked hand-in-glove, behind-the-scenes, with a CIA propaganda expert in the 1980s.” And there’s lots from other U.S. Presidencies that still hasn’t been released; cover-ups are instead the norm, in our ‘democracy’ — if we have one.

25 years after the communist Soviet Union and its military alliance the Warsaw Pact ended, General Flynn’s serving RT as an expert commentator about American national-security concerns was the day’s big news on August 16th? Really? Would things have been lots better for HuffPo’s management if Flynn were instead serving as a commentator on the BBC? Really? The ‘Big News’ of the day?

In true 1950s Joseph R. McCarthy fear-mongering form — but now after the end of communism — HuffPo opened this, their top news story, of the day:

Donald Trump will bring Michael Flynn ― a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who was paid by a Russian state-funded television network to speak at its 10th-anniversary gala ― to his first national security briefing on Wednesday.

Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and high-profile adviser to Trump, has attracted attention since he was pushed out of government in 2014 for criticisms of what he says is the Obama administration’s failure to confront “radical Islam,” his role as an analyst on the Russian network RT, and his embrace of Trump.

ABC News reported on Tuesday that Flynn, along with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, would accompany Trump to his first top-secret briefing, heightening critics’ fears that the Trump camp would gain access to secrets it could potentially leak to contacts in the Kremlin. But former intelligence officials familiar with the the briefings process said it’s unlikely that the presidential nominees or their advisers will be looped in on critical secrets until after the election in November.

What this supposed skullduggery is actually about is Huffington Post’s attacking Trump for his wanting to focus American military expenditures away from the old Cold War, and instead toward the current problem, of overcoming jihadism — a refocus so as to fit a world in which the present and future threats to U.S. security are coming from invasions (such as 9/11, and the other, even lone-jihadist, acts) by Islamic terrorists, and not from any invasion by communists, the Soviet Union, or any part of the former Soviet Union,including Russia.

Under U.S. President Obama, and especially inspired and led by his neoconservative former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, America’s refocus away from killing jihadists, to now battling Russia, as our “number one geopolitical foe”, is what Huffington Post’s management apparently want to focus America’s bloated military budget upon. We don’t have enough nuclear weapons? Today’s Joseph R. McCarthys want us to spend more to kill Russians (and heads-of-state who ally with them), and less to kill jihadists. When did Russia ever attack America? Not even when it was part of the communist Soviet Union, did it do any such thing. But jihadists are doing it all over the world.

Hillary Clinton favors the overthrow of Russia-friendly leaders, especially Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, and Yanukovych in Ukraine. (So far, we’ve finished two of those three jobs.) Thus, we’ve now had the burgeoning rise of ISIS in Syria and Libya, and a thoroughly unproductive and bloody civil war in the until-then-peaceful nation of Ukraine, following the bloody U.S. coup there that overthrew the nation’s democratically elected President Yanukovych, who had won the votes of 90% of the people in its far-eastern Donbass region, and 75% of the votes of the people in its far southern Crimean peninsula, both of which regions then rebelled against, and refused being ruled by, Obama’s imposed Ukrainian fascist regime, which was selected by Hillary’s friend and protégé Victoria Nuland, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney’s foreign-affairs advisor. Huffington Post is a mouthpiece today for Dick Cheney’s brand of neoconservatism? That’s right — it’s actually far right: it’s the ‘liberal’ Huffington Post, to steer liberal fools to vote for the hard-line neoconservative Hillary Clinton. (Of course, in order to do this, they have to placate the Democratic Party’s traditional liberal base by reporting the domestic U.S. injustices against Blacks and other minorities, but those aren’t the issues that could blow up the world — andDemocrats have done virtually nothing for those groups, in reality, anyway.)

Hillary’s neoconservatism has been fought against by her successor at the State Department, John Kerry; but, when he tried to rein-in her protégé (and now Kerry’s subordinate) Nuland, who was exceedingly eager to press for war against Russia, President Obama sided with Nuland against Kerry, in perhaps the most embarassing incident in Kerry’s entire career. And now, HuffPo’s management want the hyper-neoconservative Hillary to become the U.S. President, and are campaigning against Trump as if he and not she is the traitor to the American people. It’s as if the U.S. ‘news’ media were agents of America’s manufacturers of bombs and bombers and submarines etc., to pump for increasingAmerica’s bloated military budget, which drowns out spending for highways and other infrastructure that serves the public. Melvin Goodman in his terrific book about that, asks trenchant questions (p. 371):

Why did the United States have more than one and a half million men and women in uniform two decades after the end of the Cold War? Why was the end of the Cold War considered a triumph instead of a challenge and an opportunity? Why are so many troops stationed in Europe and Japan more than six decades after the end of the Second World War? Why are so many troops stationed in South Korea sixty years after the end of the Korean War? Why are there still hundreds of U.S. bases and operational facilities in Europe and Asia, particularly in view of the overwhelming U.S. ability to project power? Why did the United States spend more than a trillion dollars on military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost so much blood and treasure but contributed nothing to American national security?

How corrupt has America become? Isn’t that the basic question here. Can the ‘news’ media really deal with it if they are themselves part of it?

Huffington Post’s point in emphasizing Trump’s being ‘soft on Russia’, is that Trump’s plan to refocus U.S. national-security priorities upon the threats coming from international terrorist organizations, must be blocked, at all costs, and that the current increasing U.S. military focus against Russia (and against the leaders of any nation who are friendly toward Russia) must increase and bring us closer-and-closer to the nuclear brink with Russia, instead of ending this counterproductive anti-Russian conflict by means of a negotiated mutual withdrawal, of NATO-U.S. forces, from Russia’s borders — and also ending U.S. anti-Russian invasions, such as of Iraq, Libya and Syria, and ending U.S.coups such as of Ukraine, on and near Russia’s borders.

Trump’s basic message is: Get over the Cold War; it ended 25 years ago; instead, let’s rebuild America’s infrastructure, and focus national defense on the challenge of defeating jihadists and their ideology. However, America’s Establishment is invested in the Cold War, and they won’t feel that they have won that war until both Russia and China have become conquered by them — are controlled by them.

That’s what the 2016 U.S. Presidential election will really be about.

How would Americans feel if, 25 years after ending its NATO alliance, the Warsaw Pact continued, and were now massing its forces on America’s borders? Would that be “provocative”? Would we tolerate it? Huffington Post’s management apparently think that it’s what the U.S. government ought to be doing to Russia. America’s moving forces right up to Russia’s borders is happening right now, and how much opposition to that is there in America’s ‘free press’?

This is Hillary Clinton’s campaign; it’s not journalism; it is propaganda. Maybe ‘Freedom House’ and the ‘National Endowment for Democracy’, would give it top marks — forherding ‘liberals’ into fascism.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Media Smears Russia as Part of Hillary’s Presidential Campaign

The World Wildlife Fund tells us that there are only 3,890 tigers left in the entire world. Due to exploitative capitalism, which destroys the environment in behalf of short-term profits, the habitat for tigers is rapidly disappearing. The environmental destruction, together with hunting or poaching by those who regard it as manly or profitable to kill a magnificent animal, is leading to the rapid extermination of this beautiful animal. Soon tigers will only exist as exhibits in zoos.

The same is happening to lions, cheetahs, leopards, rhinos, elephants, bobcats, wolves, bears, birds, butterflies, honey bees. You name it.

What we are witnessing is the irresponsibility of the human race, a Satan-cursed form of life that does not belong on the beautiful planet Earth. The cursed humans are even capable of launching a nuclear war which would destroy the livability of Earth.

God made a mistake when he gave to humans, infected as they are with evil, jurisdiction over Earth. He should have given jurisdiction to animals. Consider what humans do to animals. For example, Defenders of Wildlife report that the corrupt state of Alaska is currently slaughtering wolves and grizzley bears so that the state can sell more hunting permits to hunters to slaughter moose. Every moose taken by a wolf pack or a grizzley is not there to be murdered by a hunter. So the state is killing off the predators that reduce its hunting license fees.

Quail hunters want the bobcats killed so that hunters can shoot more birds. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department voted to establish a hunting and trapping season for bobcats but had to overturn its decision when it became clear that the endangered lynx would be caught in the same traps. Humans regard animals as worthy of protection only when they are on the verge of extinction.

Murder and death appeal to Americans and not only to hunters. How many Americans do you know who are distressed by their government’s murder, maiming, and dislocation of millions of Muslims in seven countries over the past 15 years?

A few years ago there was a scandal involving a NBA star who was a patron of dog fights in which Americans brought dogs to kill or be killed. Americans attend cock fights in which roosters kill or die. The British enjoyed fights to the death between bears and dogs and bred a special dog to fight the bears. The Spanish like to see the death of the bull or of the bullfighter. The blood sport of the Roman Colosseum is very much a part of the human race.

Badly raised little boys tie cans to the tails of dogs and cats and laugh as the terrified animals run, often to their death under the wheels of cars.

Sometimes I go to a gun club with a friend to shoot at paper targets. On one occasion our concentration was disturbed by bursts from a superweapon. I watched the person flinch each time he shot. I suggested that he needed a less powerful weapon with which to practice.

If only, he said. His son had gone to Africa and paid $25,000 to murder a lion. The son had pressured the father to live up to his feat, and the father was adding bruises to his shoulder every time he fired a round of the .375 H&H Magnum. He began to flinch when he pulled the trigger, and his aim was worse by the shot.

He said that he was trying to sight-in the rifle. I offered to do that for him so that the rest of us could go about our business of eye-hand coordination. Observing our disapproving looks, he blurted out that he didn’t really want to shoot a lion, but that his friends and his son were enculturated into a hunting culture in which killing animals was proof of manhood. He felt that he had to do it in order to be accepted.

Then he described the process by which the great lion hunter killed the dangerous beast.

First, he said, you shoot a hippo. Then parts of the dead animal are hung as bait on posts a mere 60 yards from a 20-foot high platform where there are gun rests in the event you are unable to shoulder your own rifle for a shot at such a large animal as a lion a mere 60 yards away. And if you miss, the Great White Hunter guide shoots and you can claim the victory over the dangerous beast.

I remarked that he didn’t seem inclined to participate in this fake hunting scenario. He said that he wasn’t but that he had paid his $25,000. I suggested that he cancel the trip and consider the 25K as the cost of avoiding the shame of participating in cowardly murder.

Elephants are magnificient creatures. Their intelligence is higher than many humans, and their life span, if they are not murdered, can be longer than the human life span. Yet elephants are being murdered at astonishing rates. Nick Brandt documents with his photographs, Across The Ravaged Land, the disappearing animals of East Africa.

The Guardian, a once stong but today weak and Washington-intimidated UK newspaper, reports that in 2014 20,000 African Elephants were killed by poachers. Tanzania and Mozambeque have lost over half of their elephant populations with the same devastation of elephants across east and central Africa.

Faced with the extermination of elephants, what did the corrupt European Union do? The EU refused a ban on Ivory trade! The ban might interfere with capitalist profits.

Free market ideologues have concocted a theory that the way to save animals is to make it profitable to kill them. Therefore, people raise the animals to be killed by hunters. In other words, animals only exist for the pleasure of humans to kill them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/06/african-wildlife-officials-appalled-as-eu-opposes-a-total-ban-on-ivory-trade

What we are left with is a “western civilization” that is no longer a civilization but an existential threat to all life on Earth. Obama has announced a one trillion dollar US nuclear modernization program.

http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trillion-dollar-question-the-media-have-neglected-to-ask-presidential-candidates/

This huge sum, spent for death, could instead be spent for life. It is enough money to fund many large and well protected wildlife preserves around the world.

The evil represented by nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the continued existence of life on Earth. Washington, crazed by desire for hegemony over others, is recklessly courting war between nuclear powers. Only Putin among world leaders warns that Washington is setting an unpromising course for everyone.

Yet regardless of all fact, deluded Americans still regard themselves as the salt of the earth, the “exceptional people,” the “indispensable people.” If this delusion is incurable, humans will murder Earth.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on From The Destruction of Animal Life to Nuclear Warfare: Will “Human Evil” Destroy Life On Earth?
“Crisis is an Opportunity”: Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government

One World Governance and the Council on Foreign Relations.“We Shall have World Government… by Conquest or Consent.”

By Joachim Hagopian, August 18 2016

The fact is the Council on Foreign Relations has been controlling US foreign policy for almost a century, and chief among its most obvious agendas has been building and maintaining US Empire’s global unipolar hegemony and military strength at all cost.

Middle-East-Map-460x319

Failed Coup in Turkey, Escalating War in Ukraine, The Battle For Aleppo, Freedom for Saif al-Gaddafi in Libya

By Hugo Turner, August 18 2016

Sometimes events speed up and begin to spiral out of control. This is definitely one of those times. So much has happened since my last article on Syria that I’ll never be able to do it all justice. The Battle for Aleppo continues of course a brutal struggle for the future of Syria and the world. There was the failed coup in Turkey. There was good news from Libya where Saif Gaddafi was finally released raising hopes that Libya may someday regain it’s independence. In Crimea there was a failed terror plot that was narrowly foiled.

TPP-Obama

Obama Pushing for TPP: Misinformation and Big Lies His Strategy

By Stephen Lendman, August 18 2016

US trade deals are jobs-killing weapons of mass destruction. They destroy fundamental economic and social structures. They ignore eco-sanity. Preventing TPP’s enactment into US law is crucial for all working-age Americans and their families. Obama intends going on the offensive publicly to get Congress on board for its passage. Last October, he touted it in his weekly radio address – featuring a litany of Big Lies, one of many examples of how he consistently betrayed the public trust throughout his tenure.

pills_white_pain_735_350

Kris Kristofferson’s Dramatic Cure of his “Incurable” Alzheimer’s Disease

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, August 18 2016

The term “iatrogenic” means doctor, drug or surgery-caused disease. It is a taboo subject in America today. Apparently Kristofferson had been mis-diagnosed with Alzheimer’s dementia about three years ago, which started more than one medical misadventure for he and his neurologists involving neurotoxic medication trials with drugs.

Hillary_Clinton_(24338774540)

Clinton Transition Team Headed by Anti-Climate ‘Powerbroker’

By Nadia Prupis, August 18 2016

Hillary Clinton has named her transition team should she be elected in November, and the roster—as many feared—is a who’s-who of establishment figures, including former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has a maligned track record on climate. The team will also include former national security adviser Tom Donilon, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, president of the Center for American Progress (CAP) Neera Tanden, and director of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics Maggie Williams. Two of the campaign’s policy advisers, Ed Meier and Ann O’Leary, will also serve as co-executive directors.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: One World Governance and the Council on Foreign Relations

Russian Military Options in Syria and the Ukraine

August 18th, 2016 by The Saker

The past two weeks have been rich in military developments directly affecting Russia:

Syria:

1) Russia has announced that she will transform the Khmeimim airfield into a full-fledged military base with a permanently deployed task force.

2) Russia will deploy her heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser (often referred to in the West as an “aircraft carrier”) Admiral Kuznetsov to the eastern Mediterranean to to check the combat capabilities of the ship and its strike group and to engage, for the very first time, the state-of-the-art Ka-52K Katran helicopters.

ID1974 / Shutterstock.com

ID1974 / Shutterstock.com

The Ukraine:

1) Following the failure of the Ukronazis to infiltrate saboteurs on the Crimean Peninsula ,which President Putin called “stupid and criminal”,Poroshenko has now ordered a reinforcement of his military forces on border with Crimea and eastern Ukraine and placed its military on its highest alert.

2) The authorities in Kiev decided not to accept the credentials of the new Russian ambassador to the Ukraine.

3) President Putin declared that in this context, negotiations with Kiev are “pointless”.

While not directly connected, all of these news items point to a possible military escalation which could result in Russia having to engaged her military in combat operations in Syria, Crimea and Novorussia. Thus is makes sense at this point to review the Russian options in all these theaters of war.

The Syrian theater:

There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the Russian military options in Syria. Just as the major Russian military intervention which was initially expected failed to materialize (the actual Russian intervention was very limited in both size and time), the reinforcement of the Khmeimim airbase will not result in a major strategic shift in the regional balance of power. A couple of reminders:

First, the Russian naval base at Tartus is not really a “naval base” at all. It is a port which the Russian Navy has been using, but it lack the capability to dock large ships and it is not defended in a way a normal Russian military base would be. In fact, the Russian refer to it as a “пункт материально-технического обеспечения“ or “material-technical supply point”. It is possible, even likely, that in time Russia will expand and reinforce Tartus, but for the foreseeable future Tartus will not be a major military outpost for the Russian Navy.

Second, the airbase in Khmeimin is located in a very dangerous spot: roughly 1000km from the Russian border and only 50km from the Turkish border. It is also nicely wedged right between the CENTCOM “area of responsibility” and NATO. This is most definitely not a location you want to try to threaten US forces from. Finally, this is also not a location which Russia would defend with nuclear forces.

Defense Minister Shoigu did, in fact, clearly spell outwhat the purpose of the Russian presence in Khmeimim will be: a) to attack terrorists and b) to defend Russian nationals. Again, these are very limited goals which will be attained by using limited means. To be sure, Khmeimim will also become a crucial intelligence hub for Russia and, once the airbase is expanded, the Russian search and rescue capabilities will be dramatically enhanced. For both of these task Russian special forces will be permanently stationed at the airbase. Finally, the Russians will increase the size of the runways to make it accessible to the heaviest Russian transport aircraft. But the fundamental characteristic of the Khmeimim airbase will always remind that it will remain vulnerable due to its location and long distance from Russia.

As for the deployment of the Kuznetsov, which is primarily a formidable air defense ship, it will allow the Russians to get a much fuller signal intelligence picture of the region and will provide solid protection for both Tartus and Khmeimim. The first-time deployment of the Ka-52K (which were initially commissioned to be deployed on the French “Mistrals”) will be a testing side show but not a crucial game changer in the war.

All in all, the Russians are most definitely increasing their capabilities and the range of options to chose from different options depending on the evolution of the situation. At this point, there are no signs of a major shift in the Russian position: ever since the “semi-withdrawal” of Russian Aerospace forces from Syria, Russia is still counting primarily on her long-rage bombers (Tu-22M3). These can, if needed, be supplemented by Su-34/Su-30/Su-35 strike groups flying out of southern Russia.

The Ukrainian theater:

The situation in the Ukraine is much more unpredictable than the one in Syria and it has been so for a long while now. Almost every week we saw warnings about a possible Ukrainian attack, sometimes even announced as “imminent” and then that attack fails to materialize. The dangerous thing about these false warnings is that they were not false at all and that these attacks truly could have happened almost any week. Worst of all, there is now a “boy who cried wolf” phenomenon taking place where everybody is becoming bored with the endless warnings about an imminent Ukronazi attack. The problem is that, of course, such attack is becoming more and more likely with every passing day.

There are those who argue that an Ukronazi attack against Crimea would be suicidal, and they are absolutely correct, and that an Ukronazi attack against Novorussia would be exceedingly unlikely to succeed, and they are correct again. The assumption here is that the regime in Kiev is capable of rational calculation and that the purpose of such an attack would be victory. But, in reality, victory was never a Ukronazi goal. Instead, the goal was always to draw Russia into a open war. The Ukronazis themselves are deluding themselves in the hope that they will get to do what the Croats did in 1995 when they, backed by the full airpower of NATO, attacked the (disarmed) Croatian Serbs in the so-called “Krajinas”. In reality, the situation in the Donbass is totally different: not only are the Novorussians not disarmed like the Krajina Serbs were (all their “heavy weapons” were in UNPROFOR controlled depots), but unlike the poor Serbs (who were betrayed by Milosevic), the Novorussians know that if things get tough Russia will back them, including by deniable long-range artillery strikes (as she did in July 2014). As for Crimea, even the most deluded Ukrainians must realize by now, even if they don’t admit this, that they will never re-take Crimea.

The problem for Russia is that while the regime in Kiev is slowly rotting into irrelevance, there is only one thing which the Ukraine can offer the AngloZionist Empire: to become the sacrificial lamb in a desperate effort to provoke Russian into an intervention and thereby make the current “tepid war” between NATO and Russia fully irreversible or even “hot”. An overt Russian counter-attack in the Donbass, or even from Crimea, is every Neocon’s dream come true.

So far, all the Ukronazis were capable of doing is constantly shelling the civilians of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics which, being 100% dependent on Moscow, had to put up with this infamy even though scores of innocents civilians have been killed every day. There is also a lot of indirect evidence that the military capabilities of the Novorussians have dramatically increased over the past year or so and that makes it even more frustrating for them to put up with the constant provocations and murders of civilians. The Kremlin, however, has evidently decided that a small and steady stream of murdered civilians in the Donbass is still preferable to a full-scale military operation followed by, and this is often overlooked, the occupation of some part of the Ukrainian territory. Indeed, once you occupy it – you own it and you are responsible for it. Nobody in Russia is willing to shoulder the costs of a war and the subsequent occupation and reconstruction of a territory currently under Ukronazi control. Finally, why give the regime in Kiev a life-saving distraction when it does such a world-class job of slowly but surely destroying itself?

The paradox here is that the Russian strength is also the Russian weakness: chances are that the Novorussians are capable of not only stopping a Ukronazi attack, but even of an operationally deep counter-attack. Thus, it is most likely that Russia herself would not be pulled into an overt war over the Donbass. But in Crimea there are no Novorussians, no Donetsk or Lugansk people’s republics. In Crimea there are only Russians and Crimea is Russia. Thus any Ukronazi attack on Crimea would be a direct act of war against Russia which Russia could not ignore or reply to by using a “voentorg” + “northern wind” combo (voentorg: covert supplying of weapons; “northern wind” covert supplying of military specialists). If Crimea is attacked, the Russians will have to strike back, whether they want it or not.

If that happens, the Russian counter-strike will most likely be limited and will probably focus on the forces directly responsible for the attack. But if the Ukronazis use their artillery from well-entrenched positions to unleash a steady barrage on the towns of northern Crimea or if, God forbid, the Ukronazis use ballistic missiles to target major urban centers in Crimea, the Russians will have no choice but to counter-attack swiftly and decisively. And since 8/8/8 it is become clear that the West will *always* blame Russia, even if she is first attacked by another party.

In purely military terms, any conflict between the Russian armed forces and the Ukronazis would be a massacre: all the Ukrainians can bring to the battlefield are numbers, but they are completely out-gunned, quantitatively and, even more so, qualitatively by the Russians. The Russian artillery is currently the most capable on the planet, it is even far superior to anything in the West, and its effects on the Ukrainian military have been absolutely devastating in the past. Russia has an unique combination of UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and EW (Electronic Warfare) capabilities which are directly plugged-in into the targeting systems of Russian multiple-rocket launchers which can reach as far as 90km into the enemy’s rear. Finally, the Russians have been working for years on advanced submunitions and thermobaric warheads which can be used with devastating effect on armored forces and fortified positions.

This combo of UAV and advanced multiple-rocket launchers form what the Russians call a “reconnaissance-strike complex” or RSC (разведывательно-ударный комплекс) which is a concept first developed by the Soviets as far back as the 1960s. The RSC fully integrates all the following elements: reconnaissance, guidance, electronic counter-measures, navigation and engagement of high-precision weapons.

Now, with the advent of new UAV and counter-battery radars, this concept has reached its full maturity and is now the cornerstone of Russian combined-arms operations. What this all means in practical terms is that the Russians now have the capability completely destroy several mechanized battalions in only 2-3 minutes. And there is nothing, nothing at all, which the Ukrainians could do against this.

The Russians also have vastly superior armor, electronic warfare capabilities, aerospace forces, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities, training – you name it. The Ukrainians don’t stand a chance.

One big canard is the notion that US deliveries of “lethal weapons” to the Ukraine would somehow tip the balance. In reality, no amount of weapons would make any difference. Russian capabilities today are as far superior to the Ukrainian ones as the capabilities of the US military were superior to the Iraqi military in 1990 during Desert Storm. While in 1991 the Ukrainian military was nominally larger than the Russian one (the Ukraine inherited the entire Soviet strategic 2nd echelon forces), it did not have a war in Chechnia to force it to begin reorganizing like the Russian one had to, nor did it have a President like Putin who as soon as he came to power embarked on an immense military reform whose fruits are now finally showing. As a result, the Russians have now achieved several generational breakthroughs while the Ukrainians are basically stuck with 1980s gear and a completely disorganized, corrupt and incompetent military. It will take the Ukraine decades to catch-up to the Russians, and that only if some kind of highly improbable economic miracle happens.

Conclusion:

The wars in the Syria and the Ukraine are, as is so often the case, largely predetermined by geography. There is really nothing Russia could do to meaningfully and directly oppose the US military in the Middle-East or the Mediterranean. Likewise, there is nothing the US can to meaningfully and directly oppose the Russian armed forces in eastern Ukraine. This is why both sides will try to act indirectly, on the margins, via proxies but without getting directly exposed. While this strategy is fundamentally sound, it is also dangerous because indirect warfare by proxy is harder to control and leaves both sides open to provocations, false flag operations and the covert involvement of third parties. This is why both wars are so frustrating to follow: on one hand all sorts of highly speculative scenarios cannot be simply dismissed, but on the other hand, nothing much seems to be happening. And when something finally does happen, it is unclear as to what the possible consequences might be. Finally, both wars involve highly ideological and fundamentally irrational actors (the Ukronazis, the Daesh crazies, the Neocons) who cannot be counted on to act rationally. Alas, all the theories of deterrence always assume a rational actor. But how do you deter a delusional maniac?

The Russian options in both of these conflicts are limited by objective circumstances and by larger political considerations. I would argue that Russia has done an absolutely amazing job in Syria with very limited means and in a supremely dangerous environment. As for the Donbass, I would be much more nuanced. And while I do believe that Russia took the right decision by not overtly sending her armed forces in the eastern Ukraine, I also have to admit that she also showed poor timing and even indecision in dealing with the Nazi crazies in Kiev: it took the Russians a long time to get the Voentorg and “Northern Wind” up and running and while this was the correct response, it was also one which took a long time to become fully effective. Then there is the issue of the (now former) Russian ambassador to Kiev, Mikhail Zurabov, who was totally ineffective in getting anything done at all (while he was left in place for so long is still a mystery to me). True, Zurabov had nobody to speak to, but that does not justify him cozying up and playing buddies with Poroshenko as he reportedly did. Now that the Russians have finally appointed a competent person to this role, Mikhail Babichthe Ukrainians are refusing to accredit him which, apparently, the Kremlin is accepting with bizarre equanimity. In December, Putin also appointed another very powerful figure, Boris Gryzlov, a permanent member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, as the plenipotentiary representative of the Russian Federation in the Contact Group on settlement of the situation in Ukraine. It took Russia a very long time, but now with Gryzlov and Babich involved, Russia is finally involving some high octane personalities in the negotiations process dealing with the war in the Ukraine. Again, a good decision, but a very belated one.

Could this also indicate that the Russians have information that something major will happen with the Ukraine? Possibly. I sure don’t know, but it does look to me that they are preparing for something.

As for Syria, the Russian are trying to increase their options, but it is unlikely that anything major happens before the next US administration comes in. Besides, with Erdogan still busy with his crackdown on any opposition, it is also unclear what course Turkey will take once the purges are completed.

And then this, just in:

According to al Masdar news (https://www.almasdarnews.com), Iran has just granted Russia the right to use the Hamedan Air Base in western Iran. The original article entitled “Russia deploys jets at Iranian Airbase to combat insurgents in Syria (Pictures)” (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-deploys-jets-iranian-airbase-combat-insurgents-syria-pictures/) even claims to show pictures of Russian Tu-22M3s already deployed in Iran. IF this is true, this is very significant. Unlike Khmeimim, Hamedan is safe and is perfectly located to conduct military strikes in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle-East. One problem though: al Masdar is an Israeli project, part the Israel Project, a “pro-Israel public diplomacy organization founded in the United States at the height of the second intifada”. I checked with a well-informed Iranian source, and it is not confirming any of this at this time. The Russian blogger “Colonel Cassad”, however, did some investigating of his ownand seems to consider that information as plausible. Other Russian sources are confirming that Russia has asked Iran to allow Russian cruise missiles to fly through Iranian airspace. It does appear like the collaboration between Iran and Russia is strengthening which is, of course, very good news.

Finally, if Erdogan is serious about collaborating with Russia and Iran against Daesh, then one way for Turkey to do that would be to open the Turkish airspace to Russian air and missile strikes against Daesh. If that happens, Russia will have the choice of four locations to launch strikes: Crimea, southern Russia (Abkhazia), Khmeimim in Syria and, hopefully, Hamedan in Iran.

Bombora Military Airport

Bombora Military Airport

A place to keep a special eye on is the Bombora military airfield near Gudauta, in Abkhazia. According to Lentra.ru, the length of the main runway is 4km (this is a mistake, the actual length is 3km) and this runway ends right on the seashore allowing aircraft to take off at very low altitudes and thereby remain under enemy radar coverage (see image next page). This airfield is currently protected by some 4’000 Russian soldiers deployed in Abkhazia who are equipped by the newest Russian weapon systems and who form the backbone of the Russian 7th Base [for more on this base, see here (from and anti-Russian source) and here (including some pretty interesting photographs)]. This airfield is ideally located to become a major hub for the operations of Russian Aerospace forces.

UPDATE:

Firstas Aram Mirzaei correctly pointed out, I made a mistake and confused two websites called Al-Masdar (the source):One is the Israeli project mentioned in this article, led by chief editor Shimrit Meir. This website is called Al-Masdar.net. The other page is a pro-Syrian-Iranian-Russian news website calledalmasdarnews.com. I apologize for this mistake.

Second, it seems that almasdarnews.com is correct. Several Iranian websites are now also reporting the Russian deployment at the Hamedan Air Base:

http://www.eghtesadonline.com/بخش-جهان-29/140628-استقرار-بمب-افکن-های-روسی-در-پایگاه-هوایی-همدان-عکس

http://www.akharinnews.com/آخرین_اخبار/item/112646-بمب-افکن-های-روسیه-وارد-فرودگاه-نظامی-همدان-شدند.html

http://damadam.ir/۲۴-آنلاین-24onlinenews/اخبار-سیاسی/title/بمب-افکن-های-روسیه-وارد-فرودگاه-نظامی-همدان-شدند/id/3321242

RT is now also quoting the Al Masdar article thus indirectly confirming it:https://www.rt.com/news/356098-russian-bombers-iran-hamadan/

This is an extremely important and positive development which shows that the military cooperation between Russia and Iran has now reached a new level and which will have a major impact upon this war. This is very, very good news.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russian Military Options in Syria and the Ukraine

Proof: US and NATO-backed ‘Rebels’ Are NOT Fighting ISIS

August 18th, 2016 by 21st Century Wire

Aside from the standard list of lies which US-led ‘Coalition’ representatives regularly spout regarding their so-called ‘moderate rebels’ (terrorists) in Syria, there is another key lie which is only barely holding Washington and London’s house of cards together – that is the idea that some of these ‘moderate rebels’ (terrorists) are somehow engaged in the grand crusade against ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh (all terms apply equally to ISIS). For all intents and purposes, this spurious western claim is a lie – one of many lies about Syria constantly being fed to the public by western politicians and media functionaries.

The reality, outside of the Washington-London “classified” reality bubble is that these US-NATO-GCC-backed ‘moderate rebels’ (terrorists) have, more or less, the exact same objectives as ISIS,and unless they are fighting over control of money or illicit black markets, their shared collective goal is the overthrow of the Syrian government in Damascus via ‘regime change’ and an end to a secular, multi-religious nation-state of Syria. Put simply: their flag designs and online brands may differ, but they are effectively one in the same. So it only stands to reason that if the US-NATO allies are wholeheartedly backing this rebel-terrorist ‘armed opposition’ conclave, then despite their highfalutin rhetoric, US-NATO allies are also supporting an end to the secular multi-religious nation-state in Syria.

Furthermore, as western-backed terrorist rebels share the same objectives as ISIS, then by extension – this also means that the US-NATO allies share the exact same goals as ISIS. Yes, that’s right: US-NATO forces have positioned themselves as natural allies of ISIS, alongside the ‘moderate rebel’ terrorists who have already received billions in western taxpayer-funded arms, equipment, training, intelligence support and cash.

The entire US-NATO justification for having thousands of special forces and military trainers currently deployed in Turkey, Jordan and inside Syria – is that the NATO member states are training these ‘moderate rebels’ (terrorists) to fight against ISIS.” Seeing that this is not actually happening, and thus can be written off as another major lie and key propaganda line being disseminated by Washington and its NATO functionaries – then the US and its NATO partners are effectively undermining the war against the terrorists – and conveniently extending the Syrian Conflict in the process. Based on this, the obvious conclusion would be for the US and NATO forces to cease all military activities in and around Syria – and leave the fighting against terrorist groups… to those entities legally inside Syria of whom we can safely say are definitely notsupporting or enabling jihadi terrorists groups in the region and those entities are: the Syrian government forces, the Russian military, Iranian forces and the Hezbollah militia.

Add to this, the disconcerting fact that ISIS terrorists in both Syria and Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan – are using United States-issued weapons and equipment. Despite categorical US denials, this is becoming an all too familiar occurrence.

It shouldn’t be complicated, and yet, this is how Washington and London like to operate – within a fog of maximum confusion, and of Gangs and Counter-gangs, while also cynically changing the names of known terrorist groups the US-led ‘Coalition’ has been supporting both militarily and financially for at least the past four years, and also by using its corporate media assets like CNN who are now trying to rehabilitate jihadist terrorist groups for these fighters to gain favor from western audiences.

Does anyone still believe that “the ‘moderate rebels’ are fighting ISIS,” like Washington has insisted for years now? According to the evidence, that’s just another lie – and here is even more damning proof that it’s a lie…

US-backed ‘rebels’, under the watchful supervision of US drones, have just let ISIS walk away…

Syrian-Rebels

US-backed forces give hundreds of ISIS fighters safe passage

Several hundred vehicles containing 100 to 200 Islamic State fighters were given safe passage by US-based forces, out of the northern Syrian city of Manbij, after surrendering their weapons, according to defense officials.

US Army Col. Carver, a spokesman for the US-led coalition fighters, told Pentagon reporters the decision to let Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) convoys leave the city was made by commanders of the Syrian Democratic Force.

Col. Carver described how IS had civilians in each of the vehicles, and the military wanted to avoid casualties. He didn’t know how many of the civilians had been in the cars voluntarily but said some were likely hostages.

The 100 to 200 fighters left the city of Manbij last Friday under watch of  [US-controlled] Coalition Drones to ensure the militants didn’t regroup and try to return to the city.

It was the first such agreement with the terror group. IS fighters were allegedly using civilians as human shields to escape.

“They kept throwing civilians to basically walk into the line of fire, trying to get them shot to use that potentially as propaganda, we think,” said Col. Chris Garver.

Associated Press reported US military officials said some of the IS fighters had already made their way into Turkey, and many were still in Syria.

US-led coalition forces had sustained three months of aerial bombardment and fighting on the northern Syrian city of Manbij, an IS stronghold…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Proof: US and NATO-backed ‘Rebels’ Are NOT Fighting ISIS

Sometimes events speed up and begin to spiral out of control. This is definitely one of those times. So much has happened since my last article on Syria that I’ll never be able to do it all justice. The Battle for Aleppo continues of course a brutal struggle for the future of Syria and the world. There was the failed coup in Turkey. There was good news from Libya where Saif Gaddafi was finally released raising hopes that Libya may someday regain it’s independence. In Crimea there was a failed terror plot that was narrowly foiled.

First I’ll deal with Libya. Last year Saif al-Gaddafi was sentenced to death by the Libyan Dawn faction of Libya’s then 2 competing governments locked in civil war. This provoked protests by supporters of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya the government overthrown by NATO’s criminal 2011 war that installed Al Qaeda death squads as the new de facto government. Thousands of loyal Libyan’s were killed thousands more rounded up imprisoned and tortured in the wake of NATOs victory. There are still over 7000 people being held at the mercy of the death squads. But since 2011 the forces loyal to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya known as the Green Resistance have only grown in strength. Thus last year’s attempt in July 2015 to sentence Saif to death resulted in massive protests by supporters of the Green Resistance as I discussed in my August 2015 “Wars on Syria Libya Yemen” They risked death and a more then a dozen were killed protesting the unjust sentence against Saif whose only crimes were his refusal to betray his family and nation during NATO’s war on Libya. Now a year later not only has Saif not been sentenced to death he has been freed a victory greeted by thousands of green resistance supporters with protests in celebration. The Green Flags of the resistance were displayed all over the country as people came out to celebrate.

All over Libya millions now hope for the return of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Meanwhile the US/NATO have stepped up their attacks on the country as part of their phony war on the very terrorists they still back. Alexandra Valiente of Jamahiriya news, and Libya 360 calls it the most sophisticated psychological warfare campaign in history. The US has also continued it’s phoenix program style assassination campaign aimed at supporters of the green resistance and the Libyan National Army. The war in Libya continues but the fact that Saif is now free gives reason for hope that one day all of Libya may be liberated from the terrifying occupation by the Empire of Chaos. Meanwhile in Lebanon Hannibal Gaddafi who was kidnapped by Hezbollah is still being held for a crime he couldn’t possibly have committed since he was only 2 years old at the time of the mysterious assassination of Musa Sadr in 1978. Sadr’s real killers were the Ed Wilson Theodore Shackley “Secret Team”. The world must demand Hannibal’s release. He was finally supposed to be freed last week when the court invented new trumped up charges to hold him.

While Saif’s release was met by a deafening media silence the whole world has by now heard of the failed coup in Turkey. NATO and the CIA foolishly tried to overthrow their unpredictable ally Erdogan. Unfortunately for them the wily and paranoid Erdogan was expecting something like this after attempting to entice Russia into re-establishing the economic ties they broke after Turkey shot down the Russian fighter last fall and turkish grey wolves killed the pilot and blew up the rescue copter killing another.

Rumor has it that Russian intelligence warned him of the impending coup worried that the CIA had an even worse candidate in mind. In any case their was a brief hope that Erdogan would reduce his support for the war on Syria but that seems unlikely. Instead yet again Erdogan has managed to play his unpredictable balancing act between Russia and the West. Turkey is a sort of swinging pendulum first swinging towards Russia over the turkish stream pipeline, then towards the west by shooting down the fighter and now back to Russia. Meanwhile the war on Syria remains as intense as ever. At most there will be increased trade between the two countries Erdogan seems as unwilling as the US to end the war on Syria. Thus his recent visit to Russia failed to produce any agreement on Syria. Back in Turkey Erdogan is busy purging all his opposition in a massive crackdown. The one consolation is that in crushing the coup Erdogan also killed some of those responsible for planning the dirty war on Syria.

Crimea is now reunited with Russia due to the votes of the vast majority of it’s citizens and the heroic actions of the spetsnaz “polite men in green” back in 2014 in the wake of the fascist coup in Ukraine. Officially a part of the Russian federation it’s citizens have been largely spared the fascist terror campaign that Novorossia (Donbass) has been subjected to in the east. The main exception was last winter when Ukrainian fascists and their Tartar allies blew up the electricity pylons to the island plunging the people of crimea into darkness and cold. Now with the empire of chaos upset over the recently intensifying Russian support for Syria they gave their fascist allies in Ukraine the green light to launch more terror attacks on Crimea.

A team of commando infiltrators was sent into Crimea but luckily the locals were able to tip off the authorities in time. In the town of Armyansk the Russian FSB surrounded a team of 20 people unloading weapons and explosives. The fascists opened fire killing an FSB agent but were eventually captured with at least one of them kill and several wounded. Two more teams of infiltrators were caught trying to enter Crimea and a Russian soldier was killed by the Ukrainian army which was giving them covering fire with an APC. They were plotting to blow up infrastructure and also had a plan to blow up a bridge assassinating both local officials and federal authorities. Ukraine also attempted to assassinate the President of the Lugansk peoples republic Igor Plotnitsky who was injured when a bomb exploded near his car. Ukraine has also been escalating the war on Donbass continually shelling civilians and probing for weak spots in their defenses. Clearly the war in Ukraine is intensifying.

Meanwhile in Syria the epic battle for Aleppo continues. For a while things were going well for the Syrian forces they achieved their goal of capturing the Castillo highway cutting off the terrorists supply route after weeks of hard fighting. The terrorists laying siege to the city in Eastern Aleppo had their supplies cut off. The terrorists desperate attempts to recapture the road failed. However the terrorists were able to launch a massive counter-attack with 7,000 men in south west Aleppo breaking through Syrian defenses seizing the Ramoosa artillery base, an air force technical base and the 1070 apartment blocs. Now Southwest Aleppo is the scene of brutal fighting as the SAA have slowly been recapturing these sites from the terrorists.

Thus the terrorist victory may lead to a disastrous defeat as they are being heavily bombed by the Russian and Syrian air forces losing 1000 men according to the Russians. The death squads and their NATO advisers staked a lot on this counteroffensive opening a narrow path into the city. Now they will hopefully be cut off, surrounded and destroyed. However the battle for Aleppo is far from over all we can do is wish the SAA another Victory in Aleppo. Russia has thankfully continued to increase it’s support bombing the terrorists besieging the heroic defenders of Deir Ezzor from bases in Iran and moving it’s naval forces in position for an attack on the NATO death squads. In fact Lavrov even publicly admitted that the ceasefire was a mistake that allowed the terrorists to rearm.

With the provocations in Crimea and treachery in Syria hopefully Russia will get it’s revenge by helping Syria crush this NATO terrorist invasion. Syria is on the offensive seizing back the most of the 1070 apartments and the air force technical college. They made other important gains in Damascus, Latakia, and Deir Ezzor but of course the war continues. In Libya the power of the green resistance continues to grow despite the dirty war being waged on the country by NATO. In Turkey Erdogan is on the rampage purging his opponents. In Crimea the situation is tense but thankfully the people have been spared a wave of terror bombings and assassinations thanks to the quick response of the FSB and the Russian military. Donbass remains under fire it’s plight forgotten by the outside world which continues to ignore the menace of fascism in Ukraine. America continues it’s war on the planet spanning at least 4 continents not counting the low intensity counter-insurgency it has waged on it’s own territory for hundreds of years. For now though it’s schemes in Libya, Turkey, Ukraine, and Syria have all met humiliating setbacks.

Sources

Dan Glazebrook on the release of Saif al-Gaddafi
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2016/07/30/a-green-tide-rising-the-return-of-the-libyan-jamahiriya/

Alexandra Valiente on Hannibal Gaddafi
https://vivalibya.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/the-urgent-case-of-hannibal-gaddafi/

Sibel Edmonds on the failed coup in Turkey
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/the-cia-fethullah-gulen-and-operation-gladio-b/

An episode of Porkins Great Game on the failed coup in Turkey
https://porkinspolicyreview.com/2016/07/21/porkins-great-game-episode-15-turkey-coup-special/

An In depth account of Erdogan’s visit to Russia
http://russia-insider.com/en/erdogan-attacks-syria-crimea/ri16006

The foiled fascist terror plot in Crimea
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/ukrainian-terror-squads-break-through-crimean-border-liquidated-fsb/ri16009

The attempted assassination of Igor Plotnitsky
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160806/1043995691/explosion-car-head-luhansk.html

A Great analysis of the Battle for Aleppo
https://www.sott.net/article/325616-Heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-The-Great-Battle-of-Aleppo

The Battle for Supply lines in Aleppo
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/understanding-battle-supply-lines-aleppo-city-map-update/

Recent Victories in Aleppo 
http://syrianperspective.com/2016/08/decisive-week-in-aleppo-terrorists-losing-ground-all-over-damascus.html

The Latest victory in Aleppo
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/field-report-syrian-army-storms-technical-base-southern-aleppo/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Failed Coup in Turkey, Escalating War in Ukraine, The Battle For Aleppo, Freedom for Saif al-Gaddafi in Libya

One of the stranger sights in international relations is that of a defeated State seeking to commemorate its fallen in a country whose affairs it sought to disrupt.  Australia is particularly adept at this, having obtained near exclusive entitlements to commemorate the landings at Gallipoli in Turkey on an annual basis, thereby inculcating successive generations with the notion that the wasteful engagement in April 1915 was in the name of “freedom.”

The singular nature of the treatment granted Australian families, veterans and officials by successive Turkish governments has had a spoiling effect.  (It would be inconceivable for similar privileges to be afforded German and Japanese war veterans.)  Australian politicians have come to expect authorities in another country, even the victorious ones, to be sweet on the survivors and veterans of the defeated.  When that welcome carpet is taken away, much fuss ensues.

This was what unfolded over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday regarding planned commemorations to be held at Long Tan, where 18 Australians lost their lives in an engagement in August 1966.

The battle has had a peculiar resonance in the Australian tale of valour – a small contingent of David-like warriors battling an insidious communist Goliath; a formidable ratio, by some estimates, of one to ten.  (A Fairfax journalist chose the term “crushing defeat” to describe the fate of the Viet Cong-North Vietnamese force in the Long Tan battle.)[1]

In the broader context of Australia’s role specifically on Vietnamese soil, that particular tale loses its lustre, specifically in the invasive presence of Australian soldiers.  The official tale about fighting godless communism as it threatened to make its winding way down Indochina to Australia is not one that has entirely vanished from the school books.

In what was a mixture of bureaucracy, administration, and last minute politicking, the Vietnamese authorities decided that cancelling scheduled 50th anniversary commemorations at Long Tan was in order.

The far from irrelevant matter of “local sensitivities” was cited, though some of the Australians had reason to be miffed by the sudden gesture, given that this had been ongoing for eighteen months.  Money had also changed hands.  What subsequently transpired was that the initial cancellation was prompted by sheer numbers.  Previous contingents travelling to the Long Tan Cross site have numbered 30 to 40.

The Veteran Affairs’ Minister, Dan Tehan, spoke of his disappointment, telling reporters that a thousand Australians had made the journey, and families would be left aggrieved.  “For us to be given such short notice of the cancellation is to put it, in frank terms, a kick in the guts.”[2]

What Tehan then decided to do was employ the friendship line, one so dangled and haggard in these situations it should be scrapped. “I do not think this is the way that you should treat a friend.”  Countries having, not so much friendships but interests, evidently did not spring to mind.

Mental fragility, with its psychologically wearing prospects of not attending such a ceremony, was also cited.  Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia president Ken Foster spoke of scenes of emotional devastation, those family members and veterans “told at the last minute to sit in their hotel or to sit in a bar because they can’t go where they want to go”.

Ken Aspinall of Tamworth, New South Wales, was less inclined to be mournful. War remained in the blood, and it was boiling indignantly.  “I should have brought my bloody gun over… Bugger them. We came all this way.”[3]

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull also joined in the diplomatic melee.  On Wednesday, he held talks with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, urging “empathy and compassion towards our veterans”.[4] None, evidently, for the Vietnamese veterans.

What ensued were overnight negotiations, with Vietnamese authorities giving some ground.  On Thursday, Finance Minister Mathias Corman informed ABC radio about the change of heart.  “As I understand there has been some arrangement put in place where there will be a wreath laying at the site where groups of up to 100 are able to visit the site and pay their respects.”[5]

Australian veterans have also been told that the ceremonial garb will be restricted: no medals or uniforms will be permitted when visiting the site.  There were also injunctions against a media presence, speeches and music. Such striking sensibility is bound to rile the medal wearing obsessives, though it emulates precedent.

Little heed at these Long Tan services has been paid to the catastrophic, impairing nature of the wars that shook Vietnam from the Second World War to the 1970s.  Aspinall’s comment about ignoring any Vietnamese ban on travelling to the site is typical.  “We’ll see what happens tomorrow… maybe we’ll walk right over them.”

For centuries the country has endured and beaten back invasions by larger powers, never itself being particularly interested in vast imperial enterprises.  Causes have tended to be local affairs.  When it came to colonial powers, the Vietnamese weren’t particular good in being walked over, preferring to fight to the point of existential desperation.

An entire population, strafed, torched, incessantly bombed and poisoned by Agent Orange, could have done with some post-war counselling about their trauma. But the Vietnamese response to such matters remains strikingly phlegmatic.  Their understanding is sagacious: old bullies will always stick to tradition.

While Australian forces did play a smaller part in the degenerate slaughter, sometimes expressing concern at the techniques employed by their US partners, they were complicit. Crude as it can be, all remains fair in love and war.

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

[1] http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-vietnam-objected-to-the-long-tan-commemoration-20160817-gqv9aw.html
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-17/vietnam-police-block-access-to-long-tan-site/7756984
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kick-in-the-guts-as-vietnam-abruptly-bans-long-tan-battle-service-20160817-gquwka.html
[4] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australias-vietnam-war-veterans-shocked-over-long-tan-ban/news-story/63c6d353b36436e4afc6afb23eb0f30a
[5] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/vietnam-changes-heart-on-long-tan-commemoration-after-lastminute-highlevel-consultations-20160817-gqv4r2.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia and the Vietnam War, The Hypocrisies of Commemoration: Dispute at Long Tan

The Associated Press Smears Trump

August 18th, 2016 by Eric Zuesse

The Associated Press issued, on Wednesday August 17th, a news story of possible corruption implicating both the campaign manager of the Trump campaign (Paul Manafort) and the campaign manager of the Clinton campaign (Tony Podesta), but headlined their news report only with the Trump-campaign’s connection, and included in the report’s lead-sentence, mention of only the Trump campaign, and buried until the news report’s 14th sentence, its first mention of the Clinton-campaign’s connection in this reported affair.

Furthermore, the AP’s ‘news’ article raised the question of whether a U.S. lobbying firms’ “accepting money to advocate the interests of foreign governments — especially if those interests conflict with America’s” is ethical, and it also implied (but did not assert this outright) that “those interests conflict with America’s” interests in this particular case. However, the AP’s ‘news’ writers provided no evidence that this “conflict with America’s” interests was actually so — that there was actually any such “conflict.” Only the hint of it was provided by the AP’s ‘news’ writers.

The AP’s article also avoided mentioning that the U.S. government overthrew, in a bloody coup which ended this lobbying campaign, the Ukrainian government that those lobbyists had been representing in Washington, and that that overthrown Ukrainian government actually constituted the “those interests” which the AP’s article was implying to have been unethical for these lobbyists to have been representing.

Actually, that Ukrainian government was the democratically elected government of Ukraine at the time, and its leader Viktor Yanukovych, was, in fact, Ukraine’s legally elected President at that time, and the U.S. overthrow of Yanukovych was a violation of the Ukrainian Constitution. None of that essential information is mentioned in this AP ‘news’ article. And this information places into an entirely different light the question of whether this lobbying was unethical as the AP’s report insinuates it to have been.

In fact, nothing is said in that ’news’ article regarding any such coup, and therefore no mention is made, either, about the possible unethical nature of America’s coup in Ukraine, which took place in February 2014, but which started to be prepared in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine by no later than 1 March 2013, a year prior to the ultimate event, the bloody climax, the coup.

Hillary Clinton’s friend and former top aide at the State Department, Victoria Nuland, masterminded the coup, and instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev whom to have appointed to replace the man, Yanukovych, whom they would be overthrowing. Nuland told Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt not to select Vitaly Klitchko (whom Pyatt evidently had been expecting her to name) nor Oleh Tyahnybok, but instead to select Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Here is that portion of their conversation:

Nuland: Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good.

That conversation occurred on 4 February 2014, and Yatsenyuk became officially appointed 22 days later, on February 26th. The coup itself climaxed during February 20-22. “Yats” promptly replaced Ukraine’s top three generals with ones who would be committed to preparing Ukraine for war against ethnic Russians in Ukraine, and against Russia itself if Russia were to send troops in to protect them. The leading general, Mikhail Koval, drew up a plan for ethnic cleansing of the residents in the most ethnically Russian areas of Ukraine’s far eastern portion, called “Donbass.”Also at around that time, a TV station in Ukraine that had been set up with money from the U.S. Embassy, the Netherlands Embassy, and George Soros’s International Renaissance Fund, telecast a journalist alleging that:

“Donbass, in general, is not simply a region in a very depressed condition, it has got a whole number of problems, the biggest of which is that it is severely overpopulated with people nobody has any use for. Trust me I know perfectly well what I am saying. If we take, for example, just the Donetsk oblast, there are approximately 4 million inhabitants, at least 1.5 million of which are superfluous. That’s what I mean: we don’t need to [try to] ‘understand’ Donbass, we need to understand Ukrainian national interests. Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is. I don’t claim to have a quick solution recipe, but the most important thing that must be done — no matter how cruel it may sound — is that there is a certain category of people that must be exterminated.”

Almost immediately after Yatsenyuk became the leader of Ukraine, he sacked the existing three Deputy Defense Ministers, on March 5th. That’s when he replaced them with the three rabidly anti-Russian neo-Nazis, who were committed to this bombing-policy. The new Minister of Defense, Mikhail Koval, soon announced his intention to ethnically cleanse from southeastern Ukraine the “subhumans” who voted for Yanukovych, who will “be resettled in other regions,” meaning either Russia (if Russia accepted these Ukrainian refugees) or else concentration-camps inside Ukraine (and then perhaps death). “There will be a thorough filtration of people,” he promised. (That English translation has since been taken down; so, instead, try this and this.) Their property would be confiscated, and “Land parcels will be given out for free to the servicemen of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and other military formations, as well as to the employees of Interior Ministry and the Security Service of Ukraine that are defending territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country in eastern and southeastern regions of Ukraine.” That’s the euphemism for the ethnic cleansing, and mass-theft. In other words, Obama’s rulers of Ukraine were offering their Ukrainian soldiers the opportunity to grab legally the property of their ethnic-Russian victims. Ukraine didn’t have the money to pay for all the soldiers that would be needed to do this ethnic cleansing; so, these men were being promised war-booty, instead.

At least as soon as 22 April 2014, strong indications already existed that the populations in those areas were very worried about the rabidly racist statements coming from the new government in Kiev. These people also were worried by the new government-run TV ads comparing ethnic Russians with the type of beetles that farmers then were exterminating with insecticides.

Koval’s plan didn’t go fully into effect before the Minsk agreements ended the bloodiest phase of the war. However, enough of the ethnic cleansing was achieved so as to basically destroy Donbass. Obama got rid of lots of the voters he didn’t want to be in future Ukrainian elections. But he also lost both Crimea and Donbass. On 17 September 2014, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced that Donbass, unlike Crimea before it, would not be allowed to become a part of Russia — Russia would assist the now-wrecked region, but would not absorb it into the Russian Federation. Obama and the West continued to say that “Russia is invading Ukraine.”

This AP article is extremely vague about what it is alleging, or who was behind the allegations, but it does provide several hints regarding whether its main sources were from the Trump campaign, or from the Clinton campaign, or both equally. One hint is: “Among those who described Manafort’s and Gates’s [the two named Trump operatives] relationship with the nonprofit are current and former employees of the Podesta Group.” (More will also be quoted here subsequently, indicating that the Podesta Group are the main source of the AP’s ‘news’ story.)

That “nonprofit” is described by the AP’s report as follows:

“The nonprofit, the newly created European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, was governed by a board that initially included parliament members from Yanukovych’s party.  The nonprofit subsequently paid at least $2.2 million to the lobbying firms to advocate positions generally in line with those of Yanukovych’s government. That lobbying included downplaying the necessity of a congressional resolution meant to pressure the Ukrainian leader to release an imprisoned political rival.”

The AP carefully avoids naming that prisoner, but it was Yulia Tymoshenko, who was widely recognized by Ukrainians to be at least as corrupt as was Yanukovych, and whom Yanukovych had beaten in the latest, the 2010, Presidential election, in which she  had received almost all of her votes from Ukraine’s anti-Russian northwest, and Yanukovych had received almost all of his votes from Ukraine’s pro-Russian southeast — including both Donbass and Crimea, the two regions that broke away from Ukraine when Obama hired fascist and nazi paramilitaries to overthrew Yanukovych. When Yanukovych became President in 2010, he had Tymoshenko tried on corruption charges, which were widely thought by Ukrainians to be true, but which the U.S. government always claimed were trumped-up. She was declared guilty and imprisoned. She was set free immediately after the coup.

Manafort and Gates (if they were involved) were Republican lobbyists for the Yanukovych government, and Podesta Group (by its own testimony) was the Democratic one. In addition, Mercury LLC were apparently bipartisan lobbyists for the Yanukovych government, and all three of these firms (if Manafort and Gates were involved at all) were assigned to reduce (essentially, buy-off) the number of members of Congress who would vote on the U.S. bills to free Tymoshenko from prison. Also, federal agencies were being directly lobbied by one or more of these firms to stop pushing for Tymoshenko’s release from prison.

In other words: Ukraine, even under Yanukovych, was already largely a U.S. client-state. Obama just wanted that to be total — an American colony (intended to be a new NATO member) on Russia’s doorstep.

Obama’s Victoria Nuland chose “Yats” to lead the interim government because Obama’s hope was for Tymoshenko to become elected President in the first election after the coup. “Yats” was Tymoshenko’s top political operative, and he wasn’t in prison like Tymoshenko was; so, he was available to serve as an appropriate interim leader. The U.S. plan was for Tymoshenko to be released from prison at the coup, and then to run for the Presidency again, but this time without having to deal with the voters in Donbass and Crimea, who loathed her: those voters would by the time of the first post-coup election, have been exterminated and/or become refugees in Russia. Obama wanted to have an elected post-coup regime that would remain in the American orbit.

During the coup a massacre occurred, on February 20th, of uncounted numbers of Crimeans who opposed the overthrow, and Russia quickly came to the aid of Crimeans to enable them to hold a plebiscite on whether they wanted to remain as part of this new Ukraine or else return to Russia, of which Crimea had been a part until the Soviet dictator Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. That plebiscite was held on March 16th (just weeks after the coup), and over 90% voted to return to being Russians. Then, the U.S. White House’s agents in Kiev planned and carried out on 2 May 2014 a massacre of over a hundred anti-coup demonstrators in the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Odessa being in Ukraine’s south and just as much pro-Russian as was Crimea. That massacre was intended to create a widespread rebellion in the ethnic Russian areas, so as to provide a pretext for bombing there in order to get rid of as many anti-Tymoshenko voters as possible before the new Presidential election would be held, which took place on May 25th. The winner of that election was Petro Poroshenko, because he seemed to be less corrupt than Tymoshenko.

Obama failed to obtain the President he had wanted, and therefore Yatsenyuk remained in his post as Ukraine’s #2, the Prime Minister, until his political support in the country reached well below 5% at the end of 2015, at which point, Poroshenko was able to force him out and replace him in 2016 with his own chief operative.

The AP article additionally says: “The nonprofit also paid $1.07 million over roughly the same period to Mercury to lobby Congress. Among other issues, Mercury opposed congressional efforts to pressure Ukraine to release one of Yanukovych’s political rivals from prison. One former Podesta employee, speaking on condition of anonymity because of a non-disclosure agreement, said Gates described the nonprofit’s role in an April, 2012 meeting as supplying a source of money that could not be traced to the Ukrainian politicians who were paying him and Manafort. In separate interviews, three current and former Podesta employees said disagreements broke out within the [Podesta] firm over the arrangement, which at least one former employee considered obviously illegal. Podesta, who said the project was vetted by his firm’s counsel, said he was unaware of any such disagreements.”

Furthermore, the AP’s reporters did manage to communicate a bit with Manafort’s colleague Gates. However, buried in the report is the following, which raises serious question as to whether Manafort and Gates were actually involved in the lobbying activities of the “nonprofit” at all:

“The director of the European Centre, Ina Kirsch, told the AP her group never worked with Manafort or Gates and said the group hired the Washington lobbyists on its own. She said she had met with Manafort twice but said neither Manafort nor Gates played a role in its lobbying activities.”

All that the AP’s report states clearly is that: “The nonprofit subsequently paid at least $2.2 million to the lobbying firms to advocate positions generally in line with those of Yanukovych’s government.”The phrase “the lobbying firms” there has no clear referent. But then the article, at a distance away from that passage in the story, does asert that “After being introduced to the lobbying firms, the European nonprofit paid the Podesta Group $1.13 million between June 2012 and April 2014 to lobby Congress, the White House National Security Council, the State Department and other federal agencies, according to U.S. lobbying records. The nonprofit also paid $1.07 million over roughly the same period to Mercury to lobby Congress.”

$1.13M + $1.07M = $2.2M. So, all of that money went to only two of the three lobbying firms: Podesta Group, and Mercury LLC.

In other words: the AP was here taking anonymous allegations from the lobbying firm headed by Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, and creating from those anonymous Clinton-campaign sources a ‘news’ report that is cast (and headlined) as if it’s incriminating against the campaign manager of the Trump campaign. Yet, the ‘news’ report doesn’t even give any indication that Manafort and Gates received any money at all. And virtually all of the headlines that are likely to be published based upon and about that ‘news’ ‘report’ (except for this one) will probably be identifying Manafort and Gates as being the one firm that has some explaining to do — as if the AP’s team did any real explaining at all, instead of having done merely propaganda against Trump.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Associated Press Smears Trump

Sanctions on Russia Erode Away

August 18th, 2016 by Alexander Mercouris

Ukraine’s former Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is currently touring European capitals calling on the EU to maintain its sanctions against Russia.  This is in the face of what even Yatsenyuk admits is growing opposition to sanctions in Europe and growing EU “Ukraine fatigue”.

What is being little said is that the actual effectiveness of the sanctions has already eroded significantly.

The sectoral sanctions which the EU imposed in July 2014 – the sanctions which matter – come in three groups: (1) a prohibition on the supply of sophisticated technology to the Russian oil industry, (2) limits on the sale of “dual use” technology (ie. technology that can be used in military design and development), and (3) a ban on borrowing by certain designated Russian banks and companies in European financial markets via debt instruments of a period of more than 30 days.

Of these sanctions only the third group of sanctions is important.

The halving of oil prices since mid 2014 has rendered the first group of sanctions essentially irrelevant since exploration and investment in new oil fields everywhere in the world has basically come to a stop.  The Russians can in time anyway develop analogous technologies for themselves.

The same is also certainly true of so-called “dual use” technologies covered by the second group of sanctions, which the Russians would certainly anyway want to develop for themselves.

Both the first and second groups of sanctions ultimately rest on the fallacy that Russia is a technologically primitive country.  This is a fallacy that has been repeatedly proved to be untrue but which no amount of contrary evidence ever seems able to shake.  As it is what the first and second groups of sanctions actually do is play into the hands of those in Russia who insist on the country pursuing an import substitution policy.

By contrast the third group of sanctions, the ones that limit borrowing Russian banks and companies, has made a real difference.  Not only have Russian banks and companies been unable to raise additional funding in the West but the sanctions have prevented them from rolling over their existing external debt, obliging them to pay off their debt more quickly.

In the context of reduced cash flows caused by the fall in oil prices that has undoubtedly led to investment being cut, and to greater pressure on the rouble as Russian companies have been forced to convert their rouble earnings into dollars and euros to pay foreign debt.

It is this third group of sanctions which however are now eroding away.

The Central Bank has said that after falling rapidly in 2014 and 2015 from a peak of $733 billion in July 2014 to $518 billion in January 2016, aggregate Russian external debt increased from $518 billion in January 2016 to $521 billion in July 2016.  This despite the fact that debt repayments for the whole of 2016 are in the order of $67 billion, with March being the heaviest month for repayment.

The fact that Russia’s aggregate foreign debt is now essentially stable is probably down to two factors.  Firstly, it is believed that as much as half of the total debt repayments by Russian corporates which are due in 2016 are repayments of ‘intra-group’ debts, where Russian firms borrow from closely-linked Russian owned entities registered offshore for the purpose of tax efficiency.

Such ‘debts’ obviously are not real debts at all and are not affected by the sanctions, and can be easily rolled over, and it is likely that most of them are.  However it seems that there has also been a small increase in actual borrowing by Russian companies, some of it in the form of bonds.

That this may indeed be the case, with foreign investors returning to the Russian market, is suggested by figures the Central Bank has released for Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) into Russia.  Before sanctions this was running as of 2014 at roughly $6 billion to $15 billion a quarter.  It then fell to zero after sanctions were imposed.  However in the second quarter of 2016 FDI was again $6 billion.

This does not mean that the effect of the sanctions has entirely ended.  However they are not as heavy a burden on the Russian economy as they once were.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sanctions on Russia Erode Away

The risk of nuclear war has never been greater and it is partly because of NATO rearmament of European countries bordering on Russia. However, these countries will also be targeted if Putin decides to strike back. Thus write three Swedish doctors in an article in Göteborgsposten on Friday August 12 .

During the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy discussed with his advisors the various  options available. One involved a limited attack on  Soviet missile bases. Moscow was supposed to accept such a response rather than fight back in a way that would result in the devastation of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

During the years from 1950 into the 1980s there was a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy known as MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD means that if a great power attacks first, it will always be possible for the attacked nation to retaliate. The ability to strike back served as a sufficient deterrent.

The relative security that the MAD doctrine created no longer exists. The U.S. and Russia now mutually accuse each other openly of constituting an “existential threat”. The military-strategic balance is becoming increasingly uneven.

The U.S. nuclear rearmament and NATO’s encirclement of Russia have created a highly insecure and dangerous situation. The advantages of having the “first strike” becomes harder to resist. With the support of NATO, Romania and Poland are now installing a new American “defense” robot system called “Aegis Ashore”. President Putin has warned the two countries that in case of a military conflict, they will now become the primary objectives. Russia’s concern for a disarming first attack appears to be genuine. Whether the concern is well-founded, we can not know. What is crucial to our security are the actual thoughts and plans of each superpower.

The risk has never been greater

Former US Defense Secretary William Perry has warned that the risk of a nuclear war is now greater than  ever. The reasons are, among other things, the following:

  • The breaking of the agreement after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1990) not to expand NATO. The number of NATO nations has since increased from 13 to 28.
  • NATO’s illegal intervention in Yugoslavia (1999) with the separation of Kosovo.
  • The termination of the ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty) in 2001.
  • The establishment of anti-missile bases in Romania and Poland (see above) – bases  that can easily be reprogrammed to serve for attack robots.
  • The upgrading of the US nuclear weapons system at a cost of a trillion (12 zeros) dollars.
  • The illegal US-backed coup (2014) in Ukraine.
  • NATO strategic military superiority in terms of ability to strike first.
  • The demonization of Putin, including comparisons to Hitler. (A “Hitler” is not someone you can negotiate with – but someone who has to be eliminated).

Independent American security analysts such as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) consider NATO war games in Russia’s neighborhood as extremely provocative and dangerous. More and more European politicians are publicly distancing themselves from NATO’s aggressive policies – such as the Greek Prime Minister Tsipras, the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and French President François Hollande.

Opposite effects

NATO is strong globally. Compared to Russia, NATO spends ten times more money on weapons. Many countries assume that becoming a member of NATO provides protection. But when there is an asymmetric military balance, the logical consequence will be the opposite. Should US / NATO strike from bases bordering on Russia, the Russian military leaders will not have time to react.

Russia has made it clear that such a situation will not be tolerated. Therefore, Russia currently applies a nuclear doctrine that allows for a nuclear strike with restrictions (“The Concept of De-escalation”). The intention of this doctrine is that with a limited first attack, the strike will make continued warfare less likely. By not fighting back, the U.S. will avoid the risk of an extension of the conflict to its own territory. Would an American president be willing to devastate his own country in order to retaliate against a Russian strike on bases in Europe?

The military-strategic situation is thus extremely unstable. Countries bordering on Russia that have allowed the installation of NATO bases are at an increasingly greater risk of becoming prime objectives. The outcome of the US presidential election brings no relief – whatever will be the outcome.

Cause and effect

When Western politicians do not distinguish between “cause and effect”, provocation and reaction, the consequences can be devastating. Russia now faces three choices, in terms of dealing with NATO:

  1. Giving up, and accepting the role of an American vassal
  2. Waiting for NATO to strike first and thus be neutralized
  3. Strike first with tactical nuclear weapons against European missile bases which constitute a direct threat and expect the U.S. not to retaliate, risking a counter-attack on its own territory. (Donald Trump has already implied that the United States will not unconditionally retaliate militarily to protect its NATO allies.)

President Putin has indicated that it is the third military scenario that Russia is now considering. The only question is when. The loser, in whichever case, will be Europe.

Sweden’s rapprochement to NATO has increased the risk of our country being drawn into a war. Therefore, it is particularly important to Sweden and other European countries to support all initiatives aimed at détente and disarmament – and thus create a public opinion that will distance us from NATO.

Translated from Swedish by Siv O’Neall.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Need to Distance Ourselves from NATO if We Want to Avoid War

Hillary Clinton has named her transition team should she be elected in November, and the roster—as many feared—is a who’s-who of establishment figures, including former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has a maligned track record on climate.

The team will also include former national security adviser Tom Donilon, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, president of the Center for American Progress (CAP) Neera Tanden, and director of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics Maggie Williams. Two of the campaign’s policy advisers, Ed Meier and Ann O’Leary, will also serve as co-executive directors.

Salazar, whose career includes positions both in government and corporate Washington, D.C. firms, has previously pushed for projects that are reviled among environmental activists, such as fracking, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Keystone XLpipeline.

Just a year ago, Clinton and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) penned an op-ed for the Huffington Post decrying the cyclical nature of Capitol Hill institutions that enable lawmakers and lobbyists to jump in and out of the private and public sectors.

“[I]ncreasingly, Americans’ trust in government is eroding. And a big reason for that is the so-called revolving door between government and the private sector,” they wrote.

But as David Sirota noted Tuesday at International Business Times, putting Salazar in charge of Clinton’s transition team only empowers more of the same:

Salazar served as Colorado’s Attorney General, U.S. Senator and Interior Secretary before traveling through that revolving door and taking a job in 2013 as a partner at WilmerHale—a law and lobbying colossus that has been calledone of the most influential forces in Washington. Salazar’s biography says that he “provides legal, strategic and policy advice to national and international clients, particularly on matters at the intersection of law, business and public policy.” He is one of 39 former public officials now working at WilmerHale, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The firm has recently been the subject of a ProPublica investigation that showed one of its partners gave a personal loan to Gene Sperling, then President Obama’s economic adviser, as the firm represented major financial institutions.

Salazar is not a registered lobbyist but he appears to fit the description of the kind of powerbroker that Clinton has criticized.

The former interior secretary has also previously said, “The TPP is a strong trade deal that will level the playing field for workers to help middle-class families get ahead. It is also the greenest trade deal ever,” and has claimed that “there’s not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone.”

According to Politico, Salazar is also opposing an anti-fracking ballot measure in his home state of Colorado.

The team was announced just days after 15 progressive groups published an open letter calling on Clinton to appoint personnel that would prove her commitment to issues such as ending economic inequality and stopping the TPP.

“Historically, too many Wall Street executives and corporate insiders have traveled through the revolving door between private industry and government,” the letter stated. “The result of this practice is that the interests of elites are over-represented in Washington.”

The signatories included advocacy groups Public Citizen, RootsAction, and MoveOn.org. They urged Clinton to “publicly state that, should you win the presidency, you will appoint personnel from backgrounds in public interest advocacy, academia, and public service to influential positions within your administration, rather than merely drawing from the usual set of corporate insiders.”

“Personnel is policy,” they wrote.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Clinton Transition Team Headed by Anti-Climate ‘Powerbroker’

The base was impacted significantly by the events of July 15 and their aftermath. Former base commander Gen. Bekir Ercan Van was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the plot, while the Turkish authorities cut the base’s electricity supply off and prohibited US planes from taking off.

“It’s not easy to move 20+ nukes,” a source told the EurActive news website.

Another source confirmed to the media outlet that arms are being transferred from Turkey’s Incirlik air base to the Deveselu air base in Romania due to Washington’s lack of trust in the Turkish authorities in the wake of the thwarted coup attempt in the country.The Romanian foreign ministry denied the reports in a written answer to the media outlet.

On Monday, the Stimson Center think tank warned that the United States was running the risk of losing control over some 50 US tactical nuclear weapons deployed at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, just 70 miles from the Syrian border, to terrorists. In a statement to accompany the report’s publication, the think tank stressed that a protracted civil conflict in Turkey would make the fate of the weapons uncertain, referencing the attempted coup in Turkey on July 15.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Transfers Nukes From Turkey to Romania. Washington Losing Control of some 50 US Tactical Nuclear Weapons at Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base

The wagon wheels are already coming off of the NATO-GCC ‘regime change’ road show in Syria.

Now, foreign policy buffoons in Washington are resorting to some of the most desperate tactics seen yet, including more semantic maneuvers to try and conceal their lethal aid for jihadist terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

Washington’s latest PR thrust began last week when it was proudly announced in the US media Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria) was ‘rebranding’ itself into a newer, supposedly kinder and gentler terrorist moniker, “Syrian Conquest Front.” Charming.

Washington spin doctors are now desperately back-pedaling, following an embarrassing challenge by Donald Trump to both President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – claiming it was they who “founded ISIS” (see article below). Contrary to all facts and multiple previous admissions, Washington are now claiming that it has never backed and armed terrorists, but rather ‘non-Jihadist Salafists’ (an oxymoron). The other popular lie that Washington and the other NATO governments have been pushing is that the Syrian ‘rebels’ are actually from Syria.The reality is that the overwhelming majority of terrorist ‘rebel’ fighters are from outside Syria – soldiers of fortune and paid privateers from as many as 81 different countries of origin.

It’s clear now that Washington has dug such a deep hole with regards to its sponsorship of the dirty war in Syria that it simply cannot get out without losing face internationally – and domestically.

The domestic side is particularly worrisome for Democratic Party leaders Obama and Clinton, because it is an election year and Clinton has built most of her campaign on her ‘foreign policy credentials’ which now includes the prenatal and pediatric development of ISIS and Al Nusra Front. To say that Clinton was one of the architects of the current conflict is no exaggeration, as she was actively promoting ‘regime change’ by any means in Europe and the Middle East in 2011 and 2012.

Turkey-Syria-Diplomac_Horo2
FRONT: Hillary Clinton fronted the “Friends of Syria” tour through 2011-2012, in order consolidate Gulf and other support for ‘regime change’ and the present dirty war in Syria.

To those who have been reading between the western spin on Syria over the last 4 years, the truth about this Washington-led Dirty War in Syria should come as no surprise: that the Obama Administration’s policy of supporting extremist armed terrorist “opposition” groups in Syria was part of a deliberate strategy explicitly designed to topple the government in Damascus and its elected president Bashar al-Assad. By doing this, Washington and its allies have facilitated the creation of Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL, IS or ‘Daesh’) ‘caliphate’ in Syria and Iraq.

A recent Sputnik article confirms how Hillary Clinton pressed through the policy of backing the myriad of known extremist terrorist groups by just referring to them as “moderate rebels”:

In December 2012, only months after the defense intelligence report, President Obama caved to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the more hawkish wing of the national security establishment saying the United States considered the opposition to be “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

By maintaining a strict policy of media deception regarding Syria, the US State Department believed that it could avoid any responsibility and obfuscate its own sponsorship audit trail by playing a sophomoric and highly cynical name game between ‘moderate rebels’ and known terrorist organizations like Jabhat al-Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria), Jaysh al-IslamAhrar al-ShamHarakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, the Turkmen Brigades and many more. Aside from those living in the reality bubble that is Washington and its media stable, most people are now well aware that there are no ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria – and no matter how many name changes are announced by operatives at CNN or SITE Intelligence – they are still all terrorists and they are all fighting (including ISIS) together to overthrow the government in Syria.

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 16.02.24
21WIRE
 previously covered CNN’s sordid role in running PR for the jihadist terrorists groups in Syria, led by CNN’s star ‘journalist’, Clarissa Ward (pictured above, in her ‘Undercover Muslim’ costume), who has become one of the corporate media’s leading apologists for US-NATO and GCC-sponsored violent militant extremists presently running amok in Syria, as CNN and Ward have gone out of their way to try and rehabilitate US-NATO and GCC-backed terrorist suicide bombers in Syria.

Interestingly, CNN’s media operative Ward even took the PR roadshow to the UN, using her CNN-Pentagon profile to push out Washington’s new pro-Al Nusra (Al Qaeda) PR campaign. Sputnik added here:

Perhaps embodying the confusing about face of America’s foreign policy in Syria was when a member of the press, CNN’s senior international correspondent Clarissa Ward, testified before the UN Security Council on the situation in Aleppo that “the only ones who have emerged as heroes on the ground… are the Islamist factions, even to those who hate fundamentalism.

LEADING FROM BEHIND: Obama kept insisting that, “Assad Must Go.”

For years now, US President Obama, Secretaries of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton et allhave been clamouring in unison that, “Assad Must Go”. Now it looks as if Assad might outlast all of them.

While the blatant distortion of reality continues by the US State Department and its media functionaries like Clarissa Ward and CNN, the West’s dirty war in Syria rages on – and with Washington, NATO and Saudi-Qatari money and arms still flowing -there is no end in sight…

The Obama administration’s policy in Syria of opposing Assad at all costs has led the United States to make strange bedfellows arming non-Jihadist Salafist groups who are unfortunately led by a cadre of fighters from the former al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front.

This week Republican nominee Donald Trump caused an uproar by insisting that his Democratic rival former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her former boss President Barack Obama “founded ISIS” – a charge that led to an counter assault by Hillary surrogate Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on Sunday who levelled a mirror accusation against Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

While a Pentagon memo supports the allegation that in 2012 the United States was willingly aiding al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) that subsequently metastasized into Daesh, the more immediate conflict of interest in Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East is the support of the current so-called “moderate rebels” opposing Assad who, by their own admission on social media, are led by al-Nusra Front.

Al-Nusra Front, who just changed their name to the Syrian Conquest Front and renounced affiliation with al-Qaeda, with the open acceptance of the terror network, in a bid to garner new support from the West were the leading force in the surprise bid to break the Syrian government’s siege in Aleppo…Sputnik

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Concealing US Lethal Aid to ISIS-Daesh-Al Qaeda Terrorists. West’s Media-Driven Deception in Syria Falling Apart

US trade deals are jobs-killing weapons of mass destruction. They destroy fundamental economic and social structures. They ignore eco-sanity.

Preventing TPP’s enactment into US law is crucial for all working-age Americans and their families.

Obama intends going on the offensive publicly to get Congress on board for its passage. Last October, he touted it in his weekly radio address – featuring a litany of Big Lies, one of many examples of how he consistently betrayed the public trust throughout his tenure.

He claimed (then and now) TPP is “the best possible deal for American workers.”

Fact: It’s an abominable jobs, wages and benefits destroyer. Obama, of course, knows it but lied claiming the opposite of what’s true.

Obama: TPP lets “American businesses…sell more of their products (abroad so) they can expand and support good jobs here at home.”

Fact: “American business” want TPP enacted to offshore more jobs than already, accelerating the nation’s race to the bottom.

Obama: “Outdated trade rules put our workers at a disadvantage. And TPP will change that.”

Fact: TPP is anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-vital freedoms too important to lose.

Obama: TPP will hold “partner countries to higher standards and rais(e) wages across a region that makes up nearly 40% of the global economy.”

Fact: TPP lowers the fairness and equity bar in all signatory countries, notably America if it’s enacted into law here.

Obama: TPP “means to level the playing field for American workers and businesses (under) rules (that) are fair…”

Fact: TPP prioritizes corporate profits at the expense of worker rights and fundamental freedoms.

Obama claims TPP will undo sins of past trade deals. It’ll exacerbate them on steroids. “It includes the strongest labor rights in history,” he said. FALSE!!

“It includes the strongest environmental standards in history.” FALSE!!

“Without this agreement, competitors that don’t share our values, like China, will write the rules of the global economy.” FALSE!!

He blamed China and other low-wage countries for the sins of corporate America offshoring millions of US jobs abroad.

TPP will greatly accelerate the process – transforming America into a nation of maids, waitresses, bellhops, fast-food workers, janitors, bus and cab drivers, along with other poverty wage service jobs for most workers able to have any employment.

Obama intends taking his destructive TPP-touting message on the road to various US cities. He’ll deceitfully lie about the most destructive deal in history if it becomes US law – economic and financial warfare against the rights, welfare and futures of working-age Americans and their families, already suffering under neoliberal harshness he and his successor will maintain with or without TPP.

At an August 2, East Room White House press conference, Obama shamelessly said “I’m president and I’m for” TPP. He intends formally submitting legislation to Congress later this year.

It faces stiff opposition, hopefully enough to kill it. Progressive groups like Global Trade Watch lead the fight against it.

GTW highlights its enormous danger, saying enacting TPP “will expand corporate power over our daily lives and our government.”

It’ll “make it easier for corporations to ship jobs overseas.” It’ll “flood US markets with unsafe food.”

It’ll “cause a pay cut for 90% of American workers.” It’ll “undermine critical environmental and climate policies.”

It’ll “raise medicine prices (much more than already) and give expanded powers to Big Pharma corporations.”

It’ll “tie the US closer to known human rights abusers.” TPP is “a partnership between governments and big corporations” against the interests of the vast majority of their citizens.

It’s outrageous unfair trade legislation too destructive to permit.

“#STOP TPP,” GTW stresses!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Pushing for TPP: Misinformation and Big Lies His Strategy
Feminist-Graphic

The “Hatred of Life”: The World System which is Threatening All of Us

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, August 16 2016

I only have a few minutes to convince you of the usefulness of a new term; a term that will help us understand the dangerous times we are living in as well as the related struggles on a deeper level, that is, from the roots. The time for lighthearted jokes and uncertainties is over. The “storm” predicted by the Zapatistas is approaching faster than expected. Our confusion needs to end.

War-Soldier-Gun

Drones in the Sky: Operating the Mechanized Kill Machine

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 16 2016

Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war. Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman), Eye in the Sky(2015)All it takes is a boffin on the trigger, then goodnight all.  That is the gist of Horace Rumpole’s words in John Mortimer’s legal creation by that name – the ever direct barrister who finds himself acting in a court martial in Germany on behalf of a British soldier, member of the famed Seraphs.

PoliceBrutality

Milwaukee Explodes During Summer of Demonstrations Targeting Police Brutality

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 17 2016

African American community demands end to racial profiling and law-enforcement killings Once again another city in the United States is hit by racial unrest prompted by the brutal and lethal force of the police. This time Milwaukee, Wisconsin erupted on August 13 after the cop killing of Sylville Smith, a 23-year-old African American.

Israel_Palestine_Flag

The Birth of Agro-Resistance in Palestine

By Jonathan Cook, August 17 2016

For decades Israel has been driving Palestinian farmers off their land by imposing restrictions on agriculture. But one company, Canaan Fair Trade, has found an innovative way to resist. Across the West Bank, olive trees can be found that have survived from the time of Herod, a legacy of the Romans’ cultivation of the tree throughout its empire, including in Palestine. The trees are easily identified. In Arabic, they are known as “amoud” – or column – distinguished by the enormous girth of their gnarled, twisting trunks. They have a place in most Palestinians’ affections. Hatim Kanaaneh, the Galilee physician and writer, observes that the amoud symbolises “stability, permanence and stature – physically, figuratively and economically”.

Puerto Rico

The Humanitarian Crisis in Puerto Rico. The Voice of Playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda

By Matt Peppe, August 16 2016

As the economic and humanitarian crisis has worsened in Puerto Rico in recent months, playwright and actor Lin-Manuel Miranda, has given voice in interviews and Op-Eds to the severity of the crisis among ordinary Puerto Ricans. Miranda called the island’s debt crisis a matter of “life and death,” saying, “I have a lot of family who are struggling in Puerto Rico, that’s not an abstract issue to me.” He humanizes what the statistics – $73 billion in debt, $19,500 median household income, 11.5 percent sales tax, 64,000 people leaving per year – can not. Puerto Rico is a debt colony whose function as a political entity is to service its creditors. Ironically, Miranda achieved the celebrity he’s now using to advocate for the Puerto Rican people by glorifying and aggrandizing the most ruthless champion of creditors in American history.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The “Hatred of Life”: The World System which is Threatening All of Us

US “Colour Revolution” Haunts Cambodia

August 17th, 2016 by Joseph Thomas

Washington’s friends in Southeast Asia, with only a few exceptions, have had a difficult time in recent years. Their favourite billionaire-politician Thaksin Shinawatra has been repeatedly ousted from politics in Thailand, Anwar Ibrahim now resides in jail in Malaysia and prospective friends in The Philippines and Indonesia appear more interested in doing business, or at least in smoothing over relations with Beijing, than investing too deeply in Washington’s various and risky regional projects.

Washington’s Man (Sometimes) in Phnom Penh

Then there is opposition leader Mr. Sam Rainsy of Cambodia. The US State Department’s VOA (Voice of America) media platform describes him as “self-exiled.” He has been an opposition politician in Cambodia for decades, and in between inciting unrest and subsequently fleeing abroad to France before being regularly pardoned and allowed to return home, he has served as a constant contributing factor to the nation’s instability.

Rainsy plays a balancing act between tapping into Cambodian nationalism, thus co-opting popular government stances such as cultivating greater ties with China, as well as seeking Western backing to weaken, even topple the government to pave his own way into power.

453453453453

VOA’s recent article on Rainsy, “Cambodian Opposition Leader Says Europe Considering Sanctions,” does much in explaining the vector he serves through which pressure is exerted upon the ruling circles in Phnom Penh by the West.

The article claims:

Self-exiled opposition leader Sam Rainsy is lobbying the European Parliament (EP) to impose measures on Cambodia in the wake of a concerted government crackdown on dissent and the murder of a prominent government critic last week.

For a political leader to seek foreign sanctions against his own nation, especially in light of the demonstrable damage they have incurred elsewhere around the world, seems to indicate Rainsy’s motivation is less in serving the Cambodian people, and more in serving himself. For the Cambodian voters he seeks to court in upcoming elections, the fact that he has attempted to seek favour among the nation’s former colonial rulers in order to place economic pressure on the nation in a bid to place himself into power, seem to chaff against his own previous attempts to use nationalism politically.

In particular regards to “the murder of a prominent government critic,” VOA admits it is only “believed” to be a government-sponsored killing.

The Guardian in an article titled, “Cambodian PM orders ‘vigorous’ investigation into critic’s killing,” reported:

Kem Ley, a 46-year-old grassroots campaigner, was shot three times at a petrol station in Phnom Penh on Sunday while drinking his morning coffee. His attacker, arrested by police shortly afterwards, was filmed confessing and said the high-profile activist had failed to repay a US$3,000 (£2,322) loan.

It also reported that:

 Large crowds gathered at the petrol station on Sunday to accompany his body, covered by the Cambodian flag, through the streets of Phnom Penh, the capital.

It is curious that the opposition gathered at the crime scene so quickly, and with equal haste, turned his death into a public spectacle, all but preventing a proper forensic investigation from taking place.

That the opposition consisted of members of the National Rescue Party, headed by Rainsy himself, suggests at the very least, crude political opportunism at work, and at worst, invites much more sinister theories surrounding the possible role of the opposition itself in Kem Ley’s death, side-by-side theories promoted by VOA against Cambodia’s sitting government.

Triggering a Colour Revolution 

Prime Minister Hun Sen has recently made comments regarding what he called “colour revolutions,” or, instability orchestrated by Washington across  MENA (Middle East and North Africa). It may have been a hint toward his own suspicions that similar manoeuvres are now being aimed at Southeast Asia and Cambodia itself.

These colour revolutions in the MENA region usually reached critical mass after particularly dramatic developments which included, in Tunisia the self-immolation of a street vendor, or sniper fire targeting demonstrations as was the case in Egypt, Libya and Syria.

Sam Rainsy, currently lobbying the European Union for support, which includes measures as drastic as sanctions, along with street demonstrations seeking critical mass, may be further warning signs of a planned colour revolution in the making, and one Prime Minister Hun Sen himself seems to allude to as being driven by the US.

Of course, protesters in the streets are only one element of any potential colour revolution. Armed elements are the other. These elements are usually prepared and deployed covertly, acting as snipers to escalate street protests into increasingly violent confrontations with government security forces until finally, these armed elements can pose as “armed resistance” fighting against government violence they themselves provoked.

For Southeast Asia whose economic rise is rooted in relative regional stability, Cambodia’s political crisis transforming into such a “colour revolution” would jeopardise peace and prosperity for both itself and its neighbours. It would also greatly complicate the developing row between Beijing and Washington, which has so far been neutralised by nations like Cambodia who have refused to side with Washington and drag Asia into a costly conflict with China. Many suspect this is one of the primary driving factors behind the West’s support of opposition figures like Rainsy and various attempts to put protesters in the streets.

However, as has been seen elsewhere around the world, if the opposition can be thoroughly exposed in both means and motivation, and violent elements quickly identified and neutralised before such a “revolution” begins, the destructive destabilisation Prime Minister Hun Sen referred to in recent comments, which consumed the Middle East, can be avoided in Southeast Asia and in Cambodia in particular.

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 “Colour Revolution” Haunts Cambodia

US Targeted Killing Rules Conflate Legality and Politics

August 17th, 2016 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

In January 2013, President Barack Obama promised to make the rules for the United States’ targeted killing program “more transparent to the American people and the world” because “in our democracy, no one should just take my word for it that we’re doing things the right way.”

Three and a half years later, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the ACLU and resulting court order finally forced the administration to make public the Presidential Policy Guidance regarding the program. But much of it is redacted, or blacked out. That is the opposite of transparent.

The 18-page Presidential Policy Guidance document purports to outline procedures for the use of lethal force in locations outside “areas of active hostilities.” In other words, it does not cover Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It does cover Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya (although now that the Obama administration is officially bombing Libya, it might now include that country as an “area of active hostilities”).

2016.13.8 Cohn orig

A protester holds a sign in front of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2014, to oppose an exhibition glorifying the use of unmanned military aircraft known as “drones.” (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian / Flickr)

Several layers of bureaucracy are required to approve the targeting of individuals. Although the document gives lip service to the law, it skirts the legal requirements for the use of force. It appears to elevate political and policy considerations above the law.

Presidential Policy Guidance and Legal Requirements

The document states that “international legal principles, including respect for a state’s sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on ability of the United States to act unilaterally.” That means the United States must comply with the UN Charter, which allows the use of military force only in self-defense after an armed attack by another country, and with approval by the Security Council.

But none of the countries where people are targeted, including Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, has attacked the United States or another UN member nation. Under international law, the 9/11 attacks constituted a crime against humanity, not an armed attack by another state.

The Presidential Policy Guidance would sanction targeting a person who poses a “continuing, imminent threat,” not just to “U.S. persons,” but also to “another country’s persons.” A 2011 Department of Justice (DOJ) white paper, leaked in 2013, said that a US citizen can be killed even when there is no “clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” This makes a mockery of the “imminence” requirement. The administration presumably sets an even lower bar for non-citizens.

There must also be “near certainty that an identified HVT [high-value terrorist] or other lawful terrorist target” is present before using lethal force against him. Yet the administration engages in “signature strikes” that don’t necessarily target individuals but rather target all males of military age present in an area of suspicious activity. And the Presidential Policy Guidance does not define “high-value terrorist.”

In addition, there must be “near certainty that non-combatants [civilians] will not be injured or killed.” Given the large number of civilian casualties from drone strikes and other targeted killings, the administration does not appear to be complying with this requirement either.

The Presidential Policy Guidance says “the United States prioritizes, as a matter of policy, the capture of terrorist suspects as a preferred option over lethal action” because capture offers the “best opportunity for meaningful intelligence… and disruption of terrorist threats.” Thus, there must be “an assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation.” The document does not define “feasible.”

It also specifies, “In no event will additional detainees be brought to the detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.” Since the Obama administration rarely sends people to US courts for terrorism trials, its default action is apparently killing rather than capture.

According to the Presidential Policy Guidance, there must also be assessments that “the relevant governmental authorities… cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons” and “no other reasonable alternatives to lethal action exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.” The document contains no definition of “threat to U.S. persons.” And how would there be a threat if US persons were not present in countries where they do not belong?

The list of minimum criteria to be considered in the “individual profile” of each suspect is totally redacted, leaving us to guess at the requirements for targeting an individual.

In order to target a “U.S. person,” the operation must be “consistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States.” But the targeting of all persons, whether “U.S. persons” or not, must comply with US law. Ratified treaties constitute part of US law under the Supremacy of the Constitution. They include the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The covenant, which protects the right to life, mandates due process — or fair trial — before taking a life. The rules set forth in the Presidential Policy Guidance do not comply with due process.

Moreover, the Presidential Policy Guidance allows for waivers from the rules in “extraordinary circumstances” or “extraordinary cases,” both left undefined. Nothing in the UN Charter permits a waiver of the use of force provisions in “extraordinary” cases or circumstances.

Authorization for the Use of Military Force

The administration released four additional documents along with the Presidential Policy Guidance. One of them, titled Report on Process for Determining Targets of Lethal or Capture Operations, states that “the principal domestic legal basis for [Department of Defense] direct action operations is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.”

The 2001 Authorization allows the president to use “force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

But that authorization is limited to those connected with the 9/11 attacks. Islamic State did not even exist on 9/11. And when George W. Bush asked for authority “to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States,” Congress refused. Thus, the 2001 Authorization does not accord with Obama’s targeted killings.

More Transparency or Politics as Usual?

It wasn’t until July 2016 that the administration publicized its numbers of civilian deaths from targeted killings “outside areas of active hostilities.” The administration’s figures were vastly lower than those documented by the leading non-governmental organizations. And besides omitting figures for Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, they left out the locations, dates, numbers and names of civilians and combatants that would enable us to accurately assess their claims.

The Presidential Policy Guidance states that officials considering an operational plan proposed by the US military or the CIA shall evaluate “the broader regional and international political interests,” the “policy objectives,” and the counter-terrorism strategy of the United States. Political and policy considerations apparently trump compliance with the law.

Under the guise of increased transparency, the administration has revealed partial information about its targeted killing program. But much remains classified. And what we do know does not comply with the law.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild and on the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @marjoriecohn.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Targeted Killing Rules Conflate Legality and Politics

Video: Russian Military Build up in and around Syria

August 17th, 2016 by South Front

On August 15, commenting various proposals of “humanitarian ceasefires” in Aleppo city, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that short-term truces had helped terrorists resupply munition and get reinforcements. “The main results of those pauses was an insignificant relief in the humanitarian situation, while terrorists added 7,000 people to their ranks, not to mention huge amounts of arms and munitions they received,” he said.

The very same day the Russian Navy started drills in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Caspian Sea that will last until August 20 and involve six vessels armed with the sophisticated “Kalibr” cruise missiles. Last week, the Russian Ministry of Defense requested has sent requests to the flight of cruise missiles on the territory of Iraq and Iran. Last year through these countries flying missiles launched at terrorist positions in Syria.

The Russian aircraft-carrying missile cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, with about 15 Su-33 and MiG-29K/KUB fighter aircraft and more than a dozen of Ka-52K, Ka-27 military helicopters and Ka-31 airborne early warning & control rotorcraft aboard, is also expected to be deployed to the eastern Mediterranean to conduct air strikes on terrorist targets in Syria and ensure the air defense of the Russian military grouping located at the Khmeimim Air Base.

In its turn, the Khmeimim Air Base will be transformed into a full-fledged military base and a permanent contingent of the Russian Aerospace Forces will be deployed there. The existing air base structure and defenses will be expanded, creating opportunities for deployment of additional military helicopters and aircraft. New radio equipment, including air traffic control systems, will be also deployed to the base. Additional sites for the Pantsir-S2 surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon systems will be arranged on the base and a special area, assigned for loading, unloading and servicing of the Antonov An-124 transport jets will be created.

All these developments came amid the start of Russia’s usage of the Iranian Hamedan Air Base to conduct air strikes on targets in Syria. On August 16, Russian Tu-22M conducted first air strikes from the base. On August 15, AlMasdarNews released photos of Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bombers allegedly deployed there. The Hamadan Air Base was already used by the Russian military on November 23, 2015 when a Russian Su-34 “Fullback” landed and remained there for at least two days, according to AllSource analysts. An Il-76 transport aircraft arrived on November 24 and they both departed the base.

The deployment of Russian Tu-22M bombers in Iran is a significant step that will change the military politic situation in Syria and in the whole Middle East, pushing Moscow and Tehran to deeper cooperation over crucial issues in the region. On the other hand, Iran is a state that evaluates its independence above anything else. This is why a long-term deployment of Russian aircraft in the Islamic republic will be in question.

In any case, the military political developments show that Moscow is not going to soften its anti-terrorist stance and will continue to increase military pressure on the Western-backed illegal armed formations in Syria.

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russian Military Build up in and around Syria

The Birth of Agro-Resistance in Palestine

August 17th, 2016 by Jonathan Cook

For decades Israel has been driving Palestinian farmers off their land by imposing restrictions on agriculture. But one company, Canaan Fair Trade, has found an innovative way to resist

www.ameu.org/Current-Issue/Current-Issue/2016-Volume-49/Agro-Resistance.aspx – August 2016

For a PDF version, click here

Across the West Bank, olive trees can be found that have survived from the time of Herod, a legacy of the Romans’ cultivation of the tree throughout its empire, including in Palestine. The trees are easily identified. In Arabic, they are known as “amoud” – or column – distinguished by the enormous girth of their gnarled, twisting trunks. They have a place in most Palestinians’ affections. Hatim Kanaaneh, the Galilee physician and writer, observes that the amoud symbolises “stability, permanence and stature – physically, figuratively and economically”.

The olive tree roots Palestinians in a tradition and identity as deeply as the trees themselves are rooted in the soil. When the first heavy winter rains wash away the dust of the summer drought from the leaves and fruit in late October or early November, extended families hurry out to their fields to harvest the crop. Erecting ladders, they reach into the grey-green foliage to pick the abundant fruit. The distinctive, gentle patter of an olive rainfall can be heard on the tarpaulins below.

For a few weeks, the hills and valleys of Palestine are filled with families, young and old, sharing a simple life outdoors together under the trees – one their great-grandparents would have recognised. With an estimated 10 million trees growing in the valleys and on the hillsides of the West Bank, it is huge undertaking that much of the society mobilises for. It is a moment of familial and communal solidarity, of a celebratory communion with nature and its bounty, and of connection to a heritage barely changed over millennia.

During the olive harvest, every Palestinian embodies “sumud”, or steadfastness – a value whose significance has intensified under decades of belligerent Israeli occupation. The harvest represents the ultimate kind of resistance by Palestinians: an individual refusal to be moved, and a collective refusal to be ethnically cleansed.

The olive continues to play a central part in the Palestinian economy too. More than 100,000 families are believed to depend on the trees as their primary source of income. The rural economy – much of it dedicated to olive oil production – is worth $500 million, and accounts for about 13 per cent of the Palestinians’ GDP.

Israel has done much to try to weaken Palestinians’ connection to the olive tree, understanding that the “amoud” is the Palestinians’ defence against Israeli guns, bulldozers, settlers and ill-will. Since the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza began in 1967, Israel has waged a relentless assault on Palestine’s olive groves and the way of life they support.

Swaths of fertile land have been confiscated and reclassified as “state land”, later transformed into army firing ranges and national parks or incorporated into the illegal Jewish colonies spreading across Palestinian territory. Water resources have been stolen too, starving farmers of the primary fuel needed to ensure a good yield. The army has uprooted or cut down hundreds of thousands of olive trees on security pretexts, claiming they can conceal stone-throwers or snipers. Settlers regularly inflict additional damage, burning down trees and attacking families when they try to reach their fields for the annual harvest. And over the past decade, hundreds of thousands more trees have been lost, cut off behind Israel’s concrete and steel “separation barrier” from the families that tended them for generations.

Some threats to the Palestinian farming community are more insidious, though no less menacing. In the lands around the city of Jenin, in the northern West Bank, a new kind of long-term war against the ancient olive groves is playing out. Ostensibly a struggle between two competing economic models of the future, the battle is, in truth, one for Palestine’s soul.

The first model derives from the Oslo accords of the mid-1990s, and represents the culmination of a decades-old story of Palestinian dispossession. It offers unskilled work to an impoverished population in a series of industrial zones, removing them from their agricultural traditions and their lands, and snaring them into economic subordination to Israel. It ensures the Palestinians a future of both food and employment insecurity. This colonial vision of economic dependence and exploitation – it goes without saying – is being promoted by Israel and the international community.

The second model, of self-sufficiency and dignity, is being championed by a cooperative farming project known as Canaan Fair Trade. It has grown rapidly, and now assists some 2,000 small-hold farmers in the West Bank. It offers them help to grow organic crops that can withstand water shortages and other privations of a hostile occupation; buys their products at above-market prices to ensure farming families can make a sustainable living; and finds local and foreign markets for the produce, as a way to bypass Israeli control and to raise prices. Staff have nick-named their approach “agro-resistance”.

Canaan is receiving little more than ambivalent support from the compromised Palestinian national leadership.

Nasser Abufarha, who founded Canaan little more than a decade ago, after he returned from the United States, eloquently expresses what is at stake. “The olive is the number one crop for Palestinians. This is the land of the olive, and it has always been central to our diet,” he tells me in Canaan’s offices in the village of Burqin, just outside Jenin. “The olive is important for our food security and our cultural representation. It is a symbol of our identity. The trees connect us to our land, to a place, to a history and to past generations. They also link us to future generations, to our children and grandchildren. They represent the continuity of a nation and our rootedness in the land.”

Economic re-engineering

To understand why these two models of the Palestinians’ future are fighting it out, we need to examine the ways Israel re-engineered the Palestinian economy after it began aggressively settling the Palestinian territories post-1967. It wanted to destroy farming as a way of life for Palestinians and thereby weaken their passionate attachment to their ancestral lands.

At that time, much of the Palestinian population outside the main cities depended on agriculture, working their small holdings as peasant farmers. But they soon found themselves targeted by the hundreds of new military orders issued by the occupation authorities. As well as seizing large tracts of territory, Israel severely limited the types of crops Palestinians could grow to prevent them from competing with Israeli farmers. It further rigged the market by taxing Palestinian exports while allowing Israeli produce to enter the territories tax-free.

Figures today show how economically dependent on Israel the Palestinians have become: more than 60 per cent of imports into the Palestinian territories come from Israel, while Palestinian businesses export 80 per cent of their products to Israel.

As the settlements began expanding through the 1970s and 1980s, Palestinian farmers found themselves in an ever-more desperate struggle to hold on to their lands. The settlers, unlike the Palestinians, had the might of a modern state – and one of the most powerful armies in the world – on their side. The settlers not only came to dominate more and more of the best agricultural land, but often controlled the water sources too. It was a battle few Palestinians could afford to fight for long.

 

A Palestinian harvesting olives in the West Bank [copyright: Jonathan Cook]

The olive harvest in the West Bank. [copyright: Jonathan Cook]

By the time the Palestinian leadership under Yasser Arafat returned from exile to the occupied territories under the terms of the Oslo Accords in 1994, many Palestinians – especially the younger generations – had abandoned farming. At least 160,000 Palestinians had become directly dependent on the Israeli economy, working as a casual labourers. Hundreds of thousands more Palestinians – a sizeable chunk of the occupied population – relied on these workers’ incomes.

Some members of this newly urbanised Palestinian proletariat worked in the settlements, building homes or working in greenhouses on land that had been stolen after 1967 from families much like their own. Other Palestinians travelled into Israel each day to work in the most unskilled and dangerous parts of the Israeli economy. They cleaned dishes in Tel Aviv’s restaurants, worked on construction sites in Israel’s burgeoning towns and cities, or picked tomatoes and cucumbers in Israel’s agricultural communities, the kibbutzim, that had grown fat and lazy on the abundance of land stolen from the Palestinian refugees after 1948.

Israel had engineered a system of industrialised humiliation.

The success of the settlement project in transforming the Palestinian population from farmers into unskilled labourers can be gauged by considering the dramatic demographic changes effected in the most fertile parts of the West Bank over the past five decades of occupation.

Under Oslo, 62 per cent of the West Bank came to be designated as Area C – chiefly the rural areas where Palestinians had practised agriculture and which were being actively targeted by Israel for settlement. Area C was to be under full Israeli control for the duration of the intended five-year period of the Oslo process, though, of course, Israel is still in charge more than two decades later. Meanwhile, the Palestinian towns and cities and their environs, identified as Areas A and B, fell under varying levels of control by the newly created Palestinian Authority, a Palestinian government-in-waiting.

Although there are no precise data, in the late 1960s, shortly after the occupation began, there were many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in what would later come to be classified as Area C. Without the disruption of the settlements, natural Palestinian growth might have ensured that as many as a million lived in Area C today. But, according to the best estimates, only around 100,000 Palestinians have remained there. The rest, we can assume, were gradually forced off their land in a process of what the Israeli general Moshe Dayan termed “creeping annexation”. The loss of agricultural land and the increasing difficulty of farming sustainably were the main drivers of these momentous demographic changes.

The employment paradox

The Oslo accords were designed to modify – though certainly not end – this form of economic exploitation. Premised on the idea of a minimalist Palestinian state, Oslo sought physical separation between Israel and the occupied Palestinians. The slogan of the time was: “Us here; them there.” Separation was never mutually observed, however. During the official five-year Oslo period of the late 1990s, Israeli Jews poured into the occupied territories, particularly the West Bank, in larger numbers than ever. As a consequence, the settlements grew at an unprecedented rate. Israel left it intentionally unclear where the separation line would eventually be drawn. But for Palestinians, separation was soon being strictly enforced – and on the worst possible terms.

From the early 1990s Israel introduced a system of permits and checkpoints that would eventually harden into the steel and concrete barriers that surround Gaza, eat into significant parts of the West Bank, and carve up East Jerusalem. The goal was to keep out as many Palestinians as possible. Those hit hardest were the Palestinians who had formerly laboured in Israel. From the 1990s onwards, they began being replaced by a new cheap labour force: immigrant workers from China, Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines.

In parallel, employment opportunities in the occupied territories grew scarcer. As diplomats celebrated the imminent arrival of a Palestinian state, Israel aggressively stepped up its takeover of land on the far side of the “separation barrier”, in the West Bank. In a memorable analogy provided by American-Palestinian lawyer Michael Tarazi, as the two sides negotiated over their respective share of the pizza, Israel set about devouring it. The settlements’ control rapidly expanded in Area C. Increasingly, Palestinians farmers were forced to abandon their land and head towards the Palestinian towns and cities in the territorial archipelago of Areas A and B.

Even those Palestinians who managed to stay in agriculture found themselves in ever harsher economic straits. Even though the West Bank sits atop aquifers that supply most of the water to Palestinians and Israelis, Israel decides how much goes to the Palestinians. Typically Palestinian households receive less than a fifth of the supply to Jewish settlers living close by. With water for domestic use hard to come by, many Palestinians in Area C collect winter rainwater in large underground storage tanks. Those who need additional water for agriculture usually have to truck it in privately at great expense.

The result was that many farmers in the West Bank concentrated on a single crop, the olive, because mature trees can survive through a dry summer, even if the yield and size of the fruit are greatly reduced. But the laws of supply and demand cannot be ignored. If most Palestinians farm olives, there is an abundant oversupply. With most farmers unable to export their produce outside the limited markets of Israel and the occupied territories, prices fell. Olive farmers found it increasingly hard to make ends meet, adding to the pressure on them to abandon agriculture – and with it, their ancestral lands.

The architects of the Oslo process recognised these dual pressures, and the potential danger they posed to Oslo’s success. Israel had transformed Palestinian farmers into a causal labour force by stealing their land and resources. These Palestinians had joined what economists now call the “precariat”, a proletariat class living in economically precarious conditions. They had been made entirely dependent on unskilled work in the Israeli economy. But if Israel then denied them access to Israel and jobs as part of a new policy of “separation”, it risked stoking a dangerous social and political instability. A new kind of employment option was needed – and so was born the idea of free-trade industrial zones.

This solution had been actively promoted for decades by Shimon Peres, the Israeli politician most closely identified with the Oslo process. He argued for creating a series of such zones between Israel and the occupied territories. Here they would serve as a bridge between separated territory: readily accessible both to the Israeli companies searching for a cheap labour force and to the Palestinian labourers who would have few other economic choices but to work on Israel’s terms in these industrial areas. The zones would serve a dual function: both to continue the transformation of Palestinians farmers into an industrialised labour force; and to ensure they were kept economically pacified.

Industrialised labourers

The creation of industrial zones became official Palestinian policy in 1998. As part of the Oslo process, the PA signed a law to create a series of zones that would take as their template an industrial park called Erez, established by Israel just outside the Gaza Strip in the 1970s. Nearly 200 businesses, from carpentry workshops and garages to textile factories, had been attracted to Erez by the cheap labour and low taxes. The inherently degrading treatment of Palestinians at Erez only intensified after Israel erected an electronic fence around Gaza in the early 1990s, in line with its new “separation” philosophy. Many thousands of workers from the tiny coastal enclave had to queue daily, in the hours before dawn, in what looked like cattle grids to be collected and transported to Erez’s high-security businesses.

The breakdown of Oslo and the eruption in 2000 of a renewed Palestinian uprising – the second intifada – posed problems both to Erez and to the plan for more industrial zones. In 2004, as the intifada intensified, Erez was closed and hopes for further industrial zones went into abeyance.

Paradoxically, the plan has been revived under the premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu, an outspoken opponent of Oslo. Rejecting the idea of a Palestinian state, Netanyahu focused instead on what he called “economic peace”, especially for those Palestinians who had abandoned agriculture and moved into the more urban Areas A and B. Netanyahu adopted a hybrid model designed to pacify “good” urbanised Palestinians through economic incentives. His approach has incorporated three main economic elements:

  • Limited numbers of Palestinian workers, currently a few tens of thousands, receive permits to enter Israel. Most are middle-aged men with families and considered a low security risk.
  • Restrictions on Israelis entering Palestinian Areas A and B have been lifted for the country’s 1.7 million-strong Palestinian minority. They are now encouraged to shop and buy services in the Palestinian cities as a way to inject extra money into the urban economy of the territories.
  • The plan for free-trade industrial zones is again being advanced, with the backing of third parties such as the United States, Germany, Japan, France and Turkey.

This summer the largest such zone was due to open outside Jenin, financed by Turkey and Germany. Palestinian officials say it will create 5,000 jobs in Jenin and 15,000 in the surrounding area. The Israeli media trumpeted Jenin’s industrial zone as a triple victory for Israel: thawing ties with Turkey, bolstering security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, and benefiting Israeli businesses. The benefits for Jenin and the surrounding population are far less clear.

The Jenin industrial zone is part of a wider economic programme called the Valley of Peace Initiative that has begun developing zones near the Palestinian urban populations of Jericho, Bethlehem, Gaza, Hebron and Tulkarm. Like similar industrial parks in neighbouring Jordan and Egypt, all will be eligible to export goods to the United States under a free-trade agreement between Israel and the US, without tariff or quota restrictions. In Jenin’s case, businesses will be able to access Haifa’s port in Israel without paying Israeli taxes and customs. To qualify, however, exported products must have significant Israeli input.

Notably, the Jenin zone required the mass expropriation of agricultural lands in the villages of Burqin and Jalameh, over the opposition of many farmers. George Kurzum, a development and environmental expert at the Ma’an Development Center in Ramallah, has observed that the location of these industrial zones on fertile land in Area C is a criminal waste of Palestinian agricultural resources.

Further, most of the industrial zones’ factories will be owned by foreign and Israeli companies, making it even less likely that these lands in Area C – temporarily assigned to Israel by Oslo – will ever be handed over to Palestinian control. In fact, says Iyad Riahi, a researcher on economic and social policies at Al-Marsad in Ramallah, the zones are likely to encroach on the sovereignty of the neighbouring Palestinian cities too. “The [Jenin zone], for instance, will be under the supervision and control of the Turkish developing company, which will contract with a private security company to preserve stability in the city, regardless of the Palestinian security or police.”

Figures suggest that by 2025 the zones are ultimately intended to employ anywhere between 200,000 and 500,000 Palestinians. But crucially as Palestinian businessman Sam Bahour observes: “Because the zones will depend on Israeli cooperation to function, and because they will exist within an Israeli-designed economic system that ensures Palestinian dependence on Israel, they cannot form the basis of a sovereign economy. Relying on them will perpetuate the status quo of dependency.” He, like others, expects them to “host ‘dirty’ businesses – those that are pollution-prone and sweatshop-oriented.” Palestinians fear that Israel will be able to shut down the zones at a whim to punish Palestinian misbehaviour – whether strikes against poor pay and conditions, or protests against the occupation.

Bahour concludes: “Donor funds and Palestinian efforts would be better placed if such investments targeted Palestine’s natural economic comparative advantages, for example, tourism and agriculture.”

The birth of agro-resistance

Opposition to the industrial zones is not likely to come from the Palestinian leadership. With the PA accepting the neo-colonial parameters of Oslo, it has as much incentive as Israel to keep ordinary Palestinians economically pacified. It has therefore fallen to Palestinian grassroots movements to identify a model other than neoliberal economic exploitation. The most significant is Canaan Fair Trade, its offices based in the village of Burqin, just a few kilometres outside Jenin and close to the new industrial zone. It is the brainchild of Nasser Abufarha, whose family has farmed this corner of Palestine for generations.

The inspiration for Canaan came shortly after the turn of the millennium while Abufarha was conducting research for his doctorate in anthropology at the University of Wisconsin. Travelling back and forth between the US and the West Bank, he was struck by the premium prices American students were prepared to pay on campus to enjoy coffee that was organic and fair trade. It offered a clue as to how Palestine’s olive farmers, battling to stay on their lands and maintain the olive as a viable economic crop, might change their fortunes.

Sitting in his office above Canaan’s modern processing plant, Abufarha, aged 52, relates a business success story that would be impressive in ordinary circumstances – but is astonishing given the conditions of belligerent occupation Palestinians live under. In little more than a decade, Canaan has become the largest fair-trade business in the Middle East, as well as the largest fair-trade supplier of olive oil in the world. It is now selling some 800 tonnes of oil each year, with a turnover of $9 million last year. It has clients, based in 18 countries, including Ben and Jerry’s, LUSH cosmetics, Dr Bronner’s soaps, the US retail chain Whole Foods and the UK supermarket Sainsbury’s. In recent years Canaan has rapidly expanded into other fair-trade products, including almonds, freekeh, zaatar, olive pastes and sun-dried tomatoes.

Abufarha makes the challenges the company faced sound far easier than they must have appeared in 2004, when he returned to the West Bank and abandoned a promising academic career. He had just completed his doctorate on the “human bomb” – the suicide bombers that had grabbed most attention during the early stages of the second intifada as they extinguished their own lives and those of others by detonating their explosives in Israeli buses and restaurants. Jenin and the surrounding villages had earnt a reputation for dispatching many of these suicide bombers.

Abufarha’s inspiration came not from the nihilistic human bombs he had studied but the life-affirming traditions of “sumud”, or steadfastness, he had experienced as a child during the annual olive harvest in his parents’ villages of Burqin and Jalameh, both just outside Jenin. Palestinian farmers, he concluded, could defy Israel’s efforts to evict them from their land by taking a central place in the burgeoning global movement supporting fair trade and organic agriculture. They could open a new kind of front of non-violent resistance to the occupation.

“When I came back from the US, it was clear that the farmers I had grown up around were economically in trouble. Prices had plummeted to a level that made olive farming unsustainable.” The figures told the story: olive trees accounted for 40 per cent of Palestinian land under cultivation, but supplied only 18 per cent of the earnings from agricultural production. “If we lost this crop, it would be both a cultural disaster and leave our communities in a situation of extreme food insecurity. Remember, most Palestinian children start the day with a breakfast of bread and olive oil before going to school. If the trees were lost, ultimately so too would most of these villages.”

In response, Abufarha founded the Palestine Fair Trade Association in 2004, quickly followed by Canaan Fair Trade, which served as a production, marketing and export company. He began with only a handful of farmers, selling abroad to Dr Bronner’s soaps. In 2008 he used the profits, his savings, as well as donor money from the Palestinian Authority and the Dutch government, to install a state-of-the-art Swedish press, and a storage and bottling plant at Burqin.

The problems facing Abufarha and the farmers were manifold. They could not change the environment created by the occupation or Israel’s deep-seated hostility to Palestinian farming. After all, Zionism’s early ideologues had been inspired by the idea that land could be “redeemed” only through Jewish colonisation and Hebrew labour. “Making the desert bloom”, in the movement’s favourite slogan, was integral to its redemptive strategy.

Instead, Abufarha identified the Palestinian farmers’ biggest weakness as a potential strength. Agriculture in the West Bank was still largely a family affair. Each family had a small plot of land on which its members depended economically. That made them extremely vulnerable to Israel’s abusive military and economic policies. It meant, for example, that Israeli buyers of olive oil could play Palestinian farmers off against each other, waiting them out after the late autumn’s harvest until the price fell so low it barely justified cultivating the land. But if the farmers organised and worked together, Abufarha concluded, they had enormous power. They could become an army of amoud – as steadfast as their olive trees.

An evangelist for his revolutionary idea, Abufarha began travelling across the Jenin area, trying to persuade the farmers that they would be best served by establishing co-operatives and pooling their resources. It was no accident that the model took hold quickly in the Jenin region. The settlements had never managed to get real purchase in the northern West Bank, and the few that did were dismantled by Ariel Sharon during his Gaza disengagement in 2005. The farmers in the Jenin area were in a relatively privileged position, suffering the lowest levels of interference from the occupation authorities.

Today Canaan has 52 villages set up as separate cooperatives, representing some 2,000 farmers. The model’s efficiency can be gauged by recent production figures: Canaan’s farmers constitute about 2 per cent of those farming olives in Palestine, but produce some 7 per cent of the total crop.

Canaan Fair Trade's range of products keeps on growing

Canaan Fair Trade’s range of products keeps on growing.

The second stage was simpler. The family-run farms already largely respected fair trade practices, and they used techniques that often accorded closely with organic cultivation. The PFTA developed the first internationally recognised fair-trade standard for olive oil, and started certifying farmers who qualified.

“Before the cooperatives, the [olive oil] buyers had been able to drive down prices and, of course, with it standards,” says Abufarha. “There was no government around to protect the farmers by insisting on minimum standards or price tariffs. So our job was to create the standards, adding quality and value, and thereby empower the farmers. We ensured that there was a business model that rewarded the farmers’ traditional production methods. It recognised not only the economic value of their labour but also its deeper cultural value. It understood that the Palestinian farmer is the care-keeper of a treasure we inherited, of traditions that date back thousands of years.”

Canaan Fair Trade provided the final piece of the jigsaw. It offered a central address to which the village cooperatives could sell their olive oil, guaranteed a premium price. The famers would not be selling individually to Israeli buyers but collectively to Canaan. Foreign markets eager for fair trade and organic products meant Canaan could pay the farmers a much higher price for the oil. And Canaan would act as the international face of the farmers’ cooperative movement, developing and investing in new markets.

The wider changes on the marketing of Palestinian olive oil have been dramatic. Where once only 15 per cent of oil sold abroad was labelled as extra-virgin grade, today 80 per cent is.

“There is a market abroad that identifies with the Palestinians and their struggle but it is not the biggest one for us,” he says. “Increasingly, people understand that there has to be a proper relationship between people and land, one that nurtures rather than ruins our planet. We have to be guardians, protecting and supporting the treasure we have here in Palestine by encouraging biodiversity.”

The name, Canaan Fair Trade, he explains, refers to the name of this region more than 3,000 years ago, one that precedes Israel’s political claims based on a presumed Biblical birthright. In fact, the Canaanite culture is frequently referenced in the Bible. “We have inherited here a paradise that dates back to the time of Canaan,” he says. “We must not live exclusively in reaction to Israel and the occupation. We must draw on our own traditions and cultivate our own strengths. They are to be found in our natural environment, which is why the settlements are so intrusive and corrosive – they disrupt our sense of home.”

A convert to fair trade

A decade ago, Khader Khader was one of the youngest farmers to help establish a Canaan Fair Trade village cooperative – and one of the most sceptical. Then aged 25, he had little faith in the future of Palestinian farming. His village of Nisf Jubeil, with a mixed Muslim and Christian population of 400, nestles on the lower slopes of one of the many dome-shaped hills characteristic of this area of the central West Bank. Concealed behind the hills south of the village lies the city of Nablus. Nisf Jubeil is relatively fortunate. Close to Nablus and located in Area B, it rarely sees incursions by Israeli soldiers and there are no settlers nearby. Nonetheless, for Khader the relentless decline in the price of olive oil had made agriculture – following in his father’s footsteps – an unappealing prospect. “Like many of the young people here, I was looking for a way to leave the village,” he says.

Khader never finished school. Instead he went in search of work in Israel and what he thought would be a better life. His dreams quickly ran up against reality. For several years he laboured in an Israeli plastics factory, working more than 12 hours a day. Unable to make the journey daily, he often slept for days on end away from home, in the manufacturing plant. In 2001, after the attacks on the World Trade Centre, Israel withdrew his entry permit and he was left without work.

 

The entrance to Nisf Jubeil [copyright: Jonathan Cook]

The entrance to Nisf Jubeil. [copyright: Jonathan Cook]

A few years later, when Abufarha came to Nisf Jubeil to speak to the local inhabitants, only six of the village’s 40 farmers turned out. Khader tagged along with his father out of curiosity. He thought the man from Canaan Fair Trade was selling snake oil – and told him so. “It just didn’t sound plausible,” he told me as we sat in the courtyard of his farm, enjoying the small, sweet orange fruit from his loquat trees.

At the time, a litre of olive oil sold for 8 shekels [$2.20]. “It was hardly worth the effort of harvesting it,” said Khader. Abufarha was offering them at least double – 16 or 17 shekels [$4.50]. “It was too good to be true. We could respect the environment and grow organic produce, increase our yields, and get paid a price over the market rate. To be honest, I thought Nasser was going to steal from us. He would take our oil and we would never see a shekel for it.”

Nonetheless, Khader had few other options. He could no longer work in Israel, and selling on the open market would leave him without a profit. So he started attending Canaan’s workshops, learning the steps needed to increase his yields and win organic and fair trade certification. If oil is to be certified extra-virgin, Canaan insists on the farmers picking the fruit by hand, not rakes, and transporting the crop carefully to avoid bruising. Nisf Jubeil’s farmers also learnt that, if they pooled their harvest, they would have enough olives to press each day, ensuring that the oil was fresh and less acidic.

“It was like a dream coming true. I could work my land, live with my wife and children, and make a better living than I had ever done before,” says Khader. He and the six other farmers were soon prospering, and others from Nisf Jubeil came to ask about joining the cooperative. Prices have continued to rise, with Khader now receiving as much as 25 shekels [$6.50] a liter. He used the early profits to buy a tractor and found extra work helping other farmers with spreading manure and ploughing fields. “My village is also my family. We help each other,” he says.

It is not just Canaan’s farmers benefiting. The price of olive oil more generally has risen, improving the incomes of Palestinian farmers outside the fair-trade system. “Because we sell abroad, we reduce the local supply, and that raises the price of the oil here,” notes Khader.

Connections overseas

Canaan hosts an annual festival called a jaru’a, where hundreds of farmers meet in its grounds in Burqin to celebrate the end of the olive harvest. To accompany the tasting of the first pressed oil, taboun bread is baked in ovens fired with olive twigs and crushed pits. Together, the families enjoy traditional dishes, like maftoul, the Palestinian version of couscous, or a smoked cracked green wheat called freekeh. A Palestinian folk dance, dubka, rouses everyone to enthusiastic clapping in time to the beat.

Khader’s first jaru’a at Canaan was a revelatory moment. He had the chance to meet members of the other village cooperatives, as well as buyers from abroad and international solidarity activists who attend to offer their support. “For the first time I made all sorts of connections outside my village and realised I was part of a much larger struggle to change our situation here. It was very empowering.”

After one jaru’a, he was invited to Germany to give a series of talks on fair-trade and organic farming. He smiles as he remembers. Early on, he was introduced to someone in a business suit who looked vaguely familiar. “Suddenly, I realised he was a volunteer who had stayed with us the previous year picking the olives. He was very hard working, lived with us, and didn’t mind getting dirty. I was delighted to see him. ‘You’re looking very smart,’ I said. ‘What are you doing here?’ He told me he was the boss of the company that imports Canaan products into Germany! It made me realise that there really are people out there who want to help us.”

Khader points out that the cooperatives have benefits beyond simply improving the farmers’ economic situation. Nearly 2 per cent of the price consumers pay for a bottle of olive oil is a social premium that is invested in improving the infrastructure of villages in the Canaan cooperatives, as a way to strengthen the community. In Nisf Jubeil, they have recently completed the renovation of a kindergarten and built a community centre. “It is something truly life-changing for us,” says Khader, sounding as evangelical about the project as Abufarha. “It gives us a sense of security about our community and our future here.”

 

Khader Khader is experimenting with trees like apricot and plum [copyright: Jonathan Cook]

Khader Khader is experimenting with trees like apricot and plum. [copyright: Jonathan Cook]

Canaan has helped Nisf Jubeil’s farmers in other ways. The workshops encouraged Khader to use the garden next to his parents’ farm buildings to plant fruit trees like loquat and citrus that were once an integral part of the dietary self-sufficiency of these isolated rural communities. Canaan offers micro-loans to farmers’ families to set up small businesses and has established women’s cooperatives helping more than 200 women. Khader’s wife, Ransees, now specialises in growing the local herb zaatar and raising goats. The farmers’ children are eligible for scholarships to further their education. After 10 years’ service, Canaan’s administrative staff can apply for an interest-free loan of up to $100,000 to start their own social innovation projects. And a Trees for Life program hands out 10,000 saplings a year, either to new farmers or to those needing to replace trees the Israeli army or settlers have destroyed.

Unlike many other villages, Nisf Jubeil has not suffered in the past from severe water shortages. On Khader’s family farm is a spring that supplies the village’s domestic and basic agricultural needs. But he says in the past few years the flow of water has reduced, in what he assumes to be a sign that Israel has started extracting water close by. “If we had more water, we would grow other, more water-intensive crops like cucumbers, tomatoes and courgettes. We just don’t have enough water to do it.”

With Khader’s profits, he has bought his own plot of land further down in the valley, separate from his father’s land. He is already experimenting with other fruiting trees, including plum and apricot. “My goal is to revive the many fruit trees that used to flourish in this valley but which are much harder to grow now, with water restrictions and climate change. I want to see how the trees do down here in the valley compared to the others up on the hill.”

Reviving an ancient grain

Abufarha is not resting on his laurels. When we meet, he has just returned from a discussion with farmers in Iksal, a Palestinian village just over the other side of the Green Line, in Israel, close to Nazareth. He has been exploring ways to get farmers there involved in his latest scheme: to create a sustainable market for fair-trade Palestinian almonds. To encourage farmers to plant the new crop, he installed at Burqin an almond production facility last year, the first of its kind in the Middle East. It is another major undertaking, but one he is confident will succeed.

With Canaan’s help, Nisf Jubeil’s cooperative has planted 30,000 almond trees in recent years. Abufarha says the almond is an ideal crop for this part of Palestine. The climate is right. The tree can survive without irrigation after the first year. And it begins bearing fruit three years after planting, meaning the farmers do not have to wait long to receive an income. “We have a found a variety that is large and flat and has an excellent taste,” he says. “It thrives as a rain-fed tree, which is important when the farmers are denied access to water by Israel.”

Canaan already has 4,000 dunams [400 hectares] of almond trees under cultivation, with more than 200 farmers in the Jenin area participating. He hopes to add another 1,000 dunams by the end of this year. Canaan harvested 100 tonnes last year and he expects to nearly triple that figure this. In another five years, he expects to be producing as much as 2,000 tonnes annually of raw almonds. “We select a crop only if it is likely to be beneficial for the farmers and the local community. We are thinking about its social impact.”

Another international market he hopes to create is for freekeh, a wheat grain that has been cultivated in the Middle East for millennia. Once freekeh was a staple of the local diet, though in recent decades it has been largely replaced by rice.

 

Nasser Abufarha, of Canaan Fair Trade, is adding new crops like the ancient grain, freekeh, [Courtesy: warscapes.com]

Nasser Abufarha, of Canaan Fair Trade, is adding new crops like the ancient grain, freekeh. [copyright: warscapes.com]

Each spring, three weeks before the wheat harvest is complete, an unusual production ritual can be seen at freekeh farms in the West Bank. Men in flameproof clothing fire propane blow-torches to burn the immature husks, which are then removed – freekeh derives from the Arabic word for “rub” – to reveal the roasted green wheat kernels inside. Freekeh has a delicate nutty, smoked flavor.

For decades Syria was famed for its freekeh, but with a civil war raging there production levels have fallen. Now West Bank farmers have stepped in to fill the void. Ten years ago, Abufarha says, only a few farms in the West Bank produced freekeh. Last year 60 tonnes were harvested, and he expects that figure to keep on growing. Canaan believes that a strong market can be developed in Europe and the US for the ancient, healthful grain, especially if it is produced in accordance with fair-trade and organic principles. Freekeh is high in protein and fiber, while low in calories.

Abufarha emphasises that it is vital to market the strengths of Palestinian agriculture. “We have hundreds of thousands of people who know how to farm the land. We have a wonderful soil and climate. The airflow is good. We have tasty varieties.” Such self-declared pride reflects a new confidence in Palestine’s global image. Once the small amounts of Palestinian olive oil exported abroad were labelled “From the Holy Land” or even as from Israel. Canaan, on the other hand, proudly declares on its labels: “From Palestine, the land of milk and honey”.

All of this, however, must take place in the context of a hostile occupation. Dozens of military orders are designed to make life as difficult as possible for farmers in Area C, where most of them reside. One of the biggest obstacles is Israel’s severe restrictions on irrigation. Installing water pipes is illegal without Israeli permission, but the military authorities rarely issue such permits. “The farmers ignore these orders because we have no choice if we are to survive here,” says Abufarha.

But in turn, that has created other problems. “There is no oversight of irrigation, which means lawlessness reigns. The danger is that every farmer extracts as much water as he can to improve his own yields. And that means that, if a farmer can dig deeper for water, he will destroy the prospects of his neighbors by over-extracting and drying up their wells. And because covert digging is expensive and has to be done secretly, it becomes impossible to organise water extraction as an organised national infrastructure project or to recruit investors. Illicit well-digging means an unstable supply and a wasteful use of a key resource. And ultimately that limits our agricultural potential.”

He notes that Palestine’s current annual olive crop is worth $200 million. “If we had access to water, it would be worth $500 million. And that is just from one crop. Palestinians were once famous for their citrus industry, but that is long gone. As are other crops like apricots and plums. And the reason is our lack of access to water. We can’t solve that problem without first ending the occupation, so we have to mitigate its effects by developing other crops, like almonds, that can survive as rain-fed rather than irrigation-fed.”

The other major difficulty – in an export-driven business – are Israeli-imposed movement restrictions, creating delays and dramatically adding to Canaan’s expenses. Trucks are loaded in Jenin and then driven a short distance to an Israeli checkpoint, where they are inspected and then off-loaded to trucks bearing Israeli number plates. The trucks then drive to the port of Haifa where they are subjected to another security inspection. Only then are they loaded on to ships for export. Shipments can be delayed at any stage, with products in constant danger of being damaged.

The extra burdens and costs make it hard for Canaan’s farmers to compete with either the global agri-businesses or with the artisanal farmers of France and Italy.

Innovation and tradition

Abufarha would like to see his model being adapted to other areas of the Palestinian economy to pull it out of its extreme dependence on international aid. “Too many civil society organisations in Palestine are chasing after donor money, worrying about what the donors want rather than developing their own ideas rooted in the reality here.”

His latest innovation is the establishment of CORE, the Canaan Organic Research and Extension center, which supports farmers developing new ideas and matches them with companies that can market their produce. CORE has already created a model farm in the village of Zababdeh, south-east of Jenin, to train farmers and agricultural students in organic crop production, sheep-rearing and bee-farming. Another project converts the engines in the farmers’ tractors to run on used felafel oil.

Canaan is not alone, either in developing Palestinian cooperatives or in selling premium products abroad – though it has produced the most successful model to date. The small Christian village of Taybeh, outside Ramallah, for example, has developed a beer – manufactured according to German purity standards – that it exports to Japan, Germany and the UK. And cooperatives in areas like Jericho harvest and export dates, overseen by the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee.

Another project very much in sympathy with Canaan’s aims is the recent creation of a Palestinian “seed bank” to preserve Palestine’s ancient agricultural heritage. Called the Palestine Heirloom Seed Library, it is designed to identify crop varieties that are suited to local Palestinian conditions but threatened by the aggressive selling of hybrid varieties by agri-businesses. It seeks to educate Palestinian farmers about practices that have been almost forgotten.

The project is being led by Vivien Sansour, who served for many years as Canaan’s product relations manager. She hopes to revive once-famous varieties of cucumber, marrow and watermelon that have disappeared. She told the Guardian newspaper in April: “There is a kind of huge watermelon, known as jadu’i, that was grown in the northern West Bank. Before 1948, it was exported around the region. It was famous in places like Syria. It has almost disappeared. One of the most exciting discoveries so far is that we found some seeds for it. They are seven years old, so we need to see if they are viable.”

Like Abufarha, she sees in traditional agricultural practices the key to holding on to an identity and way of life. “I realised that what was also under threat was something deeper – the connection to a sense of cultural identity. The songs women would sing in the fields. Phrases, even the words we use. So it is about preserving the local biodiversity, but it is also about the importance to Palestinian culture of traditional agricultural methods.”

Canaan is still innovating, even with olive oil. Its new lines include Raw Extra-Virgin Olive Oil, which is unprocessed and unfiltered, and Crush Fusions, infused with a range of herbs like zaatar, basil, chilli, or garlic and lemon.

Diane Adkin, who was until recently Canaan’s longtime agent in the US and is active in the Land of Canaan Foundation, which supports Canaan’s work with Palestinian farmers, says that 10 years ago the company had little more than a website in the US and a handful of activists buying its oil online. “Since then our loyal customer base from our website and through our interfaith partners has grown tremendously. They are a big part of our success.”

She adds: “We always knew to really help Palestine we had to expand beyond the ‘choir’ and get into stores. We attended our first trade shows in 2008 and now we are in natural food stores and fair-trade stores across the country, as well as Whole Foods. The last few years Canaan Fair Trade has sold to even more retailers through national distributors. That means we are on the shelf in stores that are buying because we are superb olive oil – and this so pleases our farmers. … The social trend nowadays is towards foodies who look for simple artisan foods produced organically, sustainably and fairly.”

Abufarha is equally hopeful about the future, and Palestine’s place in it. “People are tired of the modern world’s garbage, its wars, its damage to the environment and its threats to the social fabric. These things are all connected. People want better governments and policies. Through food, Palestinians can gain a voice in this global movement for change. Palestine is part of these efforts to forge new kinds of solidarity across borders. We have the chance to let people see Palestinians in a different light, and see that we are not ‘the foreigner’. We can be a partner in a wider struggle for global justice.”

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Birth of Agro-Resistance in Palestine

African American community demands end to racial profiling and law-enforcement killings

Once again another city in the United States is hit by racial unrest prompted by the brutal and lethal force of the police. This time Milwaukee, Wisconsin erupted on August 13 after the cop killing of Sylville Smith, a 23-year-old African American.

Immediately the police and local authorities sought to criminalize Smith in his death saying he had fled from the cops and later pointed a gun towards an officer. A high-profile Milwaukee County Sheriff said Smith had an extensive criminal record and therefore attempting to justify the police actions.

The sheriff later went on to talk about the purported “pathologies” in existence within the African American community adding further insult to injury and death. The family of Smith rejected these allegations about his criminal record. The Smith family said that Sylville had a license to carry a firearm because he had been a victim of crime himself.

Unrest erupted in the aftermath of the killing where youth targeted police vehicles and private property. Gun shots were heard when police and firefighters attempted to respond to a blaze at a BP gas station on the north side of the city. The rebellion continued for a second night on August 14 while Republican Governor Scott Walker placed the National Guard on alert.

The mother of Sylville, Mildred Haynes, said of the incident “My son is gone due to the police killing my son. I am lost.”

In an article published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel it notes that “Haynes said her son does not have a felony record but acknowledged he had been arrested. Online court records show Smith has one prior conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor. The rest of the arrests did not result in charges or were dismissed.” (Aug. 15)

This same article also reports “Smith’s younger sister, Sherelle Smith, 22, said her brother carried a gun because he was scared and needed to protect himself, not because he was violent. He didn’t even like to argue, she said. He was known around the neighborhood for his style and thing about him, she said.”

On Sunday evening, August 14, reports indicated that an 18-year-old man was wounded in the Sherman Park area, where the shooting of Smith took place and the center of the unrest. Police claimed they utilized an armored vehicle to rush the victim to the hospital. The 18-year-old was said to have been shot in the neck at 11 p.m. and was still receiving treatment for his injuries.

Additional details about the extent of the rebellion revealed by news reports said that seven Milwaukee-area police officers suffered injuries during the disturbances on Sunday (Aug. 14) and into Monday.  One of these officers was taken to hospital for treatment.

At least two of the officers were said to have had glass fragments in their eyes after concrete was thrown through the front of a patrol vehicle according to Edward A. Flynn, the Milwaukee police chief. Flynn claimed as well that three Milwaukee county sheriff’s deputies were struck by bricks and rocks tossed at them during confrontations with people demonstrating against the killing of Smith.

Altogether reports say that six buildings were burned on the evening of August 14. Those businesses set alight included the BP gas station at Sherman and Burleigh, Jet Beauty at 35th and Fond du Lac, BMO Harris Bank at 36th and Fond du Lac, O’Reilly Auto Parts at Fond du Lac and Burleigh, MJM Liquor at Fond du Lac and North and a second liquor store near 21st and Hopkins.

Milwaukee: A Case Study in African American and Working Class Oppression

The city of Milwaukee has been described as both the worse place in the U.S. for African Americans to live as well as the most segregated municipal area in America. These conclusions were reached based upon first-hand accounts of African Americans themselves along with statistical data which reveal astronomical rates of unemployment, poverty and residential divisions.

These conditions have been exacerbated over the last five years due to the austerity and anti-people legislative initiatives launched by the state house in Madison and backed up by Republican right-wing Governor Walker. In 2011, the state of Wisconsin became a focus in the struggle against monumental cutbacks in benefits for public employees. An occupation of the State Capitol in Madison lasted for several weeks involving tens of thousands of workers, youth and community people.

Nonetheless, the draconian legislation was signed into law only to be followed by additional bills that instituted right-to-work. Wisconsin, which had a legacy of social democratic policies emanating from the populist movements of the early 20th century, was now leading the way in the opposite direction with attacks on public employee unions and funding for education.

In a March 9, 2015 commentary by Miles Brown, a student at the University of Wisconsin studying political science and history, he cited “Business Insider compiled data that shows how Milwaukee is divided along color lines. Blacks live on the north and west side, whites live on the east side and far north. Hispanics live on the south side, and Asians live in a pocket on the north central side of town.” (progressive.org)

This same essay continues saying “According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s data for 2013, the gap between Black and white students in eighth-grade math was a giant 30.8 percentage points. When it comes time for high school graduation, Black kids are almost one-third less likely to make it to the stage. The Annie E. Casey Foundation reports that children of color face immense barriers to success in key categories of well-being. Black people are less likely to be in school or working, have two-parent homes, delay childbearing, or gain at least an associate’s degree. Thirty percent of Wisconsin’s white children live in households below 200 percent of the poverty level, compared with about two-thirds of Wisconsin’s Latino and American Indian kids. For African American kids, the rate is 80 percent.”

From Mass Demonstrations and Urban Rebellions to Independent Organization

Since 2013, there has been an upsurge in mass demonstrations and rebellions against racism and police brutality. The level of political consciousness among youth and workers within the African American community has risen exponentially. This growing intolerance towards law-enforcement impunity and the failure of the prosecutorial agencies and courts to hold these errant officers accountable has been reflected in a series of rebellions led by African American youth from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland and now Milwaukee.

Although this is an election year in the U.S. neither of the two ruling class parties have addressed the burgeoning crises in the cities and suburbs across the country. The administration of President Barack Obama has not undertaken any policies that specifically address the oppression of African Americans.

Obama is supporting the candidacy of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state. There is very little enthusiasm for the Clinton candidacy among African Americans even in light of the openly extreme right-wing propaganda of Republican candidate Donald Trump. Consequently, the African American question will not be a focus of the campaign unless the people themselves escalate the level of mass mobilization and unrest on a national level.

Between Trump’s racist xenophobia and Clinton’s patronizing approach to the African American and oppressed communities, there is no alternative outside of independent political organization and actions. This is the major challenge facing the African American people to take the lead in developing tactics and strategies that extend beyond spontaneous demonstrations and urban rebellions.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Milwaukee Explodes During Summer of Demonstrations Targeting Police Brutality

It is time to assess the legacy that President Obama bequeaths us. Two timely books contribute to this; namely, The End of the Republic and the Delusion of Empire by James Petras, (Clarity, 2016) and Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Jeremy Hammond, (Worldview, 2016) with Hammond focusing on the “special relationship”, Petras, more broadly on US imperialism. Both are pessimistic about the possibility of any change without an active, articulate citizens’ movement that has staying power, thereby creating the conditions for a political renewal.

Hammond’s work is detailed, documenting the period starting with Obama’s 2008 victory and Israel’s immediate response: its invasion of Gaza in December. Throwing down the gauntlet, which president-elect Obama refused to pick up.

There were more such attacks to come, involving seizing aid flotillas headed for Gaza, culminating in a repeat of that full scale invasion of Gaza in 2014, both killing thousands of innocents. Hammond’s main point is to separate Obama’s weak, nice words — “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines” — with his inability to move towards fulfilling them.

The gap between word and deed is really an abyss here. Either Obama is helpless, cowardly or cynical. Perhaps he will tell us someday — when it’s too late to make any difference.

Hammond realized he had to document this ‘legacy’ and he does it well. He writes with a quiet passion which makes the ugly reality more bearable. The Palestinians arguably have it worse than any other victim of imperialism, being under daily, direct imperial attack, not just the “soft power” behind-the-scene manipulation of local politicians, etc. “We are all Palestinians now” is increasingly the credo of anyone with a heart.

‘A word means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less’*

2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the 1967 war of conquest that Israel launched (Menachen Begin agrees). Hammond is a ‘two-stater’: advocating some kind of binational state or independent states based on 1967 borders. He reveals the confusion that the hurried, chaotic UN negotiations in 1947 leading to Resolution 181 produced. The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended an Arab state be set up on 44% of Palestine, expropriating land to redistribute to Jews.

No Arab delegate or nation was included in UNSCOP, but even so, UNSCOP realized “the partition proposal was a violation of the rights of the Arabs, as well as contrary to the very Charter under which they were acting.” But they recommended the partition anyway. Sounds fishy.

The UN General Assembly rejected it and supported the Arab Higher Committee’s call for the recognition of a Palestinian state “which would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law, and would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.”

But, like UNSCOP, the General Assembly backed down, adopting Resolution 181–now it sounds like a conspiracy–and the Zionists began deporting and killing Arabs, seizing land, leading up to the end of the British Mandate on May 14, 1948.

The result was called the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, and recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. Hammond argues that the resolution “neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to declare the state of Israel.”

Sounds to me like it did–after arm-twisting by the US. That’s certainly what Humpty Dumpty would say. The Arabs clearly agree with Hammond. That’s why they dared take on the state-of-the-art Israelis, armed by the US, British and Soviets, facing a rag-tag, pathetic multi-national force using WWI discards and donkeys.

So it looks like Resolution 181 was indeed a “partition plan”, which Israel was able to massage into its ‘facts on the ground’, leaving behind a “frozen war”. Until 1967, when Israel seized what was left and began to settle it with new Jewish immigrants.

What about ‘infamy’ and ‘uniqueness’?

Hammond documents Israeli policy over the past decade. Richard Falk, a committed anti-Zionist, wrote the foreword. Hammond tries to ward off cries of “anti-Semitism” with an introduction by a more neutral Gene Epstein, asserting his “pride in being Jewish and American, and identification with many Israelis”.

Falk makes Hammond’s central point that “the US has been an essential collaborator in a grotesque double deception: falsely pretending to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state, while doing everything within its power to ensure that Israel has the time it needs to make such an outcome a practical impossibility.”

Epstein denounces Israel’s crimes as “heinous’, but “that hardly makes them unique … nor does it make the history of Israel very different from that of many other nations, including the US.” Okay, the US committed a holocaust against the native people. That is something that Zionists like to throw in your face to change the subject of their crimes.

But Epstein nonetheless turns around and concludes that the Palestine-Israel conflict is “the most infamous of the world’s longstanding international conflicts.” So which is it? Doesn’t “most infamous” mean “unique”?

He agrees with Hammond that “‘Jewish state’ [is] a racially-tinged statement that seems to codify the second-class status of Israel’s non-Jewish citizens”. More proof of infamy and uniqueness.

Hammond doesn’t take the one-state proposal seriously, what Falk describes in the foreword as, “a unilaterally imposed Israeli one-state solution combined with either Palestinian Bantustanization or third-class citizenship in an enlarged Israel.” Falk reluctantly endorses some version of it “based on the equality of the Palestinian and Jewish peoples” to resolve “overlapping claims of self-determination”.

There is no ‘happy ending’ here. Both one and two state solutions are ugly with the massive wall enclosing the West Bank, and the unending siege of Gaza. The Palestinians will accept any reasonable solution based on pre-1967 borders. They would “recognize Israel by whatever name it applies to itself in accordance with international law,”** based on the 1967 borders and an end of the Israeli occupation. What more could a sensible enemy ask for?

But the words coming from Washington and Tel Aviv having nothing to do with reality. (Correction: Israel is more honest at times. Netanyahu flatly vowed during the 2015 election campaign that there would be no two-state solution if he was re-elected.)

We can’t rely on the Obamas and Netanyahus, or even the well-meaning others. The only hope is to mobilize world opinion to pressure governments to bring Israel to account. It has been done before to other “unique” states: South Africa and Nazi Germany, though it was not an easy road. The world came to recognize the racist danger that both those nations posed to their people and fought it to end the scourge of racism back then.

Resistance is not “terrorism”, just as the partisans who blew up bridges and exploded bombs in occupied Europe in WWII were not terrorists. It is the invaders who are by definition the terrorists. Despite their legitimate right to resist, the Palestinians have disavowed further violent resistance, in line with the South African anti-apartheid struggle, though there will always be hot-heads as long as the crimes continue.

What role do Jews with a conscience have? Again, not an easy road. Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon are the two most prominent Israelis who realized that having “Jew” on their Israeli passports was racist, wrong, and refuse to call themselves by this now sullied signifier. For this courageous few, it is the real ‘obstacle to peace’.

Rather than “identification with many Israelis”, as Epstein claims, why not “identification with many Palestinians”, as Atzmon and Shlomo do?

Zionist Power Configuration

petrasPetras doesn’t write much about Israel, per se; his speciality is the Israeli-Jewish-Zionist–call it what you like–lobby, and he has written extensively on this in the past. His most recent books are more focused on the US.

This one is more a collection of essays, using the election year as a hook for reviewing Obama’s term, timed for election reading. Sharp brush strokes for anyone still needing convincing that both Trump and Clinton are bad news. In polls, 60% of both Republican and Democratic voters say they are disgusted with both candidates, and The End of the Republic will only add to their nausea.

Petras exposes again “the Zionist Power Configuration … embedded in the US state apparatus.” US policy has been to destroy Islamic and Arab-nationalist structures and institutions of power”, parroting “Israeli-settler policy of ‘erasure’”. Together, they have made the Middle East ever-more unstable.

Petras knows his South American politics well. That part to me was the most revealing: even when left wing governments are elected, despite US meddling, they are hounded, the right wing forces, ably assisted by Washington, biding their time and then pouncing. Sometimes with the military upfront, sometimes just using Washington’s minions.

The latest casualties are the Kirchner-Fernandez government in Argentina (2015), the Lula-Rousseff government in Brazil (2014–16), and the Chavez-Maduro government in Venezuela (2015).

Hillary’s War and Peace

Petras is most of all worried that Hillary will launch WWIII, citing her promotion of all US military adventures since the days of ‘Billary’ from 1992–2000. Then it was Iraq and Yugoslavia, where US pressure following the collapse of the Soviet Union pushed the various ethnicities to form independent pseudo nations under US-EU tutelage.

Her love of killing continued as a senator under Bush, with her loud support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and went into high gear as secretary of state under Obama, with overthrows of progressives in Honduras, Paraguay, Libya and (still in progress) Syria. Her support for the putsch in Ukraine in 2014, and loud cries to overthrow Iran and prevent negotiations for normal relations continue. The Clinton Foundation’s biggest donors 1999–2014 were Ukrainian oligarchs.

It Takes a Village (1996) is a particularly jarring instance of what bugs Hammond — the gap between word and deed among politicians, although even motherly Hillary can’t hide her warmongering record. Perhaps, if by some miracle, the less imperialist Trump wins, she can retire and write a sequel It Takes Bombing a Village.

Trump and other rebels

How could Trump be worse? He’s actually much better on almost all international issues. ‘Withdraw from foreign bases’, ‘Make the allies cough up’, ‘Friends with Russia’, ‘Jobs for Americans’… But his gaffes are catching up with him. He taunts Obama (and Clinton) as “the founder of ISIS”, which is spot-on, but serves no purpose without context. We can’t expect Trump to launch into a lecture on the evils of imperialist scheming, so he is merely scoffed at as loony. Alas, we must suffer Clinton II, just as we suffered Reagan.

I have a bit more hope than Petras, who paints a gloomy picture of both the imperial reality and the frustrated grassroots opposition to the madness we must put up with. He sees the most likely scenario as US collapse and the remnants of the working class movement taking greater prominence to provide a way forward. Recall that the Roman Empire took 300–400 years to collapse. I’m not holding my breath.

And where is the working class struggle anymore? Between China and technology, our working class is shrinking, and as it becomes more middle class, is losing its militancy, increasingly supporting, at best, grassroots environmental campaigns. We are ‘citizens’ now, more than class conscious. The ruling class is still very much alive and well, and ‘citizens’ with ambition and few scruples struggle to join it.

Hammond’s earnest attempt to educate in the hope that some of it will sink in, and to reach out, makes me think of the great flowering of the peace movement in the late 1950s, when the Cold War began to thaw, empowering Americans to question the nuclear war scares. The best of US society joined in, from Linus Pauling to Stanley Kubrick.

No one can outdo Dr Strangelove, and that committed mass movement effectively dismantled the nuclear button. I never really believed anyone would destroy the earth, and I still don’t think Clinton would do that. She will continue to carry out the empire’s will, just as Obama did before her. Bush-lite (no Obama-lite, given Clinton’s track record).

Where’s the Legacy?

The 1960s legacy is that mass movements are important, in fact, the most important form of democracy. Campaigns to save whales and seals captured the public’s imagination and achieved bans on hunting. Today, environment apocalypse is pushing people to organize on many fronts, from fuels to song birds and frogs. “We will overcome,” will never go out of style.

Which brings us back to the Great Dissimulator’s legacy. Both Hammond and Petras are bitterly disappointed with his lack of legacy, his willingness to follow the ‘yellow brick’ road. Yet he promised so much.

He has left an environmental imprint, refusing the oil pipeline and lobbying to commit the US to a world agenda on climate change. He has also had a profound social impact, promoting greater black dignity, pushing through a national medical insurance plan, pardoning hundreds of prisoners, more than any other president. He is a conflicted person, and we will all look back on his checkered term nostalgically, at least as long as the Clinton dynasty continues to do what the empire requires.

Americans can go to Cuba now, and maybe even Iran, or at least trade with them. There is no room for all this in Petras’s book as it is a polemic. There is none in Hammond’s as his deals solely with US-Israeli relations, where Obama’s distaste for Netanyahu is kept out of sight, and Israeli settlement activity and mass killing of Palestinians goes on on schedule.

However, Obama did defy the Zionist Power Configuration in his final year in office. He not only did not invade Iran, but negotiated an end to sanctions. He is breaking away now on Syria. Perhaps freeing Pollard in 2015 (done very quietly, thanks to the discretion of the mainstream media) was to massage bruised Zionist egos.

Obama’s inability to do very much to dent the stranglehold the banks and the super rich have on us, is sad, if not frightening. Neoliberalism is deeply entrenched and is proving resilient despite its obvious disastrous effect on the 99%. Obama will go down in history as a tragic figure, the last hope that wilted on the vine. Is it to be Petras’s apocalypse or Hammond’s hopeful enlightenment?

Eric Walberg is a journalist who worked in Uzbekistan and is now writing for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo. He is the author of  From Postmodernism to Postsecularism and Postmodern Imperialism. His most recent book is Islamic Resistance to ImperialismRead other articles by Eric, or visit Eric’s website.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Prospects of US Imperialism: Will it be Petras’ Apocalypse or Hammond’s Hopeful Enlightenment?

Israeli institutions and organizations are reportedly awaiting the regime’s go-ahead for the construction of a so-called “third temple” in place of al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in the Israeli-occupied Jerusalem al-Quds.

The Palestinian-run International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) independent news organization carried the report on Monday, citing Israeli television channels.

Israeli Zionists claim they have the right to build a third temple in line with “scriptural prophecies” to follow the tradition of the first and second ones built in ancient times.

A view of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem al-Quds’s Old City on August 14, 2016

http://www.presstv.us/Detail/2016/08/16/480238/Israel-Third-Temple-Aqsa-Dome-of-Rock-Temple-Mount

Back in June, Israeli Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Uri Ariel said “the first temple was destroyed in 586 BCE, the second temple in 70 CE,” adding that he wished to see a third one built.

The Israeli media, IMEMC reported, alleged that the Israeli bodies favoring the construction of the temple had received “wide political and popular support.”

These organizations explained that they are ready to bring the equipment and tools to start building the temple in the place of both the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque,” it added, citing Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency

They further stated that the total time needed to accomplish the building is three years, according to their plans.

The al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are situated in Haram al-Sharif or Temple Mount in Jerusalem al-Quds, which was occupied by Israel in 1967.

The mosque is the third holiest site in Islam after Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina. The site is also holy to Christians and Jews.

In August 2015, Israel imposed restrictions on the entry of Palestinian worshipers into the compound, which is under the administration of Jordan, sparking a fresh wave of tensions with Palestinians. Over 230 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis in recent months.

According to the agreement signed between the Tel Aviv regime and the Jordanian government after Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem al-Quds in 1967, visits to the compound by Israelis are permitted, but non-Muslim worship is prohibited.

 

 Israeli forces stand guard as a group of Israelis leave after visiting the al-Aqsa Mosque compound on August 14, 2016, in Jerusalem al-Qud’s Old City. ©AFP

On Sunday, fresh clashes erupted near the mosque after over 300 Israeli settlers entered the compound and performed rituals inside in violation of the agreement.

Muslims consider the trespass into the al-Aqsa Mosque yard as part of an Israeli Judaization campaign that targets the holy city of al-Quds and a provocation.

Jordan strongly denounced Israel for attacking Palestinian worshipers at the site and allowing “Zionist extremists” to enter the compound.

Over the past decades, Tel Aviv has been trying to change the demographic makeup of Jerusalem al-Quds by constructing illegal settlements, destroying historical sites and expelling the local Palestinian population.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israelis Scheming to Replace Aqsa Mosque with ‘Third Temple’: Report

Russia’s long-range Tu-22M3 bombers delivered their first airstrikes on terrorist targets in Syria operating from an Iranian airbase. Moscow and Tehran cooperation in Syria is “strategic,” confirmed the head of Iran’s National Security Council.

The long range bombers with full bomb payload took off from Hamadan Airfield to attack Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front facilities in Aleppo, Deir-ez-Zor and Idlib provinces.

The strikes have eliminated five major terrorist weapons depots and training compounds in the area as well as three command posts and a significant number of terrorists, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The long-range bombers were covered by Su-30sm and Su-35s jet fighters which took off from Russia’s Khmeimim Airbase in Syria.

Russia notified the US-led coalition about its operation involving the use of an Iranian airfield and passing through the coalition-controlled territory in time, which was “enough” to maintain safety in the airspace over Iraq and Syria, the US Defense Ministry spokesman said during a briefing following the Russian air strikes.


A Tupolev Tu-22 M3 strategic bomber of the Russian Aerospace Force © Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation

A Tupolev Tu-22 M3 strategic bomber of the Russian Aerospace Force © Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation / Sputnik

The number of military aircraft deployed at Hamadan Airbase has not been disclosed.

The Al-Masdar website was the first to publish photos of at least three Tu-22M3 bombers and Il-76 military transport jets in Iran.

Moscow and Tehran signed a military agreement allowing Russian aircraft to station at Hamadan Airport in western Iran. Tehran has agreed to share its military facilities and capacities with Moscow, confirming dedication to strategic cooperation in fighting against terrorism in Syria, Iran’s Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani told Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) in an exclusive interview on Tuesday. The core benefit for the Russian Air Force is a drastic reduction in flying time to terrorist targets in Syria. Russian long-range bombers delivered airstrikes in Syria from a base in Mozdok, Russia, and had to cover a distance of about 2,000km to get to Syrian airspace. Now that distance is reduced to some 700km, so time-sensitive airstrikes can be delivered immediately and more cheaply.

 

As for Khmeimim Airbase in Syria’s Latakia province, used by Russian task force since September 2015 to deliver airstrikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) – its airstrip is not suitable for the heavy Tu-22M3. But that is subject to change, as Damascus granted Moscow permission to station a permanent military airbase at Khmeimim, and the Russian Air Force is preparing to thoroughly refurbish and modernize the airfield, so it will be able to accommodate all types of military aircraft in the near future.

 

Military cooperation between Iran and Russia is developing rapidly.

In January this year, Moscow and Tehran signed military cooperation deal that implies wider collaboration in personnel training and counter-terrorism activities. Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and his Iranian counterpart Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan signed the document during a visit by Russia’s top brass to the Iranian capital.

On Monday, Russian media reported that Moscow has once again requested Iran and Iraq to allow cruise missiles to fly through their respective airspace to deliver strikes on terrorist targets in Syria.

Also on Monday, Russia launched tactical naval drills in the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas. The warships taking part in the exercise are to engage in live artillery and missile fire “under simulated battlefield conditions.” The Mediterranean force includes two fast attack guided missile craft, both armed with Kalibr-NK cruise missile complexes equipped with eight missiles each.

Simultaneously, a group of four attack guided missile craft (each armed with 8 Kalibr-NK cruise missiles) has been deployed in the southwestern part of the Caspian Sea, also to perform live artillery and missile strikes.

On October 7, 2015, four Russian Navy warships in the Caspian Sea fired a total of 26 missiles at positions in Syria held by IS, Shoigu announced. The missiles traveled some 1,500km, changing route several times, and eliminating 11 targets.

On November 20, warships of Russia’s Caspian Fleet launched 18 cruise missiles at seven targets in the Syrian provinces of Raqqa, Idlib and Aleppo. All of the targets were said to have been successfully hit

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russian Air Force Operating against ISIS Operating Out of an Iranian Base

SEC and Wall Street Stock Frauds: Can This Dog Hunt?

August 17th, 2016 by Pam Martens

A dubious search engine company trading over-the-counter on Wall Street, with a felon as a “General Design and Marketing Strategist” who was banned from the industry for previous stock frauds, and with the craziest SEC filings and disclosure documents you’ll ever read in your lifetime, was finallyhalted from trading yesterday by the SEC – but only after reaching a market value of $35 billion.

The SEC said in its announcement of the trading halt of the company, NeuroMama, Ltd., Inc., that it had “concerns” about “the identity of the persons in control of the company’s operations and management, false statements to company shareholders and/or potential investors that the company has an application pending for listing on the NASDAQ Stock Market, and potentially manipulative transactions in the company’s stock.”

Yesterday’s SEC statement simply does not do justice to the insanity of what has been going on under its nose while it was engaging in a polite letter writing campaign with the company in a futile attempt to obtain granular operational details.

The SEC had plenty of warnings that things were amiss at NeuroMama. On September 2, 2014, Edward Schneider, a Certified Financial Analyst, reported at Seeking Alpha that NeuroMama’s General Design and Marketing Strategist (which sounds a lot like a stock promoter to Wall Street veterans) was Vladislav Steven Zubkis, who had previously been barred by the SEC from association with any broker or dealer or offering of penny stocks because of his past schemes that “generated more than $12 million in illegal proceeds.” A bizarre disclosure on NeuroMama’s web site takes the reader through a 68-page narrative of how Zubkis is now on a charitable mission for children, to the eventual disclosure that subsequent to his bar by the SEC, Zubkis went to prison for five years. Zubkis’s take on why he went to prison is far different than what prosecutors alleged at the time.

In 2005, Zubkis was arraigned on charges that he defrauded investors out of more than $1.8 million during 2003 and 2004 over a promised construction of a storage facility and purchase of an ownership interest in a Las Vegas casino, according to the San Diego Union Tribune at the time. The newspaper quoted the prosecutor in the case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sanjay Bhandari, calling Zubkis a “professional, hard-boiled con man” who moved from one bogus scheme to another.

A June 13, 2013 company filing with the SEC by NeuroMama was an equally glaring red flag. The filing used hyperbolic words like “sensational design” and “breathtaking opportunities” more characteristic of a carnival barker than a formal filing of business prospects with the SEC. In the same filing, the company said that its new search engine, the NeuroMama Content Distribution Platform, “had created the most comprehensive portal for the most discriminating investors and professionals in the financial industry, who are doing their research for themselves and for others. We have assembled the best research tools in the world in one place and are ready to make it available to everyone who is willing, ready and able to take advantage of our implementation.”

Since researchers at Wall Street On Parade are a perfect target market for such a search engine, we attempted to do some searches last evening at the NeuroMama search engineto check out its prowess into financial history.

We typed in Glass-Steagall Act. We received an answer, “Whoops, looks like something went wrong.” Since both the Democrat and Republican party platforms have just recently added restoring the Glass-Steagall Act to reform Wall Street and were all over the news for doing so, this gap in the search engine looks decidedly odd. We next tried a famous name during the era of enacting the original Glass-Steagall Act, Ferdinand Pecora. We got the same “Whoops” message. We tried some famous cases from the 2008 crash and its aftermath, like Goldman Sachs Abacus. More “Whoops” messages.

Read complete article on Wall Street on Parade

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on SEC and Wall Street Stock Frauds: Can This Dog Hunt?

As the economic and humanitarian crisis has worsened in Puerto Rico in recent months, playwright and actor Lin-Manuel Miranda, has given voice in interviews andOp-Eds to the severity of the crisis among ordinary Puerto Ricans. Miranda called the island’s debt crisis a matter of “life and death,” saying, “I have a lot of family who are struggling in Puerto Rico, that’s not an abstract issue to me.” He humanizes what the statistics – $73 billion in debt, $19,500 median household income, 11.5 percent sales tax, 64,000 people leaving per year – can not. Puerto Rico is a debt colony whose function as a political entity is to service its creditors. Ironically, Miranda achieved the celebrity he’s now using to advocate for the Puerto Rican people by glorifying and aggrandizing the most ruthless champion of creditors in American history.

Miranda has become an elite pop-culture sensation as the creator and star of the award-winning and immensely popular Broadway play Hamilton. The hip-hop musical has been as successful with critics as it has with Broadway theatergoers, dominating the Tony awards and selling out months in advance. The Harvard Business Review argues its $849 tickets are priced too low.

The show’s namesake is, of course, Revolutionary War commander, George Washington adviser, and first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Miranda focuses on the rags to riches story of Hamilton – a poor immigrant who triumphed against all odds by using his intelligence and relentless hard work to fight British oppression and guide his new country to independence and greatness. In My Shot, Miranda’s title character raps:

Hey yo, I’m just like my country
I’m young, scrappy and hungry 
And I’m not throwing away my shot! 

Miranda has praised Hamilton and the other “Founders” for their ability to translate a revolutionary vision into a nation that embodied the liberal principles it supposedly stood for.

“They did a remarkable thing in sticking the landing from revolution to government. That’s the hardest thing to do. You can go across the ocean to France, where they totally fucked it up and then got stuck in a cycle of revolution and tyranny,” Miranda told Rolling Stone.

Miranda also praised Hamilton’s financial program of creating a national debt by assuming the debts of individual states: “His thinking was, if we are entrenched in each other’s finances, we’re stuck with each other.”

The problem with Miranda’s reading of history is that he assumes the liberal notion of a united nation, devoted to the common goals of freedom and equality, was any more real 225 years ago than it is today. Post-revolutionary America was never a utopia where everyone shared financially in the spoils of independence. It was a political association organized along the lines of feudal societies and their stark divisions between creditors and debtors.

A wealthy, colonial elite had managed through a massive propaganda campaign to enlist the poor to fight to overthrow British rule. The masses slogged through years battling horrid conditions in the woods and back country to survive combat, hunger, and the elements. They were paid in worthless paper they would later sell to speculators for a fraction of its face value after returning to their farms and their families upon gaining their “freedom.”

The landholders and mercantile class had sat by idly as the “exceedingly dirty and nasty people” (in George Washington‘s words) did the real work of putting their lives on the line. The financiers then used their political connections to try to turn their investments into a profit by not only receiving interest on the paper debt but getting payment on its full value. There was no one more willing to oblige this massive transfer of wealth from common workers and peasants to the elite, ruling class than Hamilton.

The concentration of economic power into the hands of the few was the desired outcome, and the reason for Hamilton’s dedication to the federalist political system. As the political battles raged between the federalists (Hamilton, James Madison and others) and the Republicans (Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who would later kill Hamilton in a duel), Hamilton sought to consolidate power into a centralized state that could enforce the feudal relationship between those who would pay and those who would collect.

As University of Massachusetts Amherst historian Leonard Richards writes in Shay’s Rebellion,

“(Hamilton) intended to strengthen the national government at the expense of the states by diminishing the ties of state creditors to the states and binding them to the central government. If their future wealth and well-being was linked to the success of the federal government, rather than to the states, their hearts and minds would follow.” [1]

Hamilton was not trying to unite citizens together through mutual financial responsibility, as Miranda claimed. He was trying to unite the elites in dependency to the national state. To accomplish this, Hamilton “wanted to reduce – or, better yet, eliminate – the power of states. He also wanted to diminish the influence of farmers and artisans and enhance the power of landlords and merchants,” Richards writes. [2]

What became known as Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts, in which a popular “regulation” revolted against the state’s new political system which had taken power out of the hands of local councils and removed the influence of citizens distant from the financial and political center of Boston, provided a pretext for the Federalists to ram through their centralized national organization of government in order to crush potential future insurrections.

Installed as Treasury Secretary in the new federal government, Hamilton immediately implemented his policy of creating an astronomical federal debt. His solution for providing the money to actually pay these financial promises was the Whiskey Tax.

This excise tax had further aims that would help reorganize American social and economic life. William Hogeland writes in The Whiskey Rebellion that Hamilton designed the law to favor large producers over smaller ones. The tax would undercut the prices of independent distillers and self-employed farmers, driving them out of business and “into the factories of their creditors.”  Hogeland writes:

The goal was industry consolidation. Hamilton had learned from the English that commercial agriculture and large industry, when publicly chartered, given tax breaks, and financed by large loans, might turn the United States into an industrial empire to compete with England’s. The labor power dissipated on small family farms and in artisan shops could be gathered up, deployed at factories and diversified commercial farms, and boosted through efficient organization. [3]

It is not clear whether Hamilton intended to provoke an insurrection, so he could then use the military power of the newly formed government to crush it and serve as an example to others who sought to challenge its dictates. But if Hamilton did indeed want the revolt that logically followed by those impacted by the tax, he was rewarded soon thereafter.

Hamilton not only argued for a military response to the uprising, the Treasury Secretary actually took command of a militia led by George Washington to the mountains of western Pennsylvania’s Allegheny Valley. His goals were more far-reaching and strategic than merely to implement compliance and enforce the law. He sought to make an example of the organizations and protesters of the consequences of challenging federal authority. As Hogeland writes, “Hamilton was out to remove the hear of the people’s movement he’d been struggling with for more than a decade, not to prosecute individuals.” [4]

As commander of the military force that sought to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, Hogeland writes that Hamilton sanctioned large-scale plunder:

He made theft legal. The quartermaster corps, he announced would impress civilian property along the way. Now families watched helplessly as bayonet-wielding soldiers – no longer freelancing thieves but officials, authorized by the president – commandeered hard-won winter supplies of grain, meat, firewood, and blankets on behalf of the government of the United States. A steady, freezing rain meant the arrival of winter. Families whose sustenance was carted away faced grim months ahead. [5]

When Hamilton’s forces reached the rebels, they terrorized the local population with night raids that resulted in mass arrests. Prisoners were threatened with hanging and left shackled, freezing and nearly starved. In the end, only 20 prisoners were brought back to Philadelphia for trial. All except one were found innocent. The one conviction was later overturned.

Naturally, this history is absent from Miranda’s sanitized version of Hamilton. Instead, there is a feel-good, liberal version of Hamilton that fits the propaganda needs of the present-day American empire.

As Paul Street wrote recently in his CounterPunch article “Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Menage a Trois for the Neoliberal Age“, Miranda’s Broadway spectacle is a “brilliant ahistorical monument to Orwellian, fake-progressive bourgeois identity politics in service to the very predominantly Caucasian financial elite and ruling class hegemony.”

Miranda also ignores the structural social and economic forces that, since the founding of the United States, have kept the elite rich and the landless poor. Instead, he propagates the illusion that a person’s success (or lack thereof) are based on meritocracy. This is a convenient narrative for apologists of inequality.

“Adding to the ‘valorization’ of the American System,” Street writes, “Hamilton’s ‘Bootstraps Immigrant Narrative’ (McMaster) feeds Caucasian capitalism’s timeworn victim-blaming story line on why some few folks succeed in climbing up the nation’s steep racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic pyramids while most fail.”

The reality in Puerto Rico is that the population is suffering due to the same financial empire Hamilton was instrumental in designing and implementing. Like the small farmers and artisans whose livelihoods were crushed by Hamilton’s policies that transferred their wealth to the financial elites, Puerto Ricans are being forced to keep paying their ever-shrinking incomes to service the claims against them.

One can imagine Hamilton delighting in the privatization of Puerto Rico’s highways and airports, as well as the stipulation in the PROMESA bill that would allow an un-elected junta appointed by the U.S. Congress to lower the minimum wage.

While Miranda advocates for more flexibility for Puerto Rico to restructure its debt and help stabilize social life on the island, he doesn’t seem able to recognize that Puerto Rico’s problems are rooted in its political status as a colony conquered by the U.S. empire.

The fiction that Puerto Rico is anything other than a colony was put to rest recently when the Supreme Court’s Sanchez Valle ruling acknowledged Puerto Rico does not have sovereignty and the U.S. Congress holds all political authority over the island. As a colony ruled by outsiders for their own benefit, the population of Puerto Rico is powerless to change the socioeconomic system imposed on them through the political process. This is exactly how Hamilton would have wanted it.

For Miranda, who talks eloquently of the problems facing his family and the people of Puerto Rico, there should be no greater symbol of the dispossession and social destruction that appear to be reaching a breaking point in Puerto Rico than Alexander Hamilton and his feudal politics that stripped people of their livelihoods and turned them into little more than commodities whose station in life was to produce wealth for others.

Notes 

[1] Richards, Leonard L. Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. Kindle edition.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Hogeland, William. The Whiskey Rebellion: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and the Frontier Rebels Who Challenged America’s Newfound Sovereignty. Simon and Schuster , 2015. Kindle edition.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Humanitarian Crisis in Puerto Rico. The Voice of Playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda

The “Hatred of Life”: The World System which is Threatening All of Us

August 16th, 2016 by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof

I only have a few minutes to convince you of the usefulness of a new term; a term that will help us understand the dangerous times we are living in as well as the related struggles on a deeper level, that is, from the roots.

The time for lighthearted jokes and uncertainties is over. The “storm” predicted by the Zapatistas is approaching faster than expected. Our confusion needs to end.

The world system that is threatening all of us is based on a strange phenomenon I was only recently able to fully grasp, namely a “hatred of life”. (2) This hatred has indeed become a system, society, global civilization. It is embodied in all of modern civilization’s institutions: in economics as much as in politics, in science as much as in gender relations, and, especially, in modern technology. There no longer exists a place where the hatred of life has not, literally, been poured into concrete as the basic idea and sensation of our existence. The hatred of life is no fleeting emotion or a mere individual or personal experience of a certain situation or moment. It is nothing less than hostility to life itself, which – and this is my thesis – has become the main foundation, driving force, and defining criterion for a patriarchal civilization dating back almost 5000 years.

After a virtual ban of 30 years, the term “patriarchy” is now re-emerging. It was commonly used by radical feminists whose movement was destined to be destroyed with the arrival of neoliberalism.

The appearance of so-called “gender studies” was a consequence of this. The term “patriarchy” was shunned and the advocates of gender studies soon rallied behind demands for “equality” within the present system. The goal was integration and a share of power – something the Left had been propagating for a long time.

But the challenge lies in moving beyond a system driven by the hatred of life instead of (voluntarily!) turning into an ever more loyal accomplice in the massacres it is responsible for.

It has been repeatedly suggested here that the patriarchal system is a system of death. That is not entirely correct. The patriarchal system is a system of killing, that is, of artificial death: ecocide, matricide, homicide in general, and finally “omnicide”, the killing of “everything”.

Omnicide is already appearing on the horizon in the form of so-called “geoengineering”. Geoengineering has begun with the destruction of the planet itself, of Mother Earth and of her living order. Geoengineering intends to turn planet Earth into a gigantic weapon of war. (3) It uses new, “post-nuclear”, technologies of mass destruction intended to take control of the planet and its energies to employ “weather warfare” and “plasma weapons” among others.

The military geoengineering we are facing is an “art of war against the earth” that has been developed during 70 years of experimentation with the planet. It cloaks itself in “civil” and “scientific” clothing and claims to protect us from “climate change” and “global warming”. However, climate change and global warming are the results of the named experimentation and not of greenhouse gas emissions, as we are falsely led to believe in order to hide the crimes of the military. (4)

In this context, I would like to announce the publication of Planeta Tierra – la Nueva Guerra, the Spanish edition of Dr. Rosalie Bertell’s book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War, which will be released by La casa del mago, based in Guadalajara. (5)

We always knew that the military was no institution expressing a love of life. But until recently we didn’t know that our civilian institutions were poisoned by the same perverse, illogical, and, in the words of Ivan Illich, “counterproductive” hatred of life.

How can you hate life when you are a part of it? How can you hate yourself? And why?

It is this scandalous secret that needs to be revealed. It is self-evident that the hatred of life cannot be acknowledged or openly named, supported, or propagated. It is never mentioned. Practically no one would want to partake in a project driven by a hatred of life. The love of life is still ours; it is deeply human. It is still with us from the times of non-patriarchal civilization, so-called “matriarchy”. Matriarchal civilization is based on a love of life. It is a civilization that cooperates with life, that celebrates life, and that cherishes the “good life” of communities, without the state and hierarchies, without the police and banks. (6)

The sinister motive of hating life needs to be hidden. The unspeakable crimes that all patriarchies have committed against life itself, against children, women, and all human beings, against the earth, animals, and plants must not be revealed. The hatred of life is the reason and the rational justification for the violence against it; a violence that intends to prevent any rebellion or uprising of those not believing in the system it protects; a system that many would see as a grave assault on their dignity if they only recognized it.

We are told that this violence is necessary for development, progress, and a better life for all of us. It is usually only understood and recognized by those who are directly affected by it. Even then, the promise of a better life is supposed to be a consolation, although any chance for a better life has, in fact, been sacrificed!

Why do we so seldom recognize how flawed this logic is? Why do we so seldom recognize the blatant contradiction of sacrificing life in order to improve it?

The reason is patriarchy’s utopian project. This was already laid out in ancient texts, during the times of the early patriarchies. The project’s purpose is to turn the natural order upside down and to establish an unnatural, and anti-natural, order instead. (7)

The origins of this can be found in the wars of conquest against the world’s matriarchal civilizations. Establishing control over those conquered required a system able to administer control: the state. It began to control life itself: humans, nature, and matriarchal culture. (8) The system based on a hatred of life was developed in order to prevent any challenge to patriarchal rule. It culminated in the desire to replace the natural order with an artificial one to dispose of the “problem of life” once and for all. All dependency on nature, women, mothers, and the earth was to be overcome. A male, patriarchal system of creation was invented that had no room for nature’s cycles, webs, and motions. The Goddess was replaced by “God the Creator” and, finally, by today’s “worldly gods”, the managers of an artificial life supposedly “post-human” and “trans-human”, a life of cyborgs, robots, artificial uteri, test tubes, and global industries of reproduction. (9)

The project of replacing life with non-life could only be realized with the help of modern patriarchal-capitalist civilization and its machine technology. All of the earlier “alchemist” attempts to produce better, higher, and more divine forms of life had failed. Only modern technology allowed for the monstrous manifestation of the patriarchal project we are witnessing today. This is why I call modern patriarchy: “the Monster”!

The Monster is not only characterized by exploitation, extraction, and appropriation. It is, first and foremost, characterized by transforming its possessions into their opposites, that is, into everything we call “capital”: value, money, machines, and hierarchical structures (following Marx).

In this civilization, true democracy is impossible. We are up against a totalitarian system that does not care for its subjects, that can not (or no longer) be stopped, and that is constantly becoming faster and more efficient in its attempt to end life on this planet – while turning even this very process into a tool for further accumulation of profit and power…

Supposedly, everything that exists today derives from so-called fathers; each origin is patriarchal and no longer maternal, deriving from a mother, from Mother Earth, matri-archal. Patriarchy is a new “technological formation” that produces and transforms everything that exists violently. It will not stop before everything has been annihilated.

Capitalism is the modern form of materializing this utopian project of total transformation. When “pure” patriarchy arrives and even the tiniest matriarchal remnants have disappeared, we will all be dead.

*

I hope that the men among you who before had difficulties with the term “patriarchy” can now see that it concerns you, too. I hope that you will decide to switch sides and join nature and women. Women are (still) closer to life, since life emerges from them. They are always the first victims of the hatred of life, but they are also closer to the truth of life.

When women rise up, they rise up in the defense of life. It has always been like that. Today, women are rising up again against violence and for life, massively and all over the world. Everyone ought to follow them, embrace them, and love them for it. It is not them who are the threat, it is the Monster, the patriarchal “hydra”, an all-encompassing combination of capitalism, neoliberalism, colonialism, globalization, and militarism.

Patriarchy is a historical project that has reached its peak with capitalism. Because of its hatred of life it inevitably will collapse. It cannot replace the life it continuously destroys. Capital cannot return anything to life. The process of “patriarchization” is irreversible. It is a religion. And the patriarchs cannot stop believing in it, because they would otherwise be forced to return to matriarchy…

What a great idea that would be! What joy it would bring! We could leave the patriarchal deception behind us and revive human dignity by rejecting this monstrous system. Without our participation and cooperation it cannot be maintained.

Mother Earth or death! This is the alternative we are confronted with today. (10) From a common house to a common cause: liberating ourselves from the ludicrous hatred of life, a collective disease buried in our collective unconscious.

Life is not here to be killed; it is here to be loved and defended!

Translation from German: Gabriel Kuhn

Notes:

  1. Claudia von Werlhof: El „odio a la vida“ como característica central del patriarcado, Mex. Nov 20, 2015a
  2. _____: El secreto inefable de la civilización moderna, man. Mex. 2015b
  3. Cf. Rosalie Bertell: Planet Earth: The latest weapon of war. London 2000, Women’s Press
  4. Cf. Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde, www.pbme-online.org; Claudia von Werlhof: La destrucción de la Madre Tierra como último y máximo crimen de la civilización patriarcal, Mex. 2015c, in: DEP, no. 30, Venice, Feb 2016
  5. Rosalie Betell: Planeta Tierra – la Nueva Guerra, Guadalajara 2016, La casa del mago
  6. Heide Göttner-Abendroth: Das Matriarchat, several volumes, Stuttgart, from 1988, Kohlhammer
  7. Cf. BUMERANG – Zeitschrift für Patriarchatskritik, no. 0, 2015, www.fipaz.at
  8. Cf., for example, Doris Wolf: Was war vor den Pharaonen?, Zurich 1994, Kreuz
  9. Cf. Claudia von Werlhof: Der unerkannte Kern der Krise. Die Moderne als Er-Schöpfung der Welt, Arun 2012, Uhlstädt-Kirchhasel; BUMERANG, no. 1: Mutterschaft im Patriarchat, 2015, www.fipaz.at
  10. Claudia von Werlhof: Madre Tierra o Muerte! Reflexiones para una Teoría Crítica del Patriarcado, Oaxaca 2015d, El Rebozo
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Hatred of Life”: The World System which is Threatening All of Us

Drones in the Sky: Operating the Mechanized Kill Machine

August 16th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war. Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman), Eye in the Sky(2015)

All it takes is a boffin on the trigger, then goodnight all.  That is the gist of Horace Rumpole’s words in John Mortimer’s legal creation by that name – the ever direct barrister who finds himself acting in a court martial in Germany on behalf of a British soldier, member of the famed Seraphs.

Such is the ethics of modern affair: the lethal trigger instead of the bloody sword; the weapon fired at a safe distance against a human opponent with little if no chance to retaliate in fair play.  Gone are the days of empty headed light brigades charging foolishly yet breathtakingly against strong positions.

Mortimer’s reflection was penned some decades ago, primarily on the issue of potential nuclear extinction. The button of contemplation (watch those nuclear keys!), the bomb, the nuclear deterrent, had done away with the traditional players, who were essentially frustrated thespians uniformed for life’s great show.

From triggers to sticks, the emergence of the drone system, remote, piloted warfare, has further given cause to the soldier actor, where simulation has greater significance than what is being simulated.  What matters now is that the computer addled actor is a true killer, a veritable Xbox-trained murderer.  The soldier in that setting becomes a games operator framed by a world of piloted projections. Never mind that these simulations somehow disperse themselves into the effulgent destruction of a target, in all its carnage.

The ethical question of using such trigger-based, remote controlled weapons, is swiped away by their ever enthusiastic deployment. In many cases, targets can be eliminated with little international fuss; Security Council resolutions from the UN need not be sought; and killing can take place in a manner less than disrupting for domestic audiences.

Poor men and women in body bags in a distant country rarely make the newsworthy stage.  What prevails are utilitarian notions of about using Hellfire missiles against populations where the insidious idea of “collateral damage” is employed with impunity seem to prevail with ubiquity.

A series of ponderings often follow in such war, if it can even pass as that.  To kill in order to avert the incalculable (fictional casualties arising from a suicide bomber in a shopping mall, for instance), thereby asserting certainty in the face of probability; to take life from remote positions on the globe, linked via an international collaborator network of mechanised slayings.

A recent exploration of such a theme is undertaken in Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky, based on a tight screenplay by Guy Hibbert.  Brought to the screens is a coldly accurate yet reflective depiction about imminent death from the air and strained moral acrobatics on the ground.

The language portrays the chilling artificiality about human life as it is reduced before a range of variables wedded to a bureaucratic rationale: a young girl Alia (Aisha Takow) with her hula hoop and selling bread baked by her mother; attempts to rationalise the action whether a strike on a building in Nairobi housing future terrorist attackers should take place.

The Al-Shabaab figures gather with weapons and their suicide vests, among them UK and US nationals. They are being witnessed by an assortment of devices, notably a robotic, metallic fly that keeps eye with its camera, all part of a UK-US-Kenyan enterprise.  While this is happening, discussions are taking place in Britain and Kenya as to whether the strike should take place, with Washington eventually prodded into an irritable response.

On seeing the prospect of what she regards as an imminent attack, Col. Katherine Powell, played by Helen Mirren, seeks an alteration of the original mission, one of capture of the suspects, to that of kill. An extrajudicial act, in short, is being embraced over that of a legal procedure.

What follows is a form of kill chain morality, the referring up to the higher command that requires confirmation from an even higher placed command that such a strike passes muster.  Powell’s commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Frank Benson (Alan Rickman), has little issue giving in to his subordinate’s examination of the facts.  The next in line to receive the order is drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), based in Las Vegas.

Some of the Brits seem squeamish and wobbly, concerned whether such a strike would be militarily proportionate, even against a terrorist group in a friendly state.  Only Powell comes across as cold, cutting steel in the face of rubbery indecision, be it the vacillating foreign secretary, who has the runs while attending an arms conference, or the prime minister, who feels that the issue of killing US citizens needs Washington’s clearance.

The US contingent, by way of contrast to their allies, can’t see what all the fuss is about, berating their British counterparts for stalling over such moral issues, even matters of US nationality.  As valuable allies, it was important that Britain do its part in the business of deracinating and liquidating such groups, despite their constitutional protections.

This clanking of killing chains is triggered by the drone pilot’s insistence that confirmation be made that launching such a strike might give Aisha, who finds herself selling bread beside the compound in question, a chance of survival.

We are back in the kingdom of speculations and superimposed calculations: would hitting the compound minimise casualties within a certain radius?  Should the girl be encouraged on the ground to disperse by the Somali agent who seeks to buy her bread?  All of this comes to naught.  The resolute Powell eventually gets her way, forcing anunderestimation of the potential damage to be recorded in the discussions.

That attitude, in particular, speaks volumes to the sorrows of empire. Neat killings exacted with forensic accuracy are somehow taken to be substitutes for diplomacy and development. But consequences beget more consequences; wars waged at such distances, globally, irrespective of sovereign lines and geopolitical wisdom, provide a rotten harvest.

It may very well be that certain states have eyes in the sky with marked sight, capable of a global gaze and acting with impunity.  Such high bound activity, however, encourages blindness to those matters of a more terrestrial kind.

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Drones in the Sky: Operating the Mechanized Kill Machine

Selected Articles: Donald vs. Hillary: A Still Uncertain Election

August 16th, 2016 by Global Research News

US-election-2016

Donald vs. Hillary: A Still Uncertain Election. Both Candidates Remain Unpopular with the Majority of Americans

By Jack A. Smith, August 16 2016

Is it possible that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will self-destruct well before the election?  It certainly looked that way, given one major blunder after another in the days after his nomination at the July 18–21 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Here’s another question: Or is it possible he can win? Both options are still on the table because despite voting polls both candidates continue to remain unpopular with the majority of Americans.

Détroit

Election Reflections 2016 – Trump and Clinton Visit Detroit

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 16 2016

During the week of August 8 both Republican Party nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic counterpart Hillary Clinton made policy speeches in the Detroit metropolitan area. Trump addressed the Detroit Economic Club on August 8 where he put forward his program for the revitalization of the United States. The presidential candidate delivered the address at Cobo Conference Center in downtown Detroit.

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_3_(cropped)

Trump’s Aggressive Foreign Policy

By Stephen Lendman, August 16 2016

His August 15 foreign policy address in Youngstown, OH showed he’ll govern as an establishment leader if elected in November – continuing dirty geopolitical business as usual vital to end once and for all. He’ll wage endless wars to “defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” he said – without explaining its US creation and support at least since the 1980s in Afghanistan against Soviet Russia.

Flag-map_of_Syria.svg

America’s Illegal Wars of Conquest. Terrorist Embedded Propagandists, Demonizing the Target Countries

By Mark Taliano, August 16 2016

Patterns have long since emerged.  We know that each illegal war of conquest is prefaced by a Public Relations campaign that demonizes the target country’s leader and its government as it lies about on-the-ground realities.  Muammar Gaddafi, for example, was presented to Western media consumers as a lunatic and despot. The Western narratives, however, were contradicted by the fact that he earned broad-based support from Libyans, all of whom enjoyed public services such as free healthcare and schooling, and a high standard of living.

2016_G20_logo

China Hosts G20 Summit: Innovation, Structural Reform, “Towards an Inclusive World Economy”

By Carla Stea, August 15 2016

China’s Presidency of the G20 culminates next month with the Hangzhou Summit, a gathering of world leaders and an extraordinary opportunity to steer the world economy toward a more equitable, stable and productive architecture which achieves the goal of “win-win” cooperation, long advocated by China, and ultimately benefiting both developed and developing countries alike.  The theme of the Hangzhou Summit is: “Toward an innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive World Economy.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Donald vs. Hillary: A Still Uncertain Election

Pentagon Cannot Account For $6.5 Trillion Dollars

August 16th, 2016 by Jay Syrmopoulos

Adding to the appearance of impropriety is the fact that thousands of documents that should be on file have been removed and disappeared without any reasonable explanation.

A new Department of Defense Inspector General’s report, released last week, has left Americans stunned at the jaw-dropping lack of accountability and oversight. The glaring report revealed the Pentagon couldn’t account for $6.5 trillion dollars worth of Army general fund transactions and data, according to a report by the Fiscal Times.

The Pentagon, which has been notoriously lax in its accounting practices, has never completed an audit, would reveal how the agency has specifically spent the trillions of dollars allocated for wars, equipment, personnel, housing, healthcare and procurement’s allotted to them by Congress.

pentagon-money-missing

Audit Reveals the Pentagon Doesn’t Know Where $6.5 Trillion Dollars Has Gone.

Beginning in 1996 all federal agencies were mandated by law to conduct regular financial audits. However, the Pentagon has NEVER complied with that federal law. In 20 years, it has never accounted for the trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds it has spent, in part because “fudging” the numbers has become standard operating procedure at the Department of Defense, as revealed in a 2013 Reuters investigation by Scot Paltrow.

According to the report by the Fiscal Times:

An increasingly impatient Congress has demanded that the Army achieve “audit readiness” for the first time by Sept. 30, 2017, so that lawmakers can get a better handle on military spending. But Pentagon watchdogs think that may be mission impossible, and for good reason…

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the behemoth Indianapolis-based agency that provides finance and accounting services for the Pentagon’s civilian and military members, could not provide adequate documentation for $6.5 trillion worth of year-end adjustments to Army general fund transactions and data.

The DFAS has the sole responsibility for paying all DOD military and personnel, retirees and annuitants, along with Pentagon contractors and vendors. The agency is also in charge of electronic government initiatives, including within the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Energy and the Departing of Veterans Affairs.

While there is nothing in the IG’s report specifying that the money has been stolen, the mere fact that the Pentagon can’t account for how it spent the money reveals a potentially far greater problem than simple theft alone.

For every transaction, a so-called “journal voucher” that provides serial numbers, transaction dates and the amount of the expenditure is supposed to be produced. The report specifies that the agency has done such a poor job in providing documentation of their transactions, that there is no way to actually know how $6.5 trillion dollars has been spent. Essentially, the government has no way of knowing how the Pentagon has spent the trillions of taxpayer dollars allocated by Congress for national defense.

In turn, employees of the DFAS were routinely told by superiors to take “unsubstantiated change actions” commonly referred to as “plugging” the numbers. These “plugs” – which amounted to falsifying financial records – were then used to create the appearance that the military’s financial data matched that of the U.S. Treasury Department’s numbers when discrepancies in the financial data couldn’t be accounted for, according to the Reuters investigation.

According to the Reuters investigation:

For two decades, the U.S. military has been unable to submit to an audit, flouting federal law and concealing waste and fraud totaling billions of dollars.

Linda Woodford spent the last 15 years of her career inserting phony numbers in the U.S. Department of Defense’s accounts.

Every month until she retired in 2011, she says, the day came when the Navy would start dumping numbers on the Cleveland, Ohio DFAS…. Using the data they received, Woodford and her fellow accountants there set about preparing monthly reports to square the Navy’s books with the U.S. Treasury’s…. And every month, they encountered the same problem. Numbers were missing. Numbers were clearly wrong. Numbers came with no explanation of how the money had been spent or which congressional appropriation it came from.

While many of the problems occurred due to bookkeeping errors rather than actual financial losses, the DFAS has failed to provide the necessary tracking information essential to performing an accurate audit of Pentagon spending and obligations, according to the IG’s report.

“Army and Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis personnel did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter adjustments and $6.5 trillion in year-end adjustments made to Army General Fund data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation,” wrote Lorin T. Venable, the assistant inspector general for financial management and reporting. “We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.”

The Pentagon has a chronic failure to keep track of its money – how much it has, how much it pays out and how much is wasted or stolen. Adding to the appearance of impropriety is the fact that thousands of documents that should be on file have been removed and disappeared without any reasonable explanation.

DFAS “did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System . . . removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during Q3 FY 2015. As a result, the data used to prepare the FY 2015 AGF third quarter and year-end financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail,” according to the IG’s report stated.

The accounting errors and manipulated numbers, though obviously problems in their own right, highlight a far greater problem for the Defense Department than only bad recording keeping and wasteful spending habits. In reality, they are a representation of the poor decision making, and lack of oversight and accountability that plague our nation’s government as a whole.

While the Department of Defense can’t account for $6.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer funds, in 2014 there were 47 million people, including over 15 million children, living in poverty in the U.S. – %15 of the U.S. population, which is the largest total number in poverty since records began being kept 52 years ago.

Please share this story if you are appalled by the fact that there are Americans that are homeless and hungry, including U.S. combat veterans — while the government is unable to account for $6.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer money.

A little reminder: On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld spoke about $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon budget.


Jay Syrmopoulos writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pentagon Cannot Account For $6.5 Trillion Dollars

Police State Fascism in America

August 16th, 2016 by Margaret Kimberley

Black people live under a fascist system, whether the occupant of the White House is a “fascist” or not. For Blacks, the “rule of law” does not exist. “It matters not whether a victim complies, or has hands up, or is armed, or is unarmed, or opens a door, or speaks, or doesn’t, or flees, or stays put, or does or doesn’t resist arrest.” None of the supposedly “non-fascist” politicians will “dare lay a finger on the modern day slave system.”

The word fascism has reappeared in the American popular lexicon thanks to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The word is used to keep progressive Democrats in a state of fear should he win, but its existence in this country right now is rarely discussed.

If Trump became president and was indeed a fascist he wouldn’t bring anything to the country that is not already in existence for black Americans. Fascism is practiced against them on a daily basis. They are at risk of police interaction, arrest and even death for committing the most minor infractions or for no infraction at all.

Korryn Gaines was shot to death by police in her own home near Baltimore, Maryland. Her five year-old son was also shot and injured. Ms. Gaines came into contact with police initially because of a traffic violation and a dispute with her boyfriend. Every day thousands of people are given tickets or make accusations against one another but rarely do they have an expectation of ending up dead as a result.

Arrest warrants are the first line of defense for the police, who are the 21st century embodiment of the slave patrol. If black people are lucky they may have to pay a fine or suffer some inconvenience, if unlucky they are killed.

The Baltimore police used maximum force and disregarded accepted police practice meant to de-escalate such situations. They broke down Gaines’ door and cut off her Facebook feed. As is typical, their much vaunted body cameras were turned off and the dead woman was deprived of any means of defense or telling of her story. The only version of events comes from the people who killed her.

Death is the worst result but not the only means of keeping black people under physical control and in a state of humiliation. A recent video from a Kentucky courtroom shows an unidentified black woman suffering the cruelties of the police system. She was arrested for not completing a diversion program after a 2014 shoplifting charge. The only logic to arresting someone for this violation is cruelty for its own sake and the proof of that played out in the courtroom.

The woman arrived at court wearing only a pair of shorts. She reported that she had been denied feminine hygiene products and clean pants.  The judge dismissed the charges but not before lecturing the woman. “The fact that you’re in custody is your fault. You gotta come to court. But once you were arrested, the rest of this is completely inhumane and unacceptable and I’m very sorry that you had to go through this.” She added, “This is not normal. I’ve never seen this.” Of course this treatment is normal and happens all the time. Her arrest for a minor offense was normal and so was the denial of her human rights in an American jail. Actually the humiliated woman may be considered lucky. It was recently revealed that 6,900 people died in custody in Texas jails and prisons in the last ten years.

All of the tools which are supposed to protect the public from this system are useless. Paul O’Neal (*link O’Neal) was summarily executed by Chicago police while driving a stolen car. Again their cameras were turned off during the shooting. But once they felt safe, they recorded themselves rejoicing over their kill, giving one another high fives. One complained, “Fuck, I’m going to be on desk duty now for 30 days.”  The nonchalance is logical. The officer has no reason to fear anything worse.

Body cameras and other “reforms” won’t save black people’s lives because they are meant for public relations purposes only. The system in this country spends large sums of money, passes legislation and empowers the police to do what they like to black people. The suffering is quite intentional.

All the videos in the world won’t upend the brutality of the laws enforced against black people. It matters not whether a victim complies, or has hands up, or is armed, or is unarmed, or opens a door, or speaks, or doesn’t, or flees, or stays put, or does or doesn’t resist arrest. The police are a constant threat to black lives because the system demands it.

There will be no end to the body count without serious discussion about the ways in which racism is supported and encouraged. None of the supposedly non-fascist politicians dare lay a finger on the modern day slave system. Occasionally white people die at the hands of police, too. But that is considered a small price to play to keep the racial hierarchy in order. There is no hope of ending the carnage without first understanding the system we have and calling it what it is. Black Americans have always lived under fascism.

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Police State Fascism in America

Is anyone else as upset as I am that the SYRIAN swimmer, Yusra Mardini, is being recognized as a refugee, not as a Syrian national, and that, if she wins a medal, the members of the Olympic Committee have decided they will raise a special flag they made for refugees, instead of her Syrian flag?

It would seem that the Olympic Committee wants to hide that Yusra has become a great swimmer due to the fact that the Syrian Government financed her training. And now that she has become so successful — thanks to Syrian money — the Olympic Committee are stealing that glory from the Syrian people.

What no newspaper or magazine or TV or radio report will tell you, is the following. Yusra Mardini did not flee a civil war in Syria. There is no civil war in Syria. Syrians are not fighting one another. Syrians are fighting foreigners who are entering Syria mostly through the northern border with Turkey. These fighters are Western pawns, and too stupid to realize that they are mere pawns. They think they are establishing an “Islamic State”. What they are really doing, is destroying Syria, so that Westerners can divide and rule the country. As soon as these pawns have destroyed Syria sufficiently, their funding from Saudi Arabia — a Western puppet state and a long-time enemy of Syria — will end within a millisecond. As will the funding from Qatar — another Western puppet state and long-time rival of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi rulers, themselves American pawns, want to destroy secular Syria and the secular Baath Party, which is headed by President Bashar Al Assad. The Saudi rulers, are not democratically elected by the people of Saudi Arabia, but are one family, which was given power to rule in the time of Lawrence of Arabia, who wanted to “unite Arabs” so that they could be more easily and efficiently ruled by the English. Today, this British-backed Saudi family is still ruling the country, calling themselves “royals”. They are brutal, ignorant, backward dictators. And they are useful to the West, mostly Europe and America, so they continue to enjoy Western support. They know nothing about Islam and have invented their own perverted set of beliefs, known as “Wahhabism”, and claim this is Islam.

Wahhabism is not Islam. Wahhabism is for sick men who want to rape and exploit women. Everyone knows that the Saudis have oil money…. lots and lots of oil money. But what everyone does not know is that they use their money to establish and fund Wahhabi schools in Islamic countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as in Europe. Many mosques in Europe are Saudi-funded, which means they are teaching Wahhabi nonsense, and calling this Islam. Western politicians are well aware of this fact, and let this continue. Now we are seeing the results of years of Wahhabi schools in Europe. European youths who attended these Wahhabi mosques, and who know they have no prospects and future in a Fascist, racist Europe, and who know nothing about Islam, are fighting in Syria, killing Syrians. They grew up in secular Europe and turned their back on it (after Europe turned its back on them) to go destroy secular Syria where they think they will re-establish an Islamic state, re-establish the “Ummah”. European secularism has not been good to them, and they think that the Ummah will be. This fits in well with the desires of the brutal Saudi rulers, who also want to destroy Syrian secularism and replace it with their perverted Wahhabism. And it fits in well with Western — that is, American and European — politicians’ plans of putting Syrian lands and resources in the hands of the West. Western politicians know that Americans and Europeans no longer want colonialism, imperialism and dead soldiers coming home. So they use these disheartened, ignorant migrant youths to get the job done. It really is a brilliant plan.

As for the rulers of Qatar, they too are a corrupt family; mere useful Western pawns, who would fall off the map and be nobodys, were it not for their fight in Syria. Like the Saudis, they too have lots of oil money, but no interest in Syria; their fight in Syria is merely to rival their big, overbearing Saudi neighbours –“ if you can do it, so can we”. They are like the man with a small penis and a big car. They give financial support to the Muslim Brotherhood for one reason only — to rival Saudi Wahhabism. But the Muslim Brotherhood are also not Muslims.

They are interested only in money and power, and will stop at nothing to get it. They are not interested in Islamic history, Islamic art, Islamic teachings, or Islamic countries. They only want money, money, money. And if they have to kill to get it, well, then, they will kill without any scruples, even killing Muslims, and tell themselves this is Islam. This is how messed up these youths are. These days, Turkey is being destroyed by Erdogan, who is also a Muslim Brotherhood supporter. Erdogan enjoys majority support from Turks in Turkey, not because of his extremism, but because he has made a financial deal with the Devil that has raised the standard of living in Turkey. Erdogan also wants Syria destroyed because it is ruled by a secular party. He wants the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Syria and in Egypt. In Egypt he almost got his wish, until the Egyptian army intervened and got rid of the corrupt, destructive Muslim Brotherhood that briefly ruled the country under Mohamed Mursi. Had the army in Egypt not removed Mursi, Egypt today would be like Turkey today.

Syrian swimmer Yusra Mardini

Syrian swimmer Yusra Mardini

Finally, a word on the legal status of our Syrian Olympic swimmer, Yusra. What editors will not print, publish and air on TV or radio, is the fact that Yusra has not been given refugee status by any country, and is therefore not a refugee. Which means the Olympic Committee members have no basis on which to label Yusra a refugee. If they do not know that she does not have refugee status, then they should not be on the Olympic Committee having powers to make such decisions. But I suspect they do know, and don’t care. To them, it is about denying Syria its rightful moment of Olympic glory.

It is no longer just about sports, but is now also a political issue. The world must not know that Syria is a kaleidoscope of ethnicities, that is SUCCESSFULLY ruled by a secular party — the Baath Party, headed by Bashar Al Assad, and established by his father, Hafez Al Assad.

The world must not know that Yusra did not flee from her government, but that she was helped by her government. The world must not know that she did not flee from a civil war, and that there is no civil war in Syria. The world must not know that Yusra fled from foreign fighters in her country who are killing her countrymen, women and children. The world must not know that Yusra is a proud Syrian, not a grateful refugee.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Speaking of the Olympics… Syrian Athletes are Categorized as “Refugees”

Shredding the oft- and self-propagated notion the Islamic State is comprised of radical Muslims, the vast majority of the group’s recruits have only superficial knowledge about the religion of Islam — some even purchased the book “Islam for Dummies” just prior to joining.

An analysis of leaked Islamic State documents obtained by Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and undertaken by the Associated Press found 70 percent of recruits at the height of the group’s push for members only possessed basic knowledge of Shariah, laws derived from verses in the Quran, and “hadith,” the words and actions of the prophet Mohammed.

While 24 percent had attained an intermediate understanding of the religion, a mere 5 percent were considered advanced students of Islam.

That exact ignorance of the religion’s true tenets likely helped inflate Islamic State numbers. As the outlet explains:

“At the height of the Islamic State’s drive for foot soldiers in 2013 and 2014, typical recruits included the group of Frenchmen who went bar-hopping with their recruiter back home, the recent European convert who now hesitantly describes himself as gay, and two Britons who ordered ‘The Koran for Dummies’ and ‘Islam for Dummies’ from Amazon to prepare for jihad abroad. Their intake process complete, they were grouped in safe houses as a stream of imams came in to indoctrinate them, according to court testimony and interviews by the Associated Press.”

Recruits like these, largely unaware of what violent extremism entails, can be facilely manipulated by actual radicals once family ties have been severed and means of communication with the world, like cellphones, have been taken away. Once in the clutches of the group, either full indoctrination into ISIL’s perverted interpretation of Islam occurs, or the realization its terrorist ways go too far still leave a recruit without means of escaping easily.

“I realized that I was in the wrong place when they began to ask me questions on these forms like, ‘when you die, who should we call?’” a 32-year-old European recruit, who thought he was joining a group to fight Pres. Bashar al-Assad and help Syrians, told the AP on the condition of anonymity.

Based on the analysis, it would seem religious ignorance — not thorough understanding of Shariah and Islam — makes the perfect background for potential Islamic State fighters.

For example, Mohamed Lahouaiyej Bouhlel — the driver who plowed a truck through a crowd of people, killing 85, on Bastille Day in Nice — “was described by family and neighbors as indifferent to religion, volatile and prone to drinking sprees, with a bent for salsa dancing and a reported male lover,” the AP described.

In the 4,030 entry documents for ISIL’s foreign recruits for Syria from 2013 and 2014 examined by the AP were those of Karim and Foued Mohammad-Aggad — both shortly returned to France, and Foued eventually participated in the Paris attacks on the Bataclan nightclub in November that left 130 people dead.

“Islam was used [by the Islamic State] to trap me like a wolf,” Karim told the court prior to sentencing.

According to the documents analyzed by the Associated Press, Karim and Foued Mohammad-Aggad were both listed as having only “basic” knowledge of Sharia.

This proved to be true in court. Under questioning by the judge concerning his grasp of Shariah and Islam, Karim repeatedly intoned, “I don’t have the knowledge to answer the question.”

Undoubtedly, some who join or vow allegiance to the terrorist group, do so for misguided religious reasons. However, as Patrick Skinner — a former CIA case officer who specialized in extremist organizations in the Middle East — explained, most who join are “reaching for a sense of belonging, a sense of notoriety, a sense of excitement.”

Indeed, he added, “Religion is an afterthought.”

Skinner also told the AP the thousand-year-old seat of learning for Shariah and Quranic studies in Cairo, Al-Azhar, came under sharp criticism in the Islamic State’s recent issue of its English-language magazine, Dabiq, which said Al-Azhar is part of an “approach to subdue Muslims through appeasement” with the West.

Al-Azhar Islamic scholar, Mohammed Abdelfadel, said ISIL propaganda videos heralding fighters’ supposed martyrdom directly contradict ‘Islamic laws that forbid terrorism, the murder of non-combatants in war, the imposition of Islam on non-Muslims and other criminal activity,’ as the AP paraphrased.

Further still, those with the most thorough understanding of Shariah were far less inclined to want to ‘martyr’ themselves as suicide bombers, a study by the U.S. military’s Combating Terrorism Center found, quoted by the AP:

“If martyrdom is seen as the highest religious calling, then a reasonable expectation would be that the people with the most knowledge about Islamic law (Shariah) would desire to carry out these operations with greater frequency.”

But, despite ISIL’s claims of religious motivations for its attacks, “those with the most religious knowledge within the organization itself are the least likely to volunteer to be suicide bombers.”

Though these points have been argued and championed by a number of Muslims in an attempt to grow understanding of Islam and fight bigotry and prejudice, Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan urged Muslim scholars to demonstrate that what ISIL teaches isn’t Islam.

“The people who are doing this are not experiencing martyrdom, they are criminals. They are killing innocent people,” Ramadan implored. “Nothing in Islam, nothing ever can justify the killing of innocent people, never, ever.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Religion of Terror? Leaked ISIS Documents Reveal that 70% of Recruits Don’t Even Know What Islam Is

Frictions between China and South Korea are mounting following last month’s announcement by Washington and Seoul that the US would deploy an anti-ballistic missile battery to the Korean Peninsula by the end of 2017. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is a key part of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” and preparations for war against China.

China’s state-run Global Times, which has been at the forefront of condemning THAAD and South Korea in recent weeks, published an August 11 editorial reiterating its accusations that Washington and Seoul had pushed Pyongyang into developing nuclear weapons. “North Korea’s nuclear ambition was primarily triggered by long-standing military pressures imposed by South Korea and the US,” it stated. “The escalating pressures have [produced] bolder nuclear projects. China, being a well-intentioned and responsible mediator, has been paid back by a threatening advanced military system.”

These tensions became apparent almost immediately after the formal declaration on THAAD’s deployment on July 8. Both China and Russia denounced the decision. Beijing warned earlier in the year that such a decision would have a serious impact on relations with Seoul. On July 25, during a meeting with his South Korean counterpart Yun Byeong-se on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Seoul had “undermined the foundations of trust between the two countries.”

In response to Chinese criticism, South Korea’s Kim Seong-u, chief presidential secretary for public affairs, stated on August 7: “Chinese media are putting the cart before the horse in insisting that Seoul’s decision to deploy the THAAD system in its territory is the cause of Pyongyang’s successive ballistic missile launches and other military provocations.” He continued: “The fundamental reason for the decision to deploy THAAD lies in the rising nuclear and missile threats from North Korea. If such threats from the North disappear, THAAD won’t be needed.”

The THAAD system is in fact a crucial part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia” and preparations for war with China. The US military buildup in the region includes another THAAD battery in Guam and two related X-band radar systems in Japan. The US also recently announced it was deploying B-1B bombers to Guam. The B1-Bs are faster and can carry more weaponry than the B-52s they are replacing.

This anti-ballistic missile network will also draw Tokyo and Seoul closer together, a longstanding goal of the US. Washington has been concerned by the tensions between its two major allies in North East Asia on historical issues, dating back to the Japanese colonial rule of Korea during the first half of the 20th century.

THAAD consists of interceptor missiles and the AN/TPY-2 X-band radar system. THAAD is designed to locate and knock out incoming missile attacks. The United States intends to use the system to prevent a Chinese counterattack hitting US military bases and other targets if Washington launches a first strike against China.

The system is also connected to the Link 16 intelligence-sharing network, providing intelligence on troop and possible target movements in real-time. In January, Seoul announced it would join Link 16, which includes the US, Japan and NATO countries.

These moves by the US are driving an accelerating arms race in the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons is itself bound up with internal political pressures created by Washington’s isolation of Pyongyang. The Stalinist regime led by Kim Jong-un has its weapon programs as the only negotiating chips it can use in order to strike a deal with American imperialism. However, Washington has made clear that any such agreement would be predicated on total capitulation, something which neither Pyongyang nor Beijing is willing to accept.

There are growing concerns that South Korea and Japan may develop their own nuclear bombs. Seoul has sought to develop nuclear weapons at various times, dating back to the regime of military dictator Park Chung-hee, the father of current President Park Geun-hye. Lee Deok-haeng, the director-general for unification policy in Seoul’s Ministry of Unification, recently told Fairfax Media that if North Korea continued to develop a nuclear bomb: “It will become a domino effect and even South Korea will become concerned and develop nuclear weapons, and maybe Japan as well.”

Both Washington and Seoul have referred to South Korea as a linchpin of the “pivot,” exploiting North Korea’s bombastic but ultimately empty threats in order to justify expanding their military capabilities and ramping up tensions in the region. When President Park came to office in February 2013, she made clear that her policies would conform to Washington’s agenda. Initially, however, she also attempted to draw closer to Beijing, in the hope of winning its support to deal with North Korea and boosting economic relations.

While Washington cautiously allowed its ally to proceed along these lines, Seoul apparently took a step too far last September when Park appeared at a military parade alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Following the parade, in an obvious sign of displeasure, the US turned down several requests for a technology transfer that would allow South Korea to develop its own fighter jets.

Bowing to US pressure, Park reached an agreement last December with Tokyo over Korean “comfort women”—or sex slaves—used by the Japanese military before and during World War II. This signaled a turn by South Korea to more openly fall into line with US interests. Seoul then used North Korea’s fourth nuclear weapon test in January as a pretext for entering formal discussions in March on the THAAD deployment.

Drawing closer to Japan in diplomacy as well, Park held her first bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe last November in Seoul. She is scheduled to travel to Tokyo to meet him again this fall during an annual meeting of Japanese, Chinese and South Korean leaders.

The US and South Korea will conduct their annual Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercises from August 22 to 25. These war games, which are nominally aimed against Pyongyang, also threaten Beijing. They follow last spring’s largest-ever maneuvers between the two countries. The Korea Timesreported that this month’s exercises will focus on striking facilities within North Korea.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chinese-South Korean Tensions Rise over THAAD Anti-missile Deployment

When the ‘pink tide’ of left-leaning governments first rose to power on the back of anti-neoliberal protests across Latin America in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the initial reaction from the Left was euphoric. Striving to move beyond the “there is no alternative” mantramany pinned their hopes on what seemed to be a new wave of actually existing alternatives to neoliberalism. Amidst the revolutionary fervor of social forums, solidarity alliances, and peoples’ councils, it appeared an epochal shift was underway, which Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa optimistically dubbed “a genuine change in the times.”

But in retrospect, the 2005 political mobilizations that led to the defeat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) may have been the high point of the pink tide project. Since then, the balance of power has slowly shifted back toward the Right, with the popularity and efficacy of left-wing governments rapidly diminishing. 

Activists and indigenous community members hold pictures of Evo Morales in Cochabamba, Bolivia in July 2013.

Activists and indigenous community members hold pictures of Evo Morales in Cochabamba, Bolivia in July 2013. Cancillería del Ecuador / Flickr.

Since 2012, economic decline has generated political instability throughout the region. In Venezuela, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) suffered a major defeat in recent National Assembly elections, casting doubt on the government’s future. The Movement for Socialism’s (MAS) power in Boliviawas dealt a blow with the recent referendum loss, which if passed would have extended term limits for leftist president Evo Morales.

Argentina and Brazil

However, the biggest defeats have come in the two largest pink tide economies. The election of Mauricio Macri in Argentina represents the first time a government from Latin America’s progressive coalition has been defeated in a presidential election, while in Brazil the opposition has achieved what it was not able to in the electoral process through an effective coup d’état against President Dilma Rousseff orchestrated by the judiciary and members of Congress.

There is no doubt that the United States is maneuvering to take advantage of the crisis. In contrast to the 1970s and 1980s, its current efforts to reassert its dominance in the region are not primarily via military coups (with the exception of Honduras and Paraguay), but “soft coups.”

Strategies of economic sabotage and shortages, alongside protracted propaganda campaigns and scandals in media and social networking sites are generating a climate of fear, desperation, and instability. All this is paving the way for the Right to deliver the final blow through institutional mechanisms like judiciaries, elections, and in the case of Venezuela a recall referendum that would cut short the presidency of Nicolás Maduro.

Nonetheless, it is insufficient to invoke imperialism to explain the crisis facing the Latin American left. Previously, when opposition forces had attempted to overthrow left-wing governments through coups d’état in Venezuela in 2002, Bolivia in 2008, and Ecuador in 2010, popular support for these governments was sufficient to resist pressure from the Right. This was despite economic sabotage and fierce opposition from the mass media. By contrast, today these governments have much weaker defenses against attacks from the Right.

To understand the current crisis, the Left must also look inwards. The current political and economic crisis is also about the limitations and structural contradictions inherent in the project of the pink tide itself, which have increasingly undermined its radical goals.

Challenging Neoliberalism

The left-wing governments which together comprised the pink tide – including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and to a less radical extent Brazil and Argentina – first achieved electoral victory on the back of widespread popular discontent about the effects of neoliberalism. Accordingly, the main thrust of their project was anti-imperialist and anti-neoliberal.

In response to massive popular mobilizations, these governments softened the harshest blows dealt by neoliberalism, reversing privatizations, promoting growth based on production rather than speculation, recuperating the role of the state in wealth redistribution, and expanding public services, especially in health care, food, and education.

The initial objective was to build an alternative hegemonic bloc capable of breaking with U.S. hegemony and the neoliberal world order. The shared goals of alternative forms of industrialization, trade, finance, and communications were accompanied by important efforts toward integration through initiatives such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Carribean States (CELAC). The most interesting of these projects was the Venezuelan initiative, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), which sought alternative forms of cooperation based on the principles of complementarity and solidarity.

There is no doubt that the social programs of pink tide governments brought significant gains for poor and working people. Many for the first time gained access to basic goods, housing, higher education. and health care.

With the possible exception of Venezuela, the reforms of progressive governments were only designed to confront U.S. hegemony and mitigate the effects of neoliberalism. They did little to challenge the more fundamental structures of capitalism in these countries. The main targets for nationalization were foreign assets, while the structures of power within Latin American countries were mostly left intact.

Social programs sought only to assist the poor, but they refrained from compromising the rich. There was no significant agrarian reform, and major resources like mining, agro-industry, finance, and mass media remained in the hands of a small sector of elites, who continued to profit under pink tide governance. As a result, as the pink tide project unfolded it was increasingly undermined by its own contradictions.

Neo-Developmentalism

The key defining characteristic of the pink tide’s economic strategy was the neo-developmentalist model. This was an updated version of the import-substituting industrialization model promoted by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) in the postwar period designed to help Latin American countries break North-South dependency and regain national sovereignty.

Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador attempted to reduce dependence on foreign capital by promoting local entrepreneurship and forging alliances with their “national bourgeoisies.” But subsidies to business owners failed to promote investment in ways that could support the goals of national development or economic diversification. Throughout the pink tide countries structural economic imbalances persisted, leading these countries to depend even more on raw material exports to fuel economic growth and fund social welfare programs.

Indeed, the increasing dependence on natural resource extraction has been the most problematic aspect of pink tide development strategies. Although the extractivist model was defended by governments as a necessary “stage” of development to move toward a more advanced economy, in fact the opposite has been true.

The “reprimarization” of economies has further restricted their productive base and locked them into a path of dependency on raw material exports. Despite attempts to implement neo-developmentalist strategies for channeling agro-mineral rents into alternative productive activities, these projects never got off the ground.

The most significant geo-economic change associated with the primary-export-led growth strategy has been the increase in ties with China. But these new trade links have been neither able to provide the basis for regional sovereignty nor break the logic of dependence. Rather, trade with China has brought new forms of subordination, reinforcing primary commodity export-led growth with very little transfer of technology.

But perhaps the biggest problem with the extractivist model is its association with a highly undemocratic concentration of power and resources, characterized by structural unemployment on the one hand, and wealth accruing in the hands of a small stratum of investors and multinational corporations on the other.

The extractivist growth model has in fact prevented the possibility of any further progressive change, instead encouraging a deeper penetration of capital into Latin American territories. Critics describe this model as “predatory capitalism” because the costs of economic growth are placed on natural resources and rural communities, dispossessing peasants and indigenous peoples and precipitating ecological disaster. This has generated a new cycle of territorial struggles against extractive projects.

As a result, despite making significant gains in social welfare, pink tide governments have been unable to overcome the tensions inherent in this growth model. They had dealt a blow to the “new world order” represented by U.S. imperialism and neoliberal globalization by blocking free-trade agreements and reversing privatizations. But in the end, the pink tide governments never extended their mission to that of transcending capitalism as such. Instead they accommodated to it, deepening their dependence on global capital.

What’s more, extractivism increased governments’ vulnerability to boom-bust cycles. Plummeting commodity prices – a result of declining growth in China, reduced demand for agro-fuels, and the development of shale and other substitute oil – have been devastating to pink tide economies, leading to reduced or negative rates of growth, currency devaluations, and declining fiscal resources. The region now faces its fourth year of economic decline. Meanwhile, very few alternative trade and industrialization goals have been achieved, compounding economic stagnation.

Transformation Undermined

There is no doubt that the extractivist model provided pink tide governments with the rents necessary to implement significant welfare programs. But unaccompanied by a more radical project for structural transformation, these social programs have only been a temporary solution; the systemic mechanisms which reproduce inequality and social exclusion are left intact.

The absence of a broader project for transforming society and social consciousness has limited the effectiveness of social programs. In Argentina, food emergency plans and soup kitchens were set up to provide life support to the most impoverished sectors of the population during the economic crisis. But they were unable to tackle the underlying structural causes of poverty in the long run. After the initial emergency these programs were never replaced by efforts to organize alternative livelihoods for people beyond the mold of individual consumption.

Emptied of their radical potential, social assistance programs became mechanisms for co-opting popular sectors and social organizations. The Kirchners’ unemployment schemes were used as a tool to divide and conquer the piquetero movement. “Loyal” activists were rewarded with official positions and resources, while those more critical were isolated. The result of these clientelistic practices was the depoliticization, demobilization, and delegitimization of the movement.

In Brazil, the rise to power of the Workers’ Party (PT), was associated with the dissolution rather than activation of left-wing social forces. The PT’s relationship with movements was primarily defined by the appointment of leaders from unions, social organizations, and NGOs to public administrative positions. But this meant that activists and progressives left the ranks of popular leaders to form part of the elite, resulting in a loss of popular legitimacy. The Left was disoriented and deactivated, unable to form an independent political stance.

Across the board, social programs were not accompanied by new forms of popular education, mobilization, unification, and political formation. The role of the poor was to act as passive beneficiaries of social programs rather than radical political subjects. They were inserted into “consumer society” but were not part of a project seeking to challenge that form of society or transform social consciousness. This has thwarted the possibility of building toward postcapitalist societies.

As a result, the political horizon of the pink tide project was limited to a temporary increase in consumption capacity for poor and working people. While this was most clearly evident in Brazil and Argentina, a similar dynamic also evolved in the more radical projects of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

The commodity price slump has laid bare these contradictions in the pink tide project. Governments are no longer able to fulfill their dual role as both facilitators of higher profits for capital and benefactors for the poor. And in the absence of a more radical strategic vision to confront capitalism through popular mobilization, governments have retreated to the right, implementing pro-market reforms in response to economic stagnation.

In Brazil, Rousseff cut back social policies and appointed a liberal finance minister. In Ecuador, Correa’s initial attempts to increase tax revenues and social programs were curtailed and he was eventually forced to increase public debts and exports, and award oil concessions to large corporations. Meanwhile, the governments’ market-friendly policies and strategic alliances with sectors of the elite caused confusion amongst their popular base.

Rising Tensions

The limited political horizon of the pink tide project fostered tensions between governments and social movements. Governments were unable to establish relationships with movements that allowed the latter to maintain their autonomy whilst opening up to self-criticism and holding constructive dialogue when protest arose.

The proposed societal transformations of Bolivia and Ecuador have been emptied of their radical content. In Ecuador, the popular mobilizations and constituent assemblies reached a high point in 2008, when the rights of nature were recognized in the Constitution and buen vivir – “living well,” an alternative vision of development based on the cosmovisions of ethnic groups and the principles of ecology – was incorporated into the national development plan.

But in practice, these goals were always subordinated to the neo-developmentalist growth strategy, as demonstrated last year when Correa abandoned the Yasuní Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) initiative to keep oil in the ground in favor of opening drilling operationsin the Yasuní national park.

Ecuador’s extractivist growth model has heightened the tensions between the Correa government, which has become increasingly top-down, and popular protests of peasant, indigenous, and environmentalist movements. Movements organized marches and petitions against the government’s expansion of agribusiness and mining, as well as the criminalization of social protest. The government’s hostility to these protests ended up providing an opening for the Right, which took the opportunity to mobilize against higher taxes with the ultimate goal of restoring the conservative government.

Similarly, in Bolivia the MAS’s appeal to “plurinationality” and “pluriculturalism” emphasizes the issues of identity and values for indigenous peoples primarily through legal recognition, but pays insufficient attention to the material conflicts arising for these communities within the national development strategy.

The model of “Andean-Amazonian” capitalism acknowledges the coexistence of diverse cultural-economic modes within Bolivian society: the ayllus, the family, the informal sector, small business, as well as national and transnational capital. But again, the practical experience of conflict between these sectors over infrastructure and mining projects would appear to demonstrate the dominance of the latter two.

When the highway proposal for the Isiboro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) was pushed through despite popular protests, the Bolivian government was accused of intimidating, dividing, and criminalizing indigenous organizations. Social movements have been weakened in the face of divisions over popular protests, suffering a loss in autonomy and militancy. In this context, the project risks becoming not one for promoting radical activation, but for accommodating social forces to the demands of capital accumulation.

Governments too focused on the economic agenda and technocratic state administration have lost their relationship with autonomous, organized social sectors. Mass protests against the PT in Brazil in 2013 started as left-wing demands concerning public transport. However, the party’s disregard for these popular demands opened the doors for the right-wing media and upper middle classes to seize the opportunity to mobilize the discontent, which eventually became a major force behind the toppling of the government in 2016.

It has become evident that the social mobilizations that initially brought pink tide governments to power have had little continuity. This is partly because they lacked a long-term project to become a self-sustaining force, but also because they were undermined by the agendas of their governments. Even if activism has not disappeared completely, it is nonetheless the case that forces on the Left are a far cry from constructing a clear project to build an alternative hegemonic force.

The result is that social forces on the Left were unprepared for the current economic crisis. While governments made alliances with the Right and adopted pro-market policies, popular forces lacked the capacity to understand what was happening and mobilize for a popular alternative. Absent a strategy to push for a radical exit from the crisis, in both Brazil and Ecuador movements criticizing governments ended up promoting the cause of the Right.

What these experiences make clear is that a project for societal transformation cannot be limited to greater social redistribution without also seriously confronting deeper power structures and building a radical popular base. It is not that greater access to basic goods, education, and health are unimportant, but that their effectiveness does not fundamentally alter the reproduction of class and power inequalities.

Nor do they necessarily encourage the mobilization, education, and political formation necessary for a longer-term transformative project. It is not enough to defeat neoliberalism without also having a transitional strategy toward a postcapitalist society.

Venezuela’s Example

Venezuela is the only country that attempted to go beyond the post-neoliberal project, paving the way toward a postcapitalist society. Following the coup attempt and the oil strike of 2002, Hugo Chávez realized that his social agenda could only move forward if it turned in a more radical direction on the basis of popular participation. Chávez’s vision of “twenty-first-century socialism” sought to construct a communal state accompanied by revolutionary activism and popular protagonism.

Venezuela’s Bolivarian Missions are an extensive set of social programs tackling a range of issues from poverty reduction, food, housing, education, and health care to indigenous rights. But more important than material redistribution in Venezuela has been the attempt to transform popular political culture, with a surge in grassroots organization, class consciousness, and popular mobilization.

The Bolivarian Missions have been accompanied by new mechanisms for political participation. Community councils have empowered people to make decisions on a variety of issues in their everyday lives, from health to water and transport. There is no doubt that elements of these processes demonstrate a radicalism that sets them apart from those of the rest of the pink tide, promoting the activation of popular forces outside the state bureaucracy and the transformation of social consciousness.

Yet the limitations of Venezuela’s project for socialism still lie in the structural contractions of the process. Throughout the Venezuelan process there has remained a major contradiction between the expansion of popular protagonism and the failure to accompany these processes with fully socialized productive property.

The nationalization of oil and other industries represented important steps in precipitating a rupture with capitalism and bringing the economy under social control. But these projects were often carried out as an immediate response to conflict and were not part of a broader strategic plan for societal transformation.

Moreover, the project would always be limited by its inability to escape the extractivist model that, as described above, is inherently undemocratic. Despite major attempts to channel oil funds to diversify the economy through a system of cooperatives, these lacked the capacity to become self-sustaining independently of the government subsidies that propped them up.

Dependency on subsidized imports for food and other basic goods left the top-down rentier model intact. With no economic diversification, local business remained dedicated only to imports rather than productive industry. This has limited real popular participation. Despite a significant surge in popular protagonism, the fact that these new forms of organization had no foundation in the productive relations of Venezuelan society meant they were unsustainable. Social transformation was mainly limited to the political sphere, taking place only at the local level with no foundation in the productive base of the economy.

This means that it is still top-down decisions made by the state and in the world market that will ultimately impact people’s livelihoods. In Venezuela this top-down model has been accompanied by an extensive corruption of state bureaucrats that popular mobilization could not overcome.

These underlying contradictions have been unveiled by the current economic crisis. When oil prices plummeted they took with them the access to food and medicine for the poorest sectors of society. Even if the horror stories presented in the mainstream media of famine, desperation, and the failure of socialism are politically motivated exaggerations, there is nonetheless no doubt that the Venezuelan project has proven unsustainable.

Like his counterparts, Maduro has desperately turned to Canadian mining companies to make up for the shortfall in dollars. The hope for Venezuela lies in the continued empowerment of popular classes, who have mobilized bottom-up solidarity initiatives like communal networks for production and consumption of basic goods to confront the crisis.

Left Neoliberalism

The experience of left-wing governments in power is representative of the problems of trying to “humanize” capitalism, or build an “Andean-Amazonian” capitalism without going beyond it. Despite a fierce anti-neoliberal platform, with the exception of Venezuela few steps were taken toward a complete rupture with the previous order.

Instead, the result was what some described as “left neoliberalism,” whereby the new governments continued to manage a post-neoliberal society but were not able to overcome capitalism. So far, they have been successful neither in preventing the contradictions of the operations of global capitalism in Latin America from erupting into crisis, nor in preparing the masses to organize and propose their own solutions going forward. This must change if these governments are to retain their hold on power.

In the face of crisis, people want change. Bolivian vice president Álvaro García Linera has pointed out that the Right has no alternative proposal. The neoliberal policies they propose resemble those implemented in the 1980s and 1990s that initially caused economic devastation and popular protest. Yet after over a decade in power, the pink tide governments seem unable to move beyond the impasse and provide an alternative to the economic woes facing the people.

Rather than implementing pro-market policies and making pacts with sectors of the elite, the key is to push for a solution to the crisis by increasing popular protagonism through mobilization, unification, and education. In the face of crisis, the popular sectors must be prepared to build toward another type of society.

This involves strengthening political consciousness and collective organization to protect the social gains made under progressive governments, but also providing greater space for social activism to limit the expansion of capitalism, and building a social and ecological economy beyond extractive capitalism.

This cannot be achieved simply by spontaneous self-activity, but nor can it come from technocratic decisions from above. Political parties must open up to self-criticism and national-level debate with popular movements about the type of social, ecological, and economic model people need, that will have a real impact on the party’s program. The primary task is to steer away from extractivism toward a socialized economy that is ecologically sustainable.

An important example of a left alternative is emerging from the continent-wide ALBA social movements project. The goal of ALBA movements is the construction of a continental social movements network in order to mobilize, unify, and educate diverse sectors of the popular movement around a common project, from peasant, indigenous, and African communities to students, workers, and co-operatives.

ALBA’s response to the current conjuncture is to build toward “the creation of an alternative proposal based on popular power” which “seeks a solution [to the crisis] in accordance with the interests of popular organizations.” This means precipitating the struggle for the construction of an alternative, postcapitalist economy that can be “socialist, ecological, communal, feminist, and self-sustaining.”

In the face of an exhausted model, processes like ALBA will be critical to building “political subjects” capable of acting as forces of radical change. The pink tide governments may have failed to tame capitalism, but what the Peruvian journalist and socialist activist José Carlos Mariátegui envisioned as “the socialism of our Americas” is still a project worth fighting for. •

Kyla Sankey is a Toronto-based activist and political commentator. She is a Ph.D. candidate in human geography at the University of Toronto. This article first published on the Jacobin website.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia…: What Happened to the “Pink Tide” of “Left Leaning” Governments in Latin America?

Trump’s Aggressive Foreign Policy

August 16th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

His August 15 foreign policy address in Youngstown, OH showed he’ll govern as an establishment leader if elected in November – continuing dirty geopolitical business as usual vital to end once and for all.

He’ll wage endless wars to “defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” he said – without explaining its US creation and support at least since the 1980s in Afghanistan against Soviet Russia.

Bin Laden was a Pakistani intelligence-recruited CIA asset. Obama didn’t kill him. He died of natural causes in December 2001, widely reported at the time.

Earlier mujahideen fighters are today’s Taliban, Al Qaeda, Nusra Front, ISIS, Boko Haram and similar groups – created, supported and used by America as imperial foot soldiers to do its killing and dying where they’re deployed with the aim of replacing sovereign independent governments with US puppet regimes.

America isn’t at war with “radical Islamic terrorism.” It actively supports it as an instrument of US imperial foreign policy.

Obama and Hillary didn’t create today’s deplorable geopolitical landscape. They exacerbated decades earlier policy – begun under Jimmy Carter, continued under Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bush II to today, certain to go on seamlessly under duopoly governance no matter who succeeds Obama.

Today’s gravest issue is systemic – neocon infested Washington bent on world dominance, doing whatever it takes to accomplish its objective, color revolutions and wars its strategies of choice.

Will Trump as president change things? No. Will he differ from another Clinton co-presidency? Only by being less likely to start WW III if he follows through on wanting better relations with Russia.

If he continues waging imperial wars on the phony pretext of combating terrorism, US/Moscow geopolitical policies will be intractably at odds.

“ISIS…operat(es) in 18 countries with aspiring branches in 6 or more for a total of 24, and many believe it is even more than that,” said Trump.

Fact: ISIS operates where US policymakers deploy their fighters, under commanders chosen by CIA and Pentagon officials – recruited, armed, funded and directed by America, NATO, Israel and other regional rogue states.

Fact: The way to defeat ISIS and other radical Islamic groups is stop supporting them. They can’t exist without foreign backing.

Instead of diverging from America’s imperial agenda if elected president, Trump could exacerbate it by belligerence  against all nations where he says ISIS exists.

He’ll continue drone wars, mostly killing noncombatant men, women, children, the elderly and infirm threatening on one.

He’ll maintain Guantanamo (and likely America’s global torture prison network) instead of shutting it down. He’ll introduce ideological screening tests to suspend immigration from certain countries.

He claims wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were mistakes he opposed after supporting them earlier. He called failure to seize Iraq’s oil fields poor judgment. “In the old days when we won a war, to the victor go the spoils,” he blustered.

He failed to explain all wars violate core international, constitutional and US statute laws without Security Council authorization. US presidents and Congress have no right to wage them without it – especially against nations posing no threat to America or any other countries.

All ongoing US direct and proxy wars are illegal acts of aggression. Trump promised to continue them – justified by pledging to combat radical Islamic terrorism America supports.

US war on humanity will continue no matter who succeeds Obama. Prospects for world peace and stability are nonexistent – a deplorable situation threatening everyone.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Aggressive Foreign Policy

Though there has been remarkably little discussion of the subject in the Western media, Russia last week quietly acquired for the first time in its modern history a proper permanent base in the Mediterranean.

That the Syrian government has wanted to grant the base to Russia on a permanent basis has been known for some time.  From the Syrian point of view the Russian base not only guarantees Russia’s support for the present Syrian government but also provides Syria with a measure of protection it has never had before from Israeli air incursions.  These have been a continuous reality for decades with Syria lacking the capability to prevent them.  The Russians do have that capability and the Syrians will be hoping that because of the presence of the base they will now use it to protect Syria from Israeli air incursions.  As it happens reports suggest that the number of Israeli incursions of Syrian airspace have fallen off significantly since the Russian Aerospace Forces deployed to Syria last autumn, with the Israelis now careful to keep the Russians informed of their flights.

Whilst the Syrian government is known to have been keen to grant Russia a permanent base, the Russians have up to now been less sure.  Establishing a permanent foreign base in Syria is for the Russians a major departure from their former policy given the Russian military’s overwhelming focus on defending Russian territory rather than projecting Russian military power far beyond Russia’s borders.

Some Russian military officials are also believed to have questioned the military utility of a Syrian base, pointing out that the eastern Mediterranean where the base is located is well within the range of Russian ballistic and cruise missiles.  Importantly, judging from comments he made in December last year, one of the leading skeptics was none other than Putin himself:

“about the base, opinions differ, you know. Some people in Europe and the US repeatedly said that our interests would be respected, and that our [military] base can remain there if we want it to. But I do not know if we need a base there. A military base implies considerable infrastructure and investment.

After all, what we have there today is our planes and temporary modules, which serve as a cafeteria and dormitories. We can pack up in a matter of two days, get everything aboard Antei transport planes and go home. Maintaining a base is different.

Some believe, including in Russia, that we must have a base there. I am not so sure. Why? My European colleagues told me that I am probably nurturing such ideas. I asked why, and they said: so that you can control things there. Why would we want to control things there? This is a major question.

We showed that we in fact did not have any medium-range missiles. We destroyed them all, because all we had were ground-based medium-range missiles. The Americans have destroyed their Pershing ground-based medium-range missiles as well. However, they have kept their sea- and aircraft-based Tomahawks. We did not have such missiles, but now we do – a 1,500-kilometre-range Kalibr sea-based missile and aircraft-carried Kh-101 missile with a 4,500-kilometre range.

So why would we need a base there? Should we need to reach somebody, we can do so without a base.

It might make sense, I am not sure. We still need to give it some thought. Perhaps we might need some kind of temporary site, but taking root there and getting ourselves heavily involved does not make sense, I believe. We will give it some thought.”

These comments, whilst carefully leaving the option open, suggest a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the idea of a permanent base and an ongoing debate on the subject within the Russian leadership.  Presumably it was these doubts and this debate that held up ratification of the base agreement for so long.  It is clear that that debate has now been settled, with the agreement finally ratified and with the decision finally made to make Khmeimim into a permanent base.

It should be said clearly that this is a major shift.  Tsarist Russia did operate naval bases in the Greek islands and in Piedmont in Italy in the nineteenth century, and the USSR negotiated naval and air facilities at various times with Albania, Yugoslavia, Syria and Egypt, which however all fell well short of being true permanent naval and air bases.  The USSR did seek at the end of the Second World War Western agreement for a Russian base in Libya, but unsurprisingly this was refused.

All these previous projects proved ephemeral or stillborn, with whatever temporary arrangements the Russians negotiated with the various Mediterranean powers always reversed whenever these powers realigned towards the West, as they invariably did.  The one exception was the Russian naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartus which dates back to 1971.  Though it has attracted huge attention during the Syrian conflict, like all the other facilities the USSR acquired in the Mediterranean during the Cold War it is in no sense a base.  As even the BBC has been obliged to admit, the facility at Tartus is at best a support and resupply station for Russian ships in the Mediterranean.  It is too small to host Russian naval warships of frigate size and upwards, and has no facilities to host large numbers of Russian sailors or personnel such as a true base would need to do.

The military reality is that since 1943 it is the US Navy which together with its naval allies (primarily Britain and France) has been the overwhelmingly dominant military power in the Mediterranean.  Since the Second World War the Mediterranean has been in military terms an American lake.

The base at Khmeimin however is different from anything that has existed before.  Not only does it already host a formidable strike force of aircraft roughly equivalent to that of a US Navy carrier strike group, but it is heavily defended by formidable air defence assets including S400, BUK and Pantsir anti aircraft missiles, and contains a host of radar, electronic warfare and command facilities.  It is also defended by a formidable force of Russian ground troops, said to be of battalion strength.  Moreover there is talk the base is going to be significantly expanded to make it capable of hosting much heavier strike aircraft, possibly TU22M3s.  Khmeimim also forms part of what is becoming a very powerful complex of Russian military bases and facilities in Syria, which obviously include the Tartus naval facility (which may also now be expanded) and a top secret Russian listening post which has long been rumoured to exist somewhere in Latakia province.

In aggregate this is a base complex of a sort the Russians have never had in the Mediterranean before, and one that has now been made permanent.

The Russian base in Syria cannot challenge the supremacy of the US Navy in the whole of the Mediterranean area.  However it does have the potential to change drastically political and military perceptions in its eastern half.  There is now the prospect of Russian fighters flying over the eastern Mediterranean in regular patrols, monitoring US warships and aircraft in the area, and making Russia’s presence felt in the area as it has never been felt before.  It is one thing to know in the abstract that Russian ballistic and cruise missiles can reach this area.  It is quite another actually to be able to see Russian military aircraft physically present there.  The psychological and political impact on the countries that border the eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Lebanon and Israel) and on the US Navy (in an area where it has long been accustomed to sailing unchallenged) cannot be overstated, and would be tremendous.

All this of course depends on the eventual outcome of the conflict in Syria.  By establishing a permanent base there Russia has just raised the stakes, a fact that undoubtedly explains the intensity of the conflict.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s “Permanent Military Base” in Syria: Moscow just tipped the Balance of Power in the Mediterranean

Documents Confirm CIA Censorship of Guantánamo Trials

August 16th, 2016 by Mattathias Schwartz

In January 2013, during the military trial of five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks, a defense lawyer was discussing a motion relating to the CIA’s black-site program, when a mysterious entity cut the audio feed to the gallery. A red light began to glow and spin. Someone had triggered the courtroom’s censorship system.

The system was believed to be under the control of the judge, Col. James Pohl. In this case, it wasn’t.

“The 40-second delay was initiated, not by me,” Pohl said. He was referring to the delayed audio feed, which normally broadcasts to the press and other observers seated in the gallery. The gallery is cut off from the courtroom by three layers of soundproof Plexiglas. “I’m curious as to why. … If some external body is turning the commission off under their own view of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation, then we are going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on or off.”

Later, Pohl said the censorship was the work of an “OCA,” short for “Original Classification Authority.” In the future, he said, no external body would be permitted to unilaterally censor what was happening in his courtroom.

Many have speculated that Pohl’s “OCA” is in fact the CIA. That speculation is now confirmed with the release of three new documents by The Intercept. The documents show the evolution of secret rules governing what is and is not allowed to be discussed before the military court at Guantánamo.

All three of the declassified documents are marked “secret” and were distributed to defense attorneys and Pentagon-employed courtroom security officers. The documents clearly identify CIA as the OCA for torture-related information at the Guantánamo military commission proceedings.

Dean Boyd, who heads the CIA’s public affairs office, referred questions about the January 2013 censorship incident to the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Valerie Henderson, a Pentagon spokesperson, declined to comment. “I don’t have anything to offer you beyond what is written in [the court] transcript,” she said.

This page from a 2008 CIA guidance document designates as top secret the “treatment of detainees,” their “conditions of confinement,” and certain “false allegations of torture,” which were later shown to have merit.

Another CIA spokesperson confirmed the dates of the guidance, which are not given in two of the three documents.

The first guidance document is from spring of 2008.

The second document is from late spring or early summer of 2009.

The third document is from September 2011.

The Intercept obtained the documents through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the CIA and other federal agencies. Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic is providing legal representation for the request.

The term “OCA” is a placeholder that can refer to multiple agencies, but with respect to the rendition and torture program, Guantánamo observers have assumed for some time that it means the CIA. A defense lawyer asserted the connection in open court, and it has previously been hinted at in several other documents. At the end of January 2013, Judge Pohl issued a ruling declaring that there would be no more outside censorship of the tribunals. “It is the judge that controls the courtroom,” he said.

The courtroom’s internal censorship system, including the Plexiglas and audio delay, continues to this day. But assuming Judge Pohl’s order is enforced, the CIA no longer has the power to decide when to cut the courtroom audio, as it did in January 2013.

“The Department of the Defense runs the courtroom, but CIA owns a lot of the information,” said attorney James Connell III, who is representing Ammar al-Baluchi before the tribunal. Baluchi, whose torture at multiple overseas black sites was depicted in the film Zero Dark Thirty, is one of five men who stand accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks and now face the death penalty.

What appears to be a 2015 version of a similar CIA guidance document was released by OpenTheGovernment.org last year. Unlike the older guidance documents released by The Intercept today, the sections addressing the CIA’s black-site and rendition programs are completely redacted.

The CIA calls its classification rules “guidelines … to be applied throughout the legal process.” They are intended to provide the Pentagon-employed court security officers with “general direction about when national security information may be at issue, … triggering the need for protection.”

Much of what the CIA sought to keep out of open court effectively constrained the detainees’ ability to give an account of their own torture at the hands of the CIA and officials from other countries where they were held.

At first, these prohibitions were broad, but they grew narrower over time. The oldest guidance document, from 2008, prohibits talking about “conditions of confinement of detainees” and “treatment of detainees,” although “general allegations of torture are unclassified.” By this time, the CIA had released three of the names of detainees subjected to waterboarding. Though the CIA continues to insist those three were the only ones waterboarded, the claim is tenuous at best. According to the 2008 guidance, no other detainee could talk about waterboarding. Anyone who did, wrote the CIA, was lying, and even the existence of those lies was secret.

“Allegations of waterboarding by any detainees other than the three … are false allegations and are TS//SCI,” the guidance states.

In other words, even the alleged lies of other detainees who claimed to have been waterboarded were designated top secret and “sensitive compartmentalized information,” a higher-level classification than top secret alone. And yet many of these allegations, which the CIA’s guidance kept out of the tribunals for years, were later shown to have merit.

“In effect, the government was making the chilling and breathtaking assertion that it owned and controlled detainees’ memories of torture, whether true or false,” said Ashley Gorski, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who reviewed the newly released guidance documents.

“We stand by the document,” Dean Boyd, director of the CIA’s public affairs office, wrote in an email.

The 2008 guidance identifies CIA’s own “Original Classification Authority” as having the power to declassify statements by detainees. Other officials and agencies likely have some say as well. The 2011 and 2009 guidance say that the president and director of national intelligence can also declassify information related to the torture program; the 2008 guidance suggests that the power was delegated even further.

Seventy-six men are still held at Guantánamo. Sixteen are “forever prisoners,” who have not been charged by the court but are considered too dangerous to be candidates for release. President Obama’s self-imposed deadline to close the prison is more than six years past due.

Initially, the purpose of Guantánamo was to extract useful intelligence from high-level detainees to aid the war on terror. The orders to subject detainees to torture — or what the George W. Bush administration euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation” — came from the White House. It fell to the CIA to carry them out. The agency’s initial intelligence-driven mission got muddled up by other motives — revenge against al Qaeda, the avoidance of political fallout, control over the flow of information to Congress and the public, and later, by the problem of what to do with the detainees themselves.

Today’s legal environment is more open to detainees giving accounts of their own torture, according to Joseph Margulies, an attorney who represents Abu Zubaydah, one of the three men who the CIA admits having waterboarded.

“It is our position that the United States government has confirmed that Abu Zubaydah’s first-person account of his treatment is not classified,” Margulies said. “Therefore he ought to be allowed to disclose it.” As evidence of the shift, he pointed to the release of the Senate torture report summary, accounts of torture taken down by lawyers representing Majid Khan, and filings in Salim v. Mitchell, a lawsuit brought against two psychologists who designed the torture program as contractors for the CIA.

Connell, the attorney representing Ammar al-Baluchi, said that he welcomed the shift toward openness at Guantánamo but that the rules were still too restrictive. “The most important information for accountability is who did what and where they did it. Until that information is declassified, there will never be accountability for the CIA’s torture program.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Documents Confirm CIA Censorship of Guantánamo Trials

On July 12, 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled in favor of the Republic of the Philippines in its arbitration case against The Peoples Republic of China. The intervening weeks have seen a marked escalation in military deployments, activities and political rhetoric from China, the United States, Japan and quite interestingly, Vietnam. The Philippines has made efforts to deescalate the highly charged situation since its legal victory at the PCA.

China has instituted the practice of regular combat patrols over the disputed islands in the South China Sea, beginning with the first such patrol carried out on July 18th. In addition, China has dispatched numerous maritime surveillance vessels and civilian fishing fleets to the waters around Scarborough Shoal. These combat air patrols are to continue into the foreseeable future. China continues to develop its manmade islands’ military capabilities and continues to launch powerful naval vessels at breakneck speed.

The United States has heralded the PCA ruling as the definitive ruling on the dispute and has called on China to accept the the will of the international community and abide by international law. This, quite hypocritically, coming from one of a handful of nations that has refused to ratify the treaty. The U.S. has taken the unprecedented measure of stationing THAAD missile systems in South Korea, ostensibly aimed at defending this country from North Korean ballistic missiles. China has seen this move as one that changes the strategic situation in the region, and putting it at a distinct disadvantage. The U.S. announced the deployment of additional B-52 Stratofortress bombers to Guam on August 12th. More importantly, the additional deployment of B-1 and B-2 strategic bombers to the island was also announced. This marks the first time these nuclear-capable strategic assets have been deployed to Guam.

Vietnam quietly deployed defensive rocket artillery systems to a number of islands that it has occupied in the Spratly Archipelago. China almost immediately announced that Vietnam’s actions were a “terrible mistake”. It is hinted that the rocket artillery batteries will target the airfields built on Chinese occupied islands in the Spratlys.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration Ruling

The South China Sea Crisis took a decidedly ominous turn when the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of the Philippines in the arbitration initiated by that nation on January 22, 2012. The Court ruled that it did have authority to rule on the arbitration, that China need not take part in the arbitration for it to be legitimate and binding, and that China’s “Nine Dash Line” was not valid as it did not comply with the UNCLOS (whose authority supersedes any historic rights), that China had taken actions to aggravate and not alleviate the dispute between it and the Philippines, and that no entitlements granted by islands within a nations EEZ or continental shelf can be obtained by artificial islands built on previously low-tide elevations. The PAC also ruled that Mischief Reef is within the EEZ of the Philippines.

China predictably refused to acknowledge the validity of the ruling or the authority of the PCA to preside over the arbitration in the first place. China officially went on record in 2006, a full six years before the arbitration was put forth by the Philippines, declaring under Article 298 of the UNCLOS that, “The Government of the People’s Republic of China does not accept any of the procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to all the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1 (a) (b) and (c) of Article 298 of the Convention.”

The United States wasted little time in officially supporting the ruling and calling on China to abide by it. A State Department spokesman said that it “hopes and it expects” both parties to abide by the ruling. Chinese President Xi Jinping stated flatly that, “The islands in the South China Sea have been Chinese territories since ancient times. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on these awards.”

Many main stream media outlets have praised the PCA ruling and have concluded that it deals a heavy blow to the legitimacy of China’s actions in the South China Sea. Commentary from a cross section of the MSM seems to draw the conclusion that China must now abandon its “Nine Dash Line” claim, halt island reclamation efforts, and surrender the occupied Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal, or face mounting international diplomatic and legal pressure. They fail to either acknowledge or realize that the “Nine Dash Line” claim was never a serious territorial claim on the part of China, but a time-gaining policy of “strategic ambiguity” from the outset, that allowed China the time and diplomatic wiggle-room to establish a real and concrete military presence at key points in the region. Following age-old naval strategy, China has been busy occupying the “central position” in the region, fortifying this position to take advantage of internal lines of communication, movement and logistics, and establishing a viable and robust A2/AD umbrella over the entire South China Sea. To China, the “South China Sea Dispute” has been a wonderful cover that has provided an effective distraction from its very real, strategic build-up in the area. China is playing a very different game than the Philippines or the United States, and it has spent decades strengthening its strategic position in the South China Sea, a region rich in oil and natural gas, fish and other marine life, and that facilitates over $5 trillion USD in maritime trade traffic annually.

Chinese Escalations

Following the PCA ruling in the middle of July, China has taken a number of steps that would seem, on the surface, to be retaliatory in nature. Western media has largely portrayed these actions in just such a manner; however, many of these apparent escalations have been years in the making and do not directly coincide with the arbitration ruling.

Bomber and Fighter Combat Patrols

Beginning on July 18th, just days after the PCA ruling, China began combat air patrols over the disputed regions of the South China Sea. These air patrols consisted of both strategic bombers, aerial tankers and air superiority fighter aircraft. H-6K bombers (based on the Soviet Tu-16), which are capable of carrying nuclear armed bombs and cruise missiles, were dispatched along with Su-30 air superiority fighters and aerial re-fueling tankers (most likely HY-6 or even IL-78 aircraft). The H-6K has six under-wing hard points that can carry either DF-10 nuclear capable Land Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM) or YJ-12 Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM).

Chinese Air Force H-6K flies by Scarborough Shoal in mid-July.

Image: Chinese Air Force H-6K flies by Scarborough Shoal in mid-July.

Launching of New Navy and Coast Guard Vessels

Although the timing of the building schedules of additional Type 052D destroyers and a new China Coast Guard cutter based on the Type 054 frigate are merely coincidental with the PCA ruling, they do highlight the rapid speed at which China is acquiring new naval warfare platforms. Since March of this year, at least nine PLAN vessels of significant size and capabilities have been commissioned. The China Coast Guard also continues to grow.

On March 7th, three Type 072A Landing Ship Tank (LST) were commissioned in a single day. They have been assigned to the East China Sea Fleet, the area of operations of which cover the Senkaku Islands. The adding of this new amphibious landing capability sends a clear message to both Japan and Taiwan that China is modernizing and expanding its amphibious assault capabilities.

On May 30th, a Type 054A Class Frigate (FFG) was commissioned (# 536), with an additional Type 054A commissioned (#551) just one week later on June 8th. On the very same day, the Type 056A Corvette (#508) was also commissioned. That amounts to three modern surface combatants commissioned in one week. Also in June, the China Coast Guard took delivery of its own Type 054A frigate, in this case modified as a large Cutter with the 32 cell VLS removed.

 Newly commissioned Type 903A replenishment vessel. The PLAN continues to expand its complement of logistics support vessels.

Image: Newly commissioned Type 903A replenishment vessel. The PLAN continues to expand its complement of logistics support vessels.

On July 15th, the PLAN saw the commissioning of two new Type 903A replenishment vessels, #963 and #964. These vessels are crucial in providing logistics support to fleets dispatched for long periods of time, or during times of war when ammunition and fuel are consumed at higher rates. They will prove necessary for any future aircraft carrier strike group (CSG) deployments. Perhaps of greatest significance, the fourth Type 052D Destroyer (DDG), #175 Yinchuan, was commissioned on July 12th. This vessel will be followed soon by the # 117 Xiningwhich is currently undergoing sea trials. Six more Type 052D DDGs are currently built and being fitted out at the Dalian and Jiangnan shipyards. These vessels represent the most advanced and potent vessels in the PLAN’s inventory.

Increased Presence near the Senkaku Islands

Japan has issued a stern official protest to the Chinese government for the recent incursion of Chinese survey vessels, Coast Guard vessels and dozens of civilian fishing boats into the territorial waters of the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands. Japan summoned the Chinese ambassador to voice their concern and submit a formal protest. The Chinese ambassador, Cheng Yonghua, stated in an interview with the press, “I told him that … it is natural that Chinese ships conduct activity in the waters in question. I also told him both countries need to work on dialogue through diplomatic channels so as not to make things more complicated and escalated.”

A Japan Coast Guard Cutter confronting a China Marine Surveillance vessel within the territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands. Such incidents have increased in recent weeks.

Image: A Japan Coast Guard Cutter confronting a China Marine Surveillance vessel within the territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands. Such incidents have increased in recent weeks.

The recent increase in Chinese pressure on Japan in the East China Sea follows closely on the heels of the PCA ruling, and after Japan’s official communication in support of the award in favor of the Philippines. Japan has gone on record supporting the Philippines in their position, even sending the JS Oyashio attack submarine and two guided missile destroyers, JS Ariake DDG 109 and JS Setogiri DDG 156 to Subic Bay in a show of support during the multi-national training exercise Balikitan 2016 in April.

Completion of Type 054 Frigate based Cutter for Coast Guard

Mentioned earlier in connection with Chinese vessel commissionings in recent months, the acquisition by the China Coast Guard (CCG) of a Type 054A Frigate is quite significant. Pictures appeared in the media of the vessel in June, bearing pennant # 46301. It appears that the vessel maintains the deck gun and close-in defense weapons of the frigate design, but dispenses with the 32 cell VLS. The additional space in the bow section will most likely be utilized to accommodate life-saving equipment or aids to navigation support, more in line with Coast Guard duties.

The newest CCG Cutter based on the Type 054A FFG. The first of how many?

Image: The newest CCG Cutter based on the Type 054A FFG. The first of how many?

China already operates the largest Coast Guard in the region, having expanded the service to approximately 200 vessels of all sizes. The China Coast Guard already operates the two largest vessels of any Coast Guard in the region. The CCG #2901 and CCG #3901 displace between 12,000 and 15,000 tons, both larger than the Japanese Coast Guard Shikishima Class Cutters, at 6,500 tons. At around 4,000 tons displacement, the new vessel is smaller than these Cutters, but it represents a balance of endurance, range and speed that will greatly improve the capabilities of the CCG. At a cruising speed of 18 knots, the operational radius of the vessel is approximately 8,000 nautical miles without replenishment.

U.S. Escalation

The United States has taken an adversarial stance against China in its island building activities in the South China Sea from the start, and has lead a number of freedom of navigation cruises by US Navy warships and over-flights by both surveillance aircraft and even B-52 bombers, starting in December of last year. The United States has supported both the Philippines and Vietnam politically, and increasingly through military aid and arms sales. The United States officially ended its arms embargo of Vietnam on May 23rd of this year, dispatched two Carrier Strike Groups to the region to take part in military exercises in conjunction with the Philippines this summer, and has made numerous official statements that it expects China to abide by the ruling of the PCA. It is very interesting to note, and almost never reported in the main stream media, that the United States did not ratify the UNCLOS, siting threats to U.S. sovereignty rights as chief amongst its concerns. As much as it exclaims the preeminence of international law, it refuses to surrender itself to the restrictions and requirements of UNCLOS.

Deployment of THAAD to South Korea

On July 7th, the U.S. and S. Korea officially agreed to the deployment of Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems to South Korean territory. Although the reason given is to defend South Korea from an increasingly belligerent North Korea and its arsenal of nuclear capable ballistic missiles, China has accurately interpreted the move as a threat to its own security and the nuclear balance of power in the region. U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems forward deployed to the Korean peninsula are more of a threat to China, in their ability to shoot down long range ballistic missiles fired from China on their upward trajectory, than they can defend against short range missiles fired from North Korea at its estranged southern neighbor. Either China will respond in kind, perhaps beginning nuclear deterrent patrols with its new ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) fleet closer to U.S. territorial waters, or the deployment of THAAD will encourage China to act unilaterally or in concert with South Korea in reigning in North Korea’s military provocations.

Deployment of B-52, B-1 and B-2 Bombers

Just this week, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that for the first time ever, B-52, B-1 and B-2 strategic bombers will all be stationed at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam at the same time. B-52 Stratofortresses have been deployed to Guam on a rotational basis for many years; however, this will be the first deployment of both B-1 Lancer supersonic and B-2 Freedom stealth bombers to the island. The only way to interpret such a deployment, is that the U.S. is bringing to bear increasingly capable assets to the Pacific region. These B-1 and B-2 bombers were both designed to be able to penetrate advanced enemy air defenses to deliver both nuclear munitions and precision guided conventional weapons. The deployment of such assets greatly escalates an already volatile situation.

B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers all parked on the tarmac at Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam.

Image: B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers all parked on the tarmac at Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam.

Japanese Escalation

For its part, the Japanese government has made a number of provocative announcements since the PCA ruling was made public on July 12th. Perhaps in response to Chinese actions in the East China Sea, or in conjunction with the United States in a larger defensive strategy, these announcements are sure to aggravate a Chinese government increasingly assailed by a concerted effort to contain and countermand it. It appears that Japan is increasing its cooperation with both the United States and the Philippines in its defense posture towards China.

Adoption of THAAD

It was announced on Japan’s national broadcaster NHK on the 9th of August, that the government is considering purchasing and deploying the U.S. THAAD system in an attempt to bolster its Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) defense. This announcement follows the North Korean launch of two No Dong intermediate range ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. One of the missiles reportedly splashed down within the 200 mile EEZ of Japan. Whether this announcement was aimed at North Korea or China (or most likely both) is not clear, as Japan also announced its intention to develop a short range, surface-to-surface anti-ship missile system intended to defend the Senkaku Islands from waterborne attack.

Anti-Ship Missiles for Deployment in the Senkaku Islands

The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported on Sunday, August 14th, that an internal Ministry of Defense report calls for the development of a shore based anti-ship guided missile system to defend the Senkaku Islands from waterborne threats. The missiles will have a range of approximately 190 miles (300 km.) and should be ready for deployment by 2023. The Japanese Ministry of Defense has not made any comments supporting nor denying the newspaper’s claims. If true, the program acknowledges Japanese resolve not only to defend what it views as its sovereign territory, but also to base defensive missile systems on the islands themselves.

Although Japan has the capacity to defend the Senkaku Islands via warships and aircraft, the deployment of missile systems to the islands would confirm a plan to garrison troops there, something that has been resisted in the past. Perhaps elements of the Ground Defense Forces Western Army Infantry Regiment, trained in amphibious and air assault, will be based on the Senkaku Islands in the near future. Japan intends to build an amphibious brigade around the nucleus of the Western Army Infantry Regiment, complete with 52 AAVs and 17 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Japanese troops from the Western Army Infantry Regiment train with U.S. Marines in Hawaii in conducting amphibious assault with AAV7s, August of 2014.

Image: Japanese troops from the Western Army Infantry Regiment train with U.S. Marines in Hawaii in conducting amphibious assault with AAV7s, August of 2014.

Vietnamese Escalations

For its part, the Vietnamese Armed Forces have remained relatively quiet in the face of current escalations in the South China Sea. It is important to recognize that Vietnam has fought at least two naval skirmishes with China, both in the Paracel and Spratly Islands. Following the Johnson South Reef Skirmish of 1988, Vietnam moved to fortify the islands that it occupies in the South China Sea. Vietnam maintains defensive garrisons on a number of islands, having engaged in limited land reclamation projects of its own. Immediately after the July 12thruling by the PCA, Vietnam took measures to further arm a number of these island bastions.

Deployment of Rocket Systems to the Spratly Islands

Although Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry vehemently denies the fact, a Reuters report published on the 11th of August, details the positioning of mobile rocket launchers on a number of Vietnamese occupied islands in the Spratly Island chain. Citing a number of “Western official sources”, these rocket launchers are aimed at neighboring Chinese defense installations, most notably airstrips and aircraft support installations. Chinese state-run media responded to the report in an article that alluded to the military clashes between the two nations over islands in the South China Sea in the past. An article run in the Global Times stated, in very direct terms that, ““If Vietnam’s latest deployment is targeting China, that would be a terrible mistake. We hope Vietnam will remember and draw some lessons from history.”

Conclusion

The weeks immediately following the PCA ruling at The Hague, regarding the arbitration brought forth by the Philippines against China, have been marked by an increasing escalation of both the South China Sea Crisis and the territorial dispute between China and Japan in the East China Sea. The broader crisis has even effected the Koreas and Japan in terms of their greater strategic defense posture. It is interesting to note that all parties involved, with the exception of the Philippines, have taken steps to escalate the crisis and increase tensions in the region. The Republic of the Philippines, perhaps the least belligerent of all nations involved in territorial disputes in the South China Sea, has acted to deescalate the situation, even reaching out to Chinese officials to negotiate a bilateral agreement that would help resolve the issues involved. This is doubly surprising given the inflammatory reputation of the new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte.

Increasing escalation in the region will continue until the various parties to the multitude of disputes come to an honorable and equitable solution, or a number of lines are crossed. These ‘trip-wires” include: China beginning land reclamation  on Scarborough Shoal, China or Japan militarily occupying the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands, or Vietnam threatening China’s major installations in the Spratly Islands with a build-up of weapons systems. Considering the current pace of escalation, the world has weeks or months to wait to see if any of the parties involved are willing to engage in open military confrontation to advance their claims and interests in this most heated global crisis.

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years. He currently resides and works in the Caribbean.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Escalation, Naval Deployments and Geopolitical Conflict in the South China Sea

At the Black Summit “Hoodstock 2016”, last night, in Montreal, a sister stood up during one of the panel discussions to place due emphasis on the pioneering role played by African women in the U.S. in launching the most recent reaffirmation of African self-love, aka: The Black Lives Matter Movement.

During the bus ride back to Ottawa, I could not stop thinking about the importance of that timely intervention. Indeed, students of history must be ever mindful of the role patriarchy plays in mis-shaping our collective memory of historical facts and events. For those of us who are descendants of displaced Africans (survivors of the Maafa), it is even more vital to learn about, acknowledge, share and celebrate the heroic stands taken by our daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, throughout the ages.

Let us applaud the pioneering work of Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrice Cullors whose labor of love launched #BlackLivesMatter. The movement they launched in St. Louis, Missouri (USA) with the powerful social media hashtag to support mourners of 18-year old Mike Brown who was killed at the hands of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, has since mushroomed into a formidable global movement for justice.

As I mentioned during my speech at Hoodstock 2016, although the words we use to express it differ from country to country, from generation to generation, for a long while now, Africans all over the globe have been screaming to their tormentors ears: “I am an asset, not a threat!”. In the barrios of Rio de Janiero, in the mines of Sierra Leone, Congo and Azania as in New-York City (USA), Ottawa (Canada), Marseille (France) and Cite-Soleil (Haiti) black hands and voices have arisen again and again, to exclaim: “don’t shoot, don’t contaminate, don’t incarcerate – I am an asset, not a threat”.

Today, August 14, 2016, marks the 225th anniversary of Bwa Kay Iman, a momentous world event I consider to be among the many roots of Black Lives Matter. As dozens of African women and men gathered in the woods of Northern Haiti, the night of August 14-15, 1791, pledging their lives to the abolitionist revolution, they were affirming African self-love in a most dramatic and effective manner. For hundreds of years, kidnapped, displaced and tortured women, men and children had attempted to civilize their torturers, to educate them about the fact of their humanity, to reason with them, to escape from them. It was all to no avail. The visceral attachment European imperialists had with stolen wealth rendered them death, blind and stupid at once. So, the inevitable happened; 450,000 enslaved souls rose up on the Caribbean island and, over a bloody 12-year war, they chased out the Spanish, British and French murderers who had held them in bondage since 1499.

Asked about the Haitian revolution, few Africans living on or off the island who are familiar with the subject may name Toussaint Louverture, Henri Christophe, Boukman and Jean-Jacques Dessalines as leaders of the Revolution. Yet, throughout the uprising, African women and African men had always struggled side by side, in efficient complicity. Haiti’s great liberator and founder Jean-Jacques Dessalines, himself, was trained and educated in the arts of warfare by the valiant ABDARAYA TOYA, a fierce elder who led her own regiment of soldiers during the war of independence. “Grann Toya” is said to have been a close friend to Dessalines’ mother who passed away soon after his birth. Other key figures of the Haitian Revolution include the amazing Lieutenant Sanit Bélair, whose portrait now graces Haitian paper currency, Marie-Jeanne Lamartinière and Marie-Claire Heureuse Félicité Bonheur, initiator of the January 1st Pumpkin Soup Revolutionary Communion.

In closing, I would like to dedicate this humble text to all the women and men, boys and girls whose names we are unable to retrace although we know they stood up on the shores of Africa to resist their kidnappers. To Aminata who might have tightly held unto her newborn as she jumped overboard “The Good Ship Jesus”, reaching the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean with at least one of her Portuguese kidnappers whom she grabbed during her desperate leap, let us respond: “nou renmen ou grangrann: Indeed, Mama Aminata, our black lives matter”.

To Simba, to Araya who never survived long enough to transmit family names to our present generation of Africans in Rio, in Ottawa, in Acra, in Washington, we say: “yes, we value our black lives in which we pledge to invest love everlasting”.

To the inheritors of the loot collected by Napoleon Bonaparte, Leopold, Elizabeth I and John Hawkins, we say:

“Brother, sister, we are not a threat!”.

Listen up, wise up! Forget about the wall you plan to erect to prevent the Mexicans from returning to their ancestral lands. Listen up, wise up! Your coast guards are not numerous enough to stop the rightful owners of Congo’s gold and coltran from finding the whereabouts of the riches you’ve stolen from their land.

Listen up, wise up! 1 million Haitians you’ve contaminated with cholera, after having killed over 10,000 black lives on the island since 2004, will not let you sleep in peace at night. Listen up, wise up! white privilege is the real threat to all of our lives. Give it up and let us move forward, together, investing in all our assets.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Roots of “Black Lives Matter” in Bwa Kay Iman, Haiti (14-15 August 1791)

Technology developed to jam cellphones during the Iraq War may be getting deployed against journalists reporting on protests against the political establishment in the United States.

While police and government surveillance of protests, including monitoring of cellphone use, is well-documented, efforts to block signals at protests remains an oft-repeated, but never proven, rumor.

It may be impossible to definitively prove that authorities are using cellphone “jamming” technology, but journalists working with both mainstream and independent media reported unusual difficulties accessing the internet during recent protests at the gates of the Democratic National Convention, consistent with the effects this very real technology could have.

During the protests outside the DNC, which I covered for MintPress News, I experienced this personally, with my internet connection behaving suspiciously near the convention’s security fences and entrance gates, often abruptly blocking my tweets and other communication. The same was true for every other journalist I spoke with who covered the protests.

“It’s scary for me as a journalist because that’s how state suppression of events occurs,” said Desiree Kane, a freelance journalist and direct action organizer who covered the Republican National Convention for MintPress and also took part in protests in Philadelphia.

“That’s exactly how it happens is you block communications of what might be going down,” she added.

‘By Tuesday night, everybody noticed’

Jon Ziegler, an experienced citizen journalist, spoke with me on July 28, the final day of the DNC. He recalled his shock at the obvious disruption to his service during the previous days’ events.

Ziegler, who livestreams on several social networks under the name @Rebelutionary_Z and supports his work through crowdfunding, has been covering protests and activism like that which occurred in Philadelphia since the early days of the national Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011.

“I’ve streamed all over the country. I’ve streamed in big cities and small towns, large crowds, any type of situation you can imagine,” he said.

He said it’s important to distinguish between normal, everyday disruptions — for example, a temporary loss of signal caused by tall buildings during protests in downtown Philadelphia — and the seemingly deliberate interruptions journalists experienced near the Wells Fargo Center, the site of the DNC in South Philadelphia.

“You have some data reception issues for here and there, but they always will correct themselves, and I can usually do some measures to get back up live very quickly.”

Just before traveling to the convention, Ziegler upgraded his livestreaming equipment so that he could access a portable WiFi hotspot through Verizon and another phone using AT&T. This would allow him to alternate between the two networks at a moment’s notice. In addition, he uses multiple livestreaming apps connected to his Twitter account, allowing him to switch apps during interruptions.

“Here in Philadelphia, I’ve actually had the most options for connecting to the internet and streaming services that I’ve ever had in the four years that I’ve been doing this, and yet I’ve encountered the most problems, especially down by the gate of the DNC, than ever before.”

Connection problems occurred with varying degrees of severity throughout the week of the DNC, and it was a frequent topic of conversation among journalists. “Monday night we we were talking about how it was strange, but by Tuesday night, everybody kind of noticed, ‘Wait a minute, this isn’t right,’” Ziegler said.

“At some points, even just trying to send tweets out was impossible,” he continued. “Heaven forbid you try to upload a video or photo, but sometimes even text tweets are impossible to get out.”

Regardless of the network carrier and the livestreaming app he used, Ziegler was often stymied.

“Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the second we even get close to those gates my livestream gets glitchy, or drops out completely, or you just can’t connect to the internet at all.”

Even mainstream media journalists experienced jamming at DNC

My experiences matched Ziegler’s. For the first time in years, I sometimes had to rely on Twitter’s antiquated text message gateway to send out the simplest of tweets using SMS messages. Using the Twitter app, even non-multimedia tweets sometimes took over an hour to publish.

Some of the worst interruptions came on the night of Wednesday July 27. Because it was the night President Barack Obama spoke to the convention, the fence was guarded by the Secret Service as well as local, state and federal police.

The already troubling bandwidth problems peaked during some of the week’s most intense protesting, just as activists briefly broke through the security fence, and social networks and livestreaming services remained largely inaccessible for the rest of the night.

Kane found that her cellphone service disappeared just as she filmed a group of armored riot police briefly deployed to the disruption outside of the DNC.

Spooked by the service interruption and the sudden increase in tensions between protesters and police, she said, “I walked away maybe five blocks back to my car,” where she found her service returned, allowing her to upload her video.

“Even mainstream journalists were starting to question whether we had some kind of jamming,” Ziegler told me.

I spoke briefly with Myles Miller, a reporter for New York’s PIX11 News, who expressed frustration at his inability to share video of events as they unfolded, or even immediately after.

Unicorn Riot, another crowdfunded team of journalists, described similar bandwidth issues. And a staff member from Fusion, part of a group of representatives of the online news site at the protests, told me that although they were equipped with specialized livestreaming equipment which linked five SIM cards — the equivalent of having five mobile phones working together, across multiple cellular networks — the team was still unable to get a signal on Wednesday night after the fence was breached.

On July 28, the convention’s final night, I found the ability to share photos and videos was slightly improved — tweets uploaded slowly rather than not at all. But when protesters again gathered near the fence, both Ziegler and I noticed that our signals cut out entirely, exactly when police moved to push the protest away with their bicycles.

And, later that night, Joanne Leon, a citizen journalist, reported to me via Twitter that she’d watched every user in the area on Periscope, a popular livestreaming app, simultaneously “disappear” from the internet.

  Developed in Iraq, deployed in Philadelphia?

The use of cellphone jamming technology to protect the president, as may have occurred on July 27 during the convention, is an open secret: occasionally reported on, but rarely discussed. The Washington Post reported in 2009:

“As President Obama’s motorcade rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inauguration Day, federal authorities deployed a closely held law enforcement tool: equipment that can jam cellphones and other wireless devices to foil remote-controlled bombs, sources said. It is an increasingly common technology, with federal agencies expanding its use as state and local agencies are pushing for permission to do the same. … But jamming remains strictly illegal for state and local agencies. Federal officials barely acknowledge that they use it inside the United States, and the few federal agencies that can jam signals usually must seek a legal waiver first.”

But while illegal for them to use in most cases in this manner, police do have access to technology that can interfere with cell signals, deliberately or otherwise. “Stingrays,” the controversial devices which let police monitor cellphone signals by masquerading as a cell tower, are routinely used to maintain lists of activists who attend protests. But they can interfere with signals, too.

Last year, the ACLU forced the federal government to admit to the Stingray’s capability to block signals as well as monitor them, sometimes even interfering with innocent bystanders uninvolved with protests or other events that involve police.

“We think the fact that stingrays block or drop calls of cell phone users in the vicinity should be of concern to cell service providers, the FCC, and ordinary people,” Nate Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a March 2015 interview with WIRED magazine. “If an emergency or important/urgent call (to a doctor, a loved one, etc.) is blocked or dropped by this technology, that’s a serious problem.”

  Police and the U.S. government are famously reticent to admit to their use of this technology or its capabilities, even once, in 2014, going so far as to seize court records to keep them out of the hands of the ACLU. Harris Corporation, the manufacturer of the Stingray, is even known to have police and other law enforcement agencies sign nondisclosure agreements, legally binding them from revealing details of the technology and its usage.

And with multiple law enforcement agencies known to be engaging in surveillance activities in Philadelphia during the convention, it may be impossible to determine who was responsible. Derrick Broze, writing in an April 2015 MintPress investigation, suggested:

“The federal government, local police departments and the Harris Corporation are participating in a coordinated effort to keep the public in the dark about the full capabilities of cell site simulator surveillance devices, also known as Stingrays.”

It is worth noting that while greater attention has been paid to law enforcement’s use of large-scale military equipment like armored vehicles, cellphone jamming is another example of wartime technology brought home for domestic use. During the Iraq War, cellphone jammers known as Warlocks, were a highly secretive device designed to block the detonation of remote-control bombs.

‘It doesn’t help me feel safe’

While journalists may be the most outspoken targets of cellphone jamming, protesters facing arrest or police brutality are at higher risk.

Desiree Kane, the freelance journalist who attended both the RNC and DNC, is also an experienced protest organizer. She agreed that jamming technology endangers activists, in addition to threatening their First Amendment rights.

“Medics might be watching Twitter to see if they need to deploy other people,” she said. “There’s a lot that depends on our communications.”

But she also emphasized the importance of smartphones and social media to press freedom. “Twitter for journalists is critical,” she noted, highlighting the social media platform’s importance for reporting breaking news.

It’s hard not to be concerned at the expanding use of this technology, especially as the government pushes for access to an “internet kill switch” and corporate players like Apple develop blocks of their own. The potential uses for the technology during future unrest or mass protests are troubling.

“When you take away that kind of tool when things are going down, it doesn’t help me feel safe,” Kane concluded.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cell-Jamming Technology Is Being Turned against Journalists

Is it possible that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will self-destruct well before the election?  It certainly looked that way, given one major blunder after another in the days after his nomination at the July 18–21 Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

Here’s another question: Or is it possible he can win? Both options are still on the table because despite voting polls both candidates continue to remain unpopular with the majority of Americans.

Meanwhile, in a mass fundraising letter to her supporters this week, Hillary Clinton declared:

“I know what we are capable of doing together. Together we can break down every barrier holding Americans back, and build ladders of opportunity for everyone. America was built by people who had each other’s backs, who understood we all have to do our part and that at our best we all rise together. That’s the Democratic vision I’ve worked toward my whole life.”

Who knew this woman, who seemed fairly conservative all her political life, was a secret socialist? As such, however, she should have mentioned slavery, the destruction of Native American society and the gross exploitation of the working class throughout those years of her quaint “all rise together” version of American history.

In recent weeks the billionaire businessman has generated extreme turmoil within his own party by mocking the Muslim parents of a U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq, refusing to support the re-election of key Republicans (such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan), questioning why he shouldn’t use nuclear weapons, and  — to top it off — seeming to call for gun owners to protect the 2nd Amendment by, well, shooting Clinton. There’s no telling what absurdity he will utter next.

But — don’t bet on Hillary Clinton yet to win in November, even though she was ahead in polls in the days after her nomination at the July 25-28 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. Real Clear Politics combined different six big time national polls in August up to the 12th. The result: Hillary leads by 6.8% — 47.8 to Trumps 41.0. The Aug. 2 CNN tally, not in the combined list, was Clinton, 45%, Trump 37%, Donald Johnson (Libertarian) 10 and the Green party’s Jill Stein, 5%. Gallop Aug. 3 reported the most recent poll of Americans about their views of the candidates, not how they would vote:  62% viewed Trump unfavorably and 52% thought so of Clinton.

Given the unpopularity issue, plus the contradictions in each party between the ruling establishments and rank-and-file and the possibility of staggering surprises or revelations to come in the nearly three months before the election (including the danger of a terrorist attack, and the probability of more computer hacking), nothing is certain at this stage.

Trump reversed himself Aug. 5 and finally endorsed the re-elections of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senators John McCain (Arizona) and Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire). In return, what used to be the GOP establishment is trying to accommodate to the most bizarre of presidential candidates and to what Stephanie Coontz describes as “the crudest alliance of racists, nativists, misogynists, and ‘know-nothings’ that America has seen in any national election since before World War II.” Rumors never cease that Republican leaders may find a way to kick him off the ticket before election day. At the same time there is great fear about retaliation from his supporters.

Trump’s hard-core right wing constituency remains enthusiastic about their bombastic candidate, despite — or rather because of — his right wing nationalism, racism, anti-Muslim and anti-Latino prejudices, as well as his extraordinary egotism, dishonesty and blatant ignorance. Whether Trump wins or loses, he has galvanized and given strength and direction to millions of Americans who previously kept their bigoted views within the family or expressed them only to fellow haters. Now it’s all out there since Trump entered the Republican primaries and may become more intense.

Despite some conservative billionaires and multimillionaires holding back their usual large donations to the Republican presidential race because of Trump’s antics and disregard for certain traditional rightist issues, the New York Times reported Aug 4: “Trump all but erased his enormous fund-raising disadvantage against Hillary Clinton in the span of just two months, according to figures released by his campaign Aug. 3, converting the passion of his core followers into a flood of small donations on a scale rarely seen in national politics.

Vermont Sen. Bernard (Bernie) Sanders financed his entire $200 million campaign on small donations and nearly gained the nomination. He showed for the first time in the modern era that a candidate for high office need not sell out to the plutocracy to obtain electoral power.

Sen. Sanders, who gathered 13,168, 222 primary votes to Clinton’s 16,847,084, may have lost the nomination but he succeed in politicizing multimillions of Americans toward progressivism and the left.  He has created a mass constituency for social change. Hopefully this force will be organized for action within the next year. Sanders further acquired more power within the Democratic party because of his huge following. It is assumed he will use that influence to promote support for his progressive legislative proposals.

What’s Next?

After a year of sharp infighting within America’s two ruling parties it is now clear that the traditional Republican establishment has lost its internal struggle for control, and the Democratic establishment won its fight against the liberal left upserge.  But this could all change.

If Trump loses in November, the former GOP leadership will quickly return to power, making sure to embrace some of the programs of the fallen candidate in order to retain most of his voters.  If he wins, the traditional GOP leadership will seek to exert dominant influence over a president who has no idea how to govern or what to do in office. Republican ultra-conservative Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence and far right Speaker Ryan among others will see to that. Meanwhile, conservative Old Boys will be plotting to take over after Trump’s term ends.

If Clinton loses it seems likely the Democrats will have to reorganize the party and it would be logical for the liberal/left to exert more leadership after years of being silenced during the center right Obama and Clinton eras. If Hillary wins, not much will change. However, a lot depends the pro-Bernie forces. It is not clear whether they will become an independent organization, the left liberal sector of the party or other configurations.

The problems afflicting the working class are finally being talked about in the U.S. today because they are among the reasons why both official parties are experiencing serious uprisings from their generally pliant rank and file voters. The fact is both parties were long aware that the working class and sectors of the middle class have been experiencing mounting hard times over recent decades— and they did nothing to alleviate this situation.  Guess who made the following statement and when it was made:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These prescient words were uttered at a California campaign fundraiser in 2008 by Sen. Barack Obama who, since then, has taken no significant action to mitigate this crisis. Indeed, it only seems to have convinced him to fight harder for passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which will eliminate more jobs.

Clinton supported the TPP for years until it became evident last year that Bernie’s opposition to the pact was popular with many voters, and she turned against it.  It is notable, however, that when the Sanders contingent sought to insert opposition to the TPP into the party platform, Clinton delegates defeated the measure. News reports indicate Obama will launch a major effort to pass the trade pact before he leaves office in January. He has two reasons for pushing further. The TPP will highly benefit U.S. and international corporations and, though rarely mentioned, it is a key part of the administration’s efforts to reduce China’s influence in East and South Asia. China has not been invited to join, of course,

 The Economic System

Trump revealed his economic program Aug. 8. Although he tried to make it appear his plan benefitted all the American people, including the working class, it turned out to be a typical right wing neoliberal program vastly benefitting the ruling class.  The New York Times commented editorially Aug. 9:

“Trump said that he wanted to usher in ‘economic renewal,’ but most of his proposals would hurt the economy, rack up huge deficits, accelerate climate change and leave the country isolated from the world. In a speech billed as a blueprint for stimulating growth and creating jobs, Mr. Trump offered a grab bag of ideas that borrow from discredited supply-side economics, the fossil fuel industry’s wish list and ‘America First’ isolationism….

“Mr. Trump told the Detroit Economic Club that he would cut taxes to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. He said he would slash the corporate tax rate to 15%, arguing that the current statutory 35% is one of the highest among developed countries. He did not mention that the average effective corporate tax rate was 18.1% in 2015, including state and local taxes….”

In trying to understand why both official political parties put the needs of the 1% to10% of the people first and those of the rest of the population second, keep in mind: Despite their differences, both parties adhere to neoliberal capitalism — the contemporary resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. The Republicans are stauncher advocates, of course. Such a system usually transfers control of economic matters to the private sector. It insists that governments must limit subsidies, minimize social spending for the people, reduce deficit spending, limit protectionism, back deregulation of private enterprise and privatize businesses run by the state. Its goal is to “free” the economy by eliminating state-imposed regulations and barriers. It’s that system that is the problem.

Within this neoliberal context the plutocracy prefers that the U.S. remains a two-party electoral system — one party far right, the other center right, functioning as the “lesser evil,” which, in this case, Hillary is to the Donald. This insures there will be continual “democratic” struggle between two parties, but all well within the assigned economic system. (There are those, such as economist Paul Krugman, who view the Democratic Party as center left. The last time the party was center left was in the 1960s when it was responsible for some amazing reforms and social programs. Today’s party is much closer to the now obsolete Moderate Republicans, hence center right. For example, Obama’s only significant, though flawed, social program, the Affordable Care Act, was a copy of the then Moderate Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s 2006 health plan for Massachusetts.)

The two-party proviso is why it is so difficult to construct a viable national left third party in America. The last serious national effort to do so was the left wing Progressive party in 1948 when Roosevelt’s former Vice President Henry A. Wallace ran against Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Thomas Dewey. The Progressives opposed Truman’s beginning stages of the Cold War against the USSR and demanded the end of nuclear weapons. They blasted Jim Crow racism supported by the Democratic southern Congressional delegation, and backed women’s rights, worker rights and civil rights. The new party was supported by communists, socialists and the left. It was redbaited viciously through the campaign, but it managed to obtain 2.4% of the popular vote. The subsequent crackdown on the political left lasted for decades.

There are a number of left political third parties in America, nearly all of them quite small and ignored by the media. Of these, several represent various socialist tendencies and several others operate within a capitalist perspective.

As a result of the Bernie Sanders campaign and his popularization of democratic socialism, the Green Party — which in the 2012 election championed “responsible stakeholder capitalism” — this year decided it sought a decentralized “alternative economic system” to capitalism. The nature of that system wasn’t thoroughly defined but it was based on “workplace and community democracy.” The Greens declared:

“We believe the old models of capitalism (private ownership of production) and state socialism (state ownership of production) are not ecologically sound, socially just, or democratic and that both contain built-in structures that advance injustices. Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system ecological socialism, communalism, or the cooperative commonwealth but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making.”

This sounds as though it was quickly put together with a lot of loose ends.

The Green party is expected to benefit considerably in November because an undetermined number of Bernie’s supporters will not vote for Clinton, and the Green party views itself as the alternative. Green presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who obtained less than 1% in the 2012 election, may get 5% this year because she has been heavily courting Bernie fans since he backed Clinton after leading the fight against her.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is also fielding a woman candidate for president in a number of states. She is revolutionary socialist activist and union leader Gloria LaRiva, who won the important nomination of California’s large Peace and Freedom party Aug. 13. Her running mate in this state is Dennis Banks, a lifelong activist for social justice and co-founder of the American Indian Movement. They call for socialist reforms in the state.

A Woman Candidate

It is long past time for a woman to be elected to the White House. This is a major matter of gender equity that must be addressed and supported. It cannot, of course, be addressed adequately unless the politics of the candidate selected for this historic role actually will fight to fulfill the social, economic and political needs and demands of the majority American working families who have been neglected for decades by both parties.

One stunning example of such neglect was casually articulated to a reporter for Democracy Now who was randomly asking questions of Bernie supporters picketing outside the convention. “My name is Jacinta Mack. I’m 35 years old. I’m from Queens, New York. And I’ve been in Philadelphia since Sunday. I’m here as a Bernie supporter and protesting.” Asked “can you describe this sign that you’re carrying?” She replied:

“It is a big poster board that is carved out with Bernie’s name on one side and ‘Never Hillary’ on the other side. When I was younger, my family was on welfare, and Bill Clinton was in office. And they passed welfare reform. We weren’t qualified for food stamps any longer. The monthly money that we got was cut. And then the subsidized housing was also cut. And my mother was required to go out and apply for a certain number of jobs, but she was a single mother of six children and wasn’t able to meet their requirements. We struggled tremendously. And my mother actually became a sex worker.”

Hillary Clinton strongly supported President Bill Clinton’s “ending welfare as we know it.” The legislation was backed by nearly all Republican politicians. Hillary continued to defend the measure until recently when Sanders sharply criticized this conservative maneuver.

Aside from the grudging acceptance of several progressive platform proposals from Sanders as payback for his endorsement, all indications are that a Clinton presidency will fail to satisfy the legitimate demands of masses of working class, middle class and poor women and men— particularly now when such unmet needs have accumulated for decades. A certain criticism of Wall St. has also entered the Democratic candidate’s vocabulary, but it is largely just rhetoric.

In recent decades, progressive election campaign promises are usually the first to be abandoned by the Democrats when its candidate enters the Oval office. Clinton has been and remains a servant of Wall Street, the big banks, the principal corporations and the richest 1% of the population who function as a plutocracy without the corporate mass media ever uttering the name.

In an Aug. 4 column in TomDispatch.com, titled The Decay of American Politics,
 Andrew J. Bacevich wrote of Clinton:

“Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of entitlement combined with a nearly complete absence of accountability.  She shrugs off her misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003, while serving as senator from New York.  She neither explains nor apologizes for pressing to depose Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most notable ‘accomplishment’ as secretary of state. ‘We came, we saw, he died,’ she bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen into anarchy and become a haven for ISIS. [Last week President Obama resumed bombing Libya to dislodge the Islamic State, which occupied the coastal city of Sirte as a consequence of Clinton’s enthusiasm for regime change in Libya. U.S. Special Forces contingents are also fighting in Libya. The main fighting to liberate Sirte is by troops of one of the three factions claiming to rule the country. And it appears they may succeed in driving IS out of this coastal city.]

“The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary Clinton is utterly conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of America’s role in the world) that originated during the Cold War, reached its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the planet’s ‘sole superpower,’ and persists today remarkably unaffected by actual events. On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by routinely reaffirming her belief in American exceptionalism, paying fervent tribute to the world’s ‘greatest military,’ swearing that she’ll be ‘listening to our generals and admirals,’ and vowing to get tough on America’s adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of the contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived need for the first female candidate for president to emphasize her pugnacity.”

Foreign Policy

Nearly 15 years of the Bush-Obama wars have caused death and destruction throughout the Middle East, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan, then the illegal war of choice against Iraq, spreading further over the years. After this election a third presidential
 name will be added to the list. The wars are hardly mentioned much less debated by the candidates. Nothing will change after the election, given the caliber of the two candidates and the historic nature of the two war parties.

Clinton and the Democratic establishment have seen to it that there will be no substantive changes in Washington’s current foreign/military affairs, which are based on the policy adopted after the implosion of the Soviet Union over a quarter century ago. In essence: Enforce unilateral U.S. global hegemony.

The 2016 platform says succinctly:

“American leadership is essential to keeping us safe and our economy growing in the years ahead. It would be a dangerous mistake for America to abandon our responsibilities. We cannot, as Donald Trump suggests, cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to others who will not have our best interests in mind.”

Trump’s remarks have been distorted, of course, as they are elsewhere in the platform.

Clinton and the Democratic establishment have seen to it that there will be no substantive changes in Washington’s current foreign/military affairs, which are based on the policy adopted after the implosion of the Soviet Union over a quarter century ago. In essence: Enforce unilateral U.S. global hegemony.

The 2016 platform says succinctly: “American leadership is essential to keeping us safe and our economy growing in the years ahead. It would be a dangerous mistake for America to abandon our responsibilities. We cannot, as Donald Trump suggests, cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to others who will not have our best interests in mind.” Trump’s remarks have been distorted, of course, as they are elsewhere in the platform.

The Middle East situation won’t change. Bush-Obama wars will continue and probably get bigger under a Clinton administration, certainly increasing action to oust the Assad government in Damascus. David Cole captured the flavor Of Obama’s militarism in the Aug. 18 N.Y. Review of Books:

“The news that the United States had killed 150 unnamed individuals in a country halfway around the world with which it is not at war [Somalia, last March] generated barely a ripple of attention, much less any protest, here at home. Remote killing outside of war zones, it seems, has become business as usual.

This is a remarkable development, all the more noteworthy in that it has emerged under Barack Obama, who came to office as an antiwar president, so much so that he may be the only person to win the Nobel Peace Prize based on wishful thinking. Our Peace Prize president has now been at war longer than any other American president, and has overseen the use of military force in seven countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. In the latter four countries, virtually all the force has come in the form of unmanned drones executing suspected terrorists said to be linked to al-Qaeda or its “associated forces.”

The Democratic platform also notes: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism. That is why we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself, including by retaining its qualitative military edge, and oppose any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.” As though the issue were Israel’s right to defend itself and not the imprisonment and bombings of Gaza, the continual Israeli land-grab in West Bank and the rights of Palestinians in general.

The Russians Are Coming

The Democratic campaign platform on NATO is dishonest when it argues:

“We reject Donald Trump’s threats to abandon our European and NATO allies, all while he praises Putin.”  Trump — ever the money-minded businessman — suggested that he might not come to the aid of a NATO country that had not paid its dues. This was an outlandish statement, but hardly abandoning Europe. And he seemed to be facetious when he said that Russian intelligence should try to hack Clinton’s “missing emails.”

Trump also said he wanted to talk to the Russians in hopes of developing a less fraught relationship. This is a good idea that the Democratic candidate implies is treason. Would that she’d try it if she enters the White House, but Clinton views Russia and China as enemies with which the U.S. eventually may go to war — and that’s that.

It is interesting that Great Britain, America’s closest ally, has evidently decided to depart from the U.S. concerning Russia. Boris Johnson, the UK’s new foreign secretary, said Aug. 11 that Britain must “normalize” its relationship with Russia after years of hostility. He spoke on the phone with the Russian foreign minister, Serge Lavrov, and reportedly “discussed a possible normalization of bilateral ties.” The Telegraph (UK) also reported that Prime Minister Theresa May spoke earlier by telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin and “questioned the current state of Russian-British relations.” The pair will meet at the G20 summit of world leaders in China next month.

Candidate Clinton and her clique virtually made Trump into a Russian spy reporting regularly to President Putin, the most recent of many world leaders Washington has unjustly demonized since the end of World War II. It has not been proven that Putin or Russia, for that matter, hacked the thousands of E-mails from the Democratic Party computers that were publicized by WikiLeaks.

So far some news outlets including the New York Times are reporting the incident was a “Russian cyberattack,” carried out by two Russian intelligence groups, but U.S. government officials are only quoted as having  “high confidence” that the Russians were involved. “High confidence” means no proof.

The United States never stopped interfering and spying on Russia following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Dec. 26, 1991 and the immediate transition to capitalism under the government of hard drinking President Boris Yeltsin, who ruled with considerable American support and guidance to the end of 1999. The U.S. knew virtually everything going on in the Russian Federation during that period — from spy satellites to commuter transmissions, telephone conversations, agents on the ground, paid informants within the government and Americans connected to the White House who actually worked with Yeltsin and his regime in developing state policy. The U.S. intention was to swiftly transform Russia into a capitalist country dependent upon and serving the interests of U.S imperialism.

American plans began to crumble when Vladimir Putin was elected president in 2000 (he was acting president from 1999-2000). He won a second term in 2004, became prime minister in 2008 and was reelected president in 2012 to the present.  Even his enemies acknowledge Putin’s popularity rating is about 80%. Putin continued the transition to capitalism, and ultimately became an open critic of the communist era, but absolutely denied the U.S. the ability to establish hegemony over the federation. The demonization began soon after it was clear he would not only keep Russia independent but began to criticize aspects of America’s aggressive foreign policy. In recent years U.S. government officials began referring to him as a “thug,” among other accusations. Speaking at the Democratic Convention July 24,Vice President Joe Biden actually referred to the popular Russian leader as a “dictator” despite his overwhelming victory in the 2012 election. The next day a spokesperson for Obama refused to dispute Biden’s remark.

As far as the spying allegation is concerned, suffice to say both sides do it. Regarding Putin and Trump it is wise to remember Putin is extremely intelligent and experienced and Trump is not. Why wouldn’t the Russian leader be interested in a presidential candidate who didn’t hold an angry grudge against him and his country and  seems to abjure the possibility of a war? We all know that both Obama and Clinton are enmeshed in the old Cold War. Clinton may be considered the lesser evil but in this case she’s more dangerous.

Criticism of Bernie

Sanders has received criticism from a vocal sector of his constituency and some left elements for supporting Hillary Clinton after his primary defeat instead of immediately forming a third party or accepting an invitation to become the candidate of the Green Party. Various post-convention opinion polls show between 70% and 90% of Bernie’s supporters intend to vote for Clinton.

Although we have long supported the construction of a viable national left third party and have only backed socialist or left third-party presidential candidates over the years, we disagree with a few of the extreme criticisms aimed at Sanders, particularly that of journalist Chris Hedges, who backs the Green Party candidate, and in a speech outside the convention after hundreds of Sanders’ delegates walked out. It was reprinted on the Internet. We think his unfortunate rant speaks far more about the critic than the subject. Below is a short quote from this speech:

“The parade of useful idiots, the bankrupt liberal class that long ago sold its soul to corporate power, is now led by Sen. Bernie Sanders…. He [Bernie] took his 30 pieces of silver and joined with a bankrupt liberal establishment on behalf of a candidate who is a tool of Wall Street, a proponent of endless war and an enemy of the working class. Sanders, like all of the self-identified liberals who are whoring themselves out for the Democrats, will use fear as the primary reason to remain enslaved by the neoliberal assault. And, in return, the corporate state will allow him and the other useful idiots among the 1% to have their careers and construct pathetic monuments to themselves.”

Bernie did a successful job within the limits of his mandate. However he could have handled the end game better after Clinton won the primary. He was pledged to support the winner but appeared overenthusiastic in his backing and praise for Hillary — whom he had been excoriating, correctly, for many months. At the convention, in his speech and when he called for the vote to be unanimous in Hillary’s favor, he went over the top, much to the chagrin of a number of his 1,900 delegates. Also he should have been in much closer touch with his nationwide followers in the disappointing final few weeks, urging them to look ahead by putting forward a number of concrete proposals. Some delegates at the convention complained that they received little guidance. The July 30 edition of The Economist noted:

“In the end Bernie Sanders came through. The Senator from Vermont had threatened to take his fight for a “political revolution” to the floor of the Democratic National Convention…. But when his aggrieved supporters had the temerity to take that threat seriously by booing the convention’s early stages, Mr. Sanders tried to calm them and just about succeeded.”

The Washington Post reported:

“Bernie Sanders closed out the first day of the Democratic party’s convention with a forceful plea for his supporters to get behind the party’s nominee Hillary Clinton. The Vermont senator spoke to a packed arena that had for hours swung wildly from unified highs to divided lows….’ Based on her ideas and her leadership, Hillary Clinton must become the next president of the United States.’ Sanders said. ‘The choice is not even close.’ Even as he spoke, the reaction was mixed and emotions ran high. His most ardent supporters called out “We want Bernie!” Others stood silently, tears streaming down their faces. Meanwhile, Clinton’s supporters rose to their feet, chanting “Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!”

Why Did Bernie Run For The Nomination

Sen. Sanders was 74 near the end of long career and he wanted to finally get his progressive message out to the masses of people when he decided last year to become a Democrat and run for the presidential nomination. He knew the times and attitudes were changing after decades of stagnant wages, lower benefits, lousy jobs for the working class, huge student debts, and grave economic inequality — all of which were exacerbated by the 2008 Great Recession and sluggish recovery.

He thought the only way his leftist program and critique would get any significant press and TV coverage from the corporate mass media was if he entered the Democratic primary. It is true that U.S. mass media always suppress news about left wing, socialist or communist third parties.

Bernie switched from being a lifelong political independent espousing social democracy to a Democrat when he announced his candidacy in late May 2015. There were six candidates; he said that if he lost he would support the winner. Neither he nor anyone else anticipated how popular his candidacy would become. At the time, Clinton was considered a sure winner. By the time Clinton gained enough votes to secure the nomination in June, more than a hundred million adults not only heard his message but many of them — often for the first time — were won over to the radical views of a self-declared democratic socialist.  The U.S. socialist left has benefitted from Bernie’s openness and for his incredible ability to attract millions of young people to a quite mild social democratic banner.

It is important to understand Bernie’s goals, as we wrote in March (An Incredible Election Year in America — click on 3-13-16 Activist Newsletter): “The Democratic party liberal and left sector has been sharply constricted by the traditional leadership and the Clinton and Obama two-term administrations, despite the fact that liberalism in Democratic ranks has increased 17% since 2001, according to a Gallup poll last June. That means 47% of Democrats are socially liberal and economically moderate liberal…. Sanders seeks to motivate and lead the party left to demand and exercise considerably more political clout. The party hierarchy views this as an act of apostasy. Most funders equate it to a kick in the teeth.”

The political “revolution” Sanders called for was intended to transform the center right Democratic Party to once again stand as a center-left party such as existed during its two periods of social reform benefitting millions of working class, middle class and poor Americans — during the Great Depression, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the 1960s, led by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many of his objectives, such as free college education, and generous family leave, have existed for decades in the social democratic countries.

Sanders did not propose scrapping capitalism but he did seek to modify neoliberalism by introducing some of the popular reforms that exist mainly in the Scandinavian countries and less so in Germany, France and occasionally elsewhere. He hopes that eventually the U.S. will become a democratic socialist society, but his job was to create an uprising within the Democratic party that might be a step in that direction.

Bernie had no intention to head the Green ticket or break his promise to support the winner of the primary in order to form an independent third party just a few months before the election. It takes at least a year or two of hard work by many people in 50 states, and a considerable amount of money, for a new third party to run a serious national campaign for presidential office.

Bernie Today

Sanders is now raising funds to support a number of progressive candidates for Congress who backed his campaign, the latest being Zephyr Teachout (New York); Rick Nolan (Minnesota); and Pramila Jayapal (Washington). Teachout is in our 19th congressional district in the Mid-Hudson Valley, and we and our local readers support her.

Bernie’s latest communication to millions of his supporters arrived a few days ago:

“Election days come and go, but the struggle for economic, social, racial and environmental justice continues. Together, we built something special and unprecedented through our presidential campaign. Now, we are going to take the next steps for our political revolution. We are building a new organization called Our Revolution. Our goal will be the same as in our campaign: we must work to transform American society by making our political and economic systems work for all of us, not just the 1%.”

Sanders has created a large constituency for further political advances against the erosion of what remains of true democracy and equality in the existing neocapitalist system. It is to be hoped that the genuine left in America will seriously seek to attract and organize members of this new force for intensive radical political activism and not simply for electoral politics.

As we end we recall two incidents at the convention leftists and progressives should never forget. First, the Democratic Party’s instructions to Clinton delegates to drown out Bernie delegates with a particular response if they began chanting unauthorized slogans. On Aug. 28, during a speech by retired Marine Corps General John Allen, a relatively small number of delegates began chanting “No More War ” and were quickly made inaudible by the insistent (and “authorized”), ultra-nationalist chant “USA, USA, USA….” Allen joined in at the microphone. The Republicans also had an unforgettable moment during a speech by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. As he was making the case that Clinton was a criminal, thousands began hatefully chanting, “Lock her up, Lock her up, Lock her up….”

We thought these passing incidents spoke volumes about both parties.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald vs. Hillary: A Still Uncertain Election. Both Candidates Remain Unpopular with the Majority of Americans

Russian Tu-22M3 strategic bombers have made another blow on the ISIS terrorist group outside the Syrian city of Deir Ezzor. The six Tu-22M3 bombers, which took off from an air base in Russia, have destroyed two ISIS command centers, six large ammunition depots, two tanks, four infantry fighting vehicles, seven SUVs with mounted machine guns, and also decimated the terrorist group’s manpower.

On August 14, the Jaish al-Fatah operation room has been continuing attempts to widen its tiny corridor to eastern Aleppo. Jabhat Fateh al-Sham-led forces attacked the al-Zahraa Neighborhood and the al-Zahraa Artillery Base, the 1070 Apartment Project and the Cement Plant. Jabhat Fateh al-Sham used few Suicide Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices. Heavy clashes continued overnight with initial reports that the militants captured 25 building blocks in the 1070 Apartment Project and seized the Cement Plant.

However, August 15 reports indicated that the Syrian army, the National Defense Forces and Hezbollah regained the Cement Plant and reversed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham’s gains in the 1070 Apartment Project. Both sides report “dozens of injured and killed” enemies in the clashes.

VIDEO

According to the ISIS-linked media outlet, Amaq Agency, 7 suicide bombers broke through a residential area near Al-Farouk Dam east of Aleppo where a U.S. military outpost and the operation room for Manbij operation were located. 3 bombers detonated explosives in a group of guards, mostly Kurdish fighters, other 4 entered the buildings. Before these 4 terrorists were neutralized, at least 41 US soldiers and Kurdish fighters had been killed and injured, according to Amaq.

On August 14, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced creation of the Al-Bab Military Council. This could indicate that developing the success in Manbij, the Kurds are going to advance on Al Bab in order to link the four cantons of Rojava along the Syrian-Turkish bordel-Bab has a population about 69,000. Its inhabitants are mostly Sunni Muslim Arabs.

Even with the significant superiority in manpower, military equipment and air power, and with support of the US Special Forces, the Kurdish-led SDF will face a stiff resistance there.

ISIS militants could easily launch flank attacks on SDF units advancing on Al-Bab. Furthermore, the liberation of Al Bab is far away from the political goals of Obama administration in Syria. The White House is seeking to show the success of American anti-terrorist operations by taking major ISIS strongholds – Raqqa and Mosul – in Syria and Iraq. Al Bab is just located in another direction.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian War Report: ISIS Rebels Attack on US Outpost, Russian Airforce Bombs ISIS Positions…

Patterns have long since emerged.  We know that each illegal war of conquest is prefaced by a Public Relations campaign that demonizes the target country’s leader and its government as it lies about on-the-ground realities.  Muammar Gaddafi, for example, was presented to Western media consumers as a lunatic and despot. The Western narratives, however, were contradicted by the fact that he earned broad-based support from Libyans, all of whom enjoyed public services such as free healthcare and schooling, and a high standard of living.  

The same demonization campaign is being waged against the hugely popular Dr. Bashar al-Assad, the democratically –elected President of Syria.

Terrorist –embedded propagandists teach us that he is an evil dictator who kills his own people, and that “he must go”; however, credible evidence inverts this logic.

Henry Lowendorf, a member of the Executive Board of the U.S Peace Council’s Peace and Fact-Finding Delegation to Syria — recently returned from Syria — reports, that, “What we saw (in Syria) goes against everything we read in the United States.”

He repudiates the Western media’s demonization campaign against the government of President Assad and the Syrian Arab Army in these words:

“When you go to Syria, which I did last month, the popularity of the government and the Syrian Arab Army is rampant. It’s not out of some dream fantasy. It comes obviously from the government and the army being the only thing between living a secular life on the one hand and the hatred and violence of ISIS and the various other terrorist groups underwritten by the terrorist Saudis and US and their allies on the other. The refugees who don’t leave Syria do not flee to the terrorist side, they flee to the government side, in huge numbers. So would all of us in similar circumstances. Syrians do not want their country turned into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, or any of the other countries the US has liberated.”[i]

The reality is an inversion of the propaganda lies fed to Western audiences.  In fact, President Assad must stay, for the sake of civilization, and for the sake of destroying Western-backed terrorism.  Each time Empire succeeds in destroying another country, the problem of terrorism worsens – as might be expected. The destruction of Libya, for example, set the stage for the attempted destruction of Syria.

Weapons stolen from Libyan armouries, thanks to the invasion, were covertly shipped to Syria – all beneath the radar of the U.S Congress.

A recently declassified Department of Defense document[ii] indicates that,

“Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the Port of Benghazi, Libya, to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria”

And none of this is accidental. Sustainable Western open-source documentation demonstrates that the growth of terrorism is willful, and according to Western plans.

The propaganda lies, the false flags,  the terrorist-embedded NGOs , and the use of terrorist proxies to criminally destroy one country after another, is not only empowering terrorism world-wide, but it is also leading us to engineered conflict with nuclear-armed countries, in particular,  Russia.

Whereas the propaganda lies further the causes of barbarity and ignorance,  we need a redirection towards the polar opposite: towards trajectories that support civilization, progress, and the rule of law.

Prof. Chossudovsky explains in “America’s ‘Humanitarian War’ against the World” that

“What is consequently required is a massive redirection of science and technology towards the pursuit of broad societal objectives. In turn, this requires a major shift in what is euphemistically called ‘US Foreign Policy’, namely America’s global military agenda.”

We need to shift from Death Industries of the Military Industrial Complex, to Life Industries that serve, rather than destroy, humanity. We also need a strong anti-war movement based on a broad-based support of the truth, and a broad-based rejection of the “governing” lies.

Notes:

[i] Facebook posting

[ii] https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pgs.-1-3-2-3-from-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version1.pdf

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Illegal Wars of Conquest. Terrorist Embedded Propagandists, Demonizing the Target Countries

Today, Cuban leader Fidel Castro is celebrating his 90th birthday. Although there are almost no blank spots in Castro’s biography, some facts of his life might have been forgotten. RT has decided to remember them.

Castro was always distinguished by his charisma, a feature which allowed him not only to implement a number of cardinal reforms in Cuba and bring the country to new heights in the fields of education, medicine, and tourism, but also make it into the Guinness Book of World Records, become a blogger, and even a hero in computer games.

Cigars and the beard

Many remember Fidel Castro for his beard and cigar. El Comandante was always proud of his beard and said that he would shave it only when the revolution finally triumphs.

“I don’t waste my time shaving. This would take about 15 minutes every day. This way, I can save a few days a year for important matters,” he once stated.

Castro always loved Havana cigars, so much that there was once an attempt to poison him through them. In 1986, however, the leader of the revolution had to give up this pernicious habit because of health problems. “The best thing you can do with a box of cigars is give them to the enemy,” he said then.

New Cuba

In the early 1960’s, the leader of the Island of Freedom ordered that all educational institutions be nationalized and a unified state education system be established. In 1961, 10 thousand schools were built. By 1995, the country’s literacy rate was 95%.

Following the revolution in 1959, the medical education system was reorganized. Cuba now has the lowest infant mortality rate on the entire American continent with the exception of Canada. Medical care on the island is now free.

Between 1989-1994, the reallocation of resources in the country led to the rapid growth of tourism, a sector of the economy which now brings in an average of $2 billion a year.

Guinness Book of World Records

On September 26th, 1960, Fidel Castro delivered a speech at the UN including the words “When the philosophy of plunder disappears, so will the philosophy of war.” In his speech, he explained the meaning of the Cuban Revolution and the essence of its reforms. His speech lasted 4 hours and 29 minutes, thus entering into the Guinness Book of World Records as the longest speech ever delivered at the UN.

However, according to other sources, Castro’s longest speech ever delivered was at the Third congress of the Cuban Communist Party in 1986, lasting 7 hours and 10 minutes.

In addition, Castro became a record-breaker for having survived 638 different assassination attempts. The majority of them, moreover, were characterized by extraordinary ingenuity, resembling scenes from James Bond films.

More than 600 assassination attempts

For example, the CIA planned hundreds of assassination attempts on El Comandante’s life using poisons. In 1960, cigars carrying deadly toxins were gathered to be given to the lover of fine cigars, Fidel himself.

Later, an attempt was made to put poison in Castro’s shoes by placing thallium salt in the soles. His diving suit as well, according to some reports, was once infected with lethal bacteria. But the man responsible for Castro’s outfits changed his mind at the last moment and gave El Comandante a different, safe suit.

Fidel’s lover, the CIA-recruit Marita Lorenz, was once complicit in an attempt to take his life. American intelligence gave her poisonous pills which she hid and dissolved in a jar of cream.

Fidel also managed to avoid being stabbed by a poisoned needle hidden in a ballpoint pen. One of the Cuban leader’s political employees intended to stab him with a poison-tipped needle during a meeting with American President John F. Kennedy. But the attempt failed.

Plans were also hatched to spoil Castro’s good reputation by getting him high on LSD during a live radio show. It was assumed that the drug would cloud the Cuban leader’s mind so that he would begin to talk nonsense and disappoint audiences. But this plan also failed.

Such unthinkable assassination attempts were also featured in the computer games Call of Duty: Black Ops and The Godfather 2, whose levels included missions to eliminate Castro.

Books, articles, and social networks 

Even after retiring and passing the baton to his brother Raul, Fidel Castro did not cease to surprise the public. He has retained a clear mind and publishes articles in the newspaper “Granma.”

Around 6 years ago, El Comandante registered an account on Twitter with the aim of surpassing the popularity of Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu’s accounts. Castro’s miniblog @reflexionfidel publishes his thoughts on current political events and is now subscribed to by nearly 500,000 people.

In 2010, Cuba  released the first part of his memoirs, “The Strategic Victory.” It is believed that he is now working on the second part of the book.

Translated from Russian by J. Arnoldski

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on After 638 Assassination Attempts: Fidel Castro Celebrates 90th Birthday

During the week of August 8 both Republican Party nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic counterpart Hillary Clinton made policy speeches in the Detroit metropolitan area.

Trump addressed the Detroit Economic Club on August 8 where he put forward his program for the revitalization of the United States. The presidential candidate delivered the address at Cobo Conference Center in downtown Detroit.

In Detroit it is the best of times for the struggle aimed at eradicating racism and economic exploitation which has prompted the destruction of the housing, commercial, educational and municipal services sectors of the city. The movements for change in Detroit are taking place during the worst of times for the overwhelming majority of the population suffering from the above-mentioned imposed social ailments.

Outside the Trump event in downtown, demonstrators congregated over an area of two blocks with signs critical of the Republican candidate and his policies. Members of the United Automobile Workers (UAW) distributed signs criticizing the demagogic Trump. The UAW along with many trade unions typically pledges their support to the Democratic candidates for president and legislative offices irrespective of who they are.

This year the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders posed a formidable challenge to Clinton, who served as a Senator for New York and as Secretary of State during the first administration of President Barack Obama. Clinton’s program is one of continuing the pro-Wall Street program of the Obama administration along with the increased military and intelligence interventions throughout the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and the Asia Pacific regions. Sanders, an independent democratic socialist, ran on a platform advocating national health insurance; the breaking up of large financial institutions; a different approach to the Palestine-Israeli war of the last seven decades; among other issues. Senator Sanders was quite critical during numerous debates over Clinton’s close relationship with Wall Street where she delivered numerous speeches for undisclosed amounts of money.

More Militant Voices in Detroit

Nonetheless, other organizations were present to lend their voices to the demonstration and political dialogue. Members of the Detroit chapter of Fight Imperialism, Stand Together (FIST) youth group led chants denouncing Trump and his appeal to racism, neo-fascism and war. FIST is allied with the Moratorium NOW Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shut-offs, which has sought for the last eight years to put an end to the theft of tens of thousands of houses by the banks.

Trump’s speech inside of Cobo called for more of the same failed policies of the last several decades including the cutting of taxes for the rich and the failed promises of lowering taxes for the working class. These policies of cutting and even absolving the rich from paying taxes has been utilized to finance even deeper levels of exploitation and expropriation from the workers and oppressed peoples in the U.S.

In Detroit firms run by Dan Gilbert and Mike Illitch, two billionaires, have been given preferential treatment by federal, state and local governments for years. Their business model emphasizes prestige projects such as sports stadiums and entertainment complexes which facilitate the continuing forced removals of the African American and Latino communities. These top-down economic programs are championed by the corporate media which systematically ignores the plight of the oppressed and working class saying in essence what is good for business is beneficial to the masses.

The crowd outside of Cobo was not receptive to this message being enunciated by Trump. Some of the Trump supporters came into the anti-Republican demonstration flashing their signs and consequently creating tensions.

One white man raised the dreaded Confederate flag at the front of the anti-Trump gathering triggering a clash which took away the symbol of slavery, civil war and the Ku Klux Klan. This man eventually landed on the concrete where he had to be rescued by the Detroit police. Members of the crowd began chanting: “Nazi scum off our streets!” No arrests were made and this sent a strong message to the racists within the Trump campaign that some people are prepared to disarm them of their symbols as well as political program.

Clinton Brings Message of the Status Quo

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton spoke later that same week outside of Detroit in neighboring Macomb County. Pollsters say she is trailing behind Trump in the county which is majority white. Nonetheless, there are African Americans and Latinos moving into Macomb County, many of whom are from working class backgrounds.

Clinton championed the economic policies of the last eight years under Obama. Objectively, beyond the bailing out of the auto industry not very much can be said of the Democratic program that is favorable to the working class. Although the UAW would speak highly of Obama for carrying through the post-bankruptcy re-structuring of the auto industry and the preserving of industrial jobs, this bailout resulted in the severing of tens of thousands of jobs; the closing of auto dealership shedding more union work; and the growing of the UAW through two and three tier wage structures that sought to divide younger workers being hired in at wages half of those of veteran employees and with far few benefits. There have also been attacks on the concept of the eight-hour day which was a fundamental demand of the union since its inception.

Why the Workers and Oppressed Need Their Own Political Party

Consequently, both parties represent the capitalist class which has been hell-bent on lowering the standard of living of the workers and oppressed in their mad drive for profit. There was no program to repair the damage that has already been done in the recent period as it relates to home and job losses; guaranteeing full healthcare coverage to all people; the eradication of police brutality; ending imperialist wars and the closing of Pentagon military bases and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) field offices across the world.

In Michigan the water has been poisoned in Flint and the majority African American city needs the reconstruction of its infrastructure along with tens of thousands of jobs that were destroyed after the re-structuring of the auto industry from an earlier period during the 1980s, some three decades ago where both Democratic and Republican politicians failed to lift a finger to save the jobs and homes of these residents. Michigan was the only state in the U.S. which lost population in the last census period. Detroit’s population declined by 25 percent as a direct result of home foreclosures, evictions, utility shut-offs, small business failures and the crisis in an education system controlled by successive state administrations.

Clinton debated Sanders during the primaries in Flint yet nothing has been done to resolve the water crisis along with other economic problems in the city located some 70 miles north of Detroit. In Detroit itself despite the Democratic Party-allied politicians and trade union leaders, there has been nothing specific offered to the people as it relates to the declining infrastructure, racist manipulation by the courts and surrogate political establishment, and the failed system of public education.

These problems require political organizing independent of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Working class and oppressed peoples need an organization that can speak unequivocally in their own name—where the real enemies of the people can be exposed and dealt with in a decisive fashion.

The people of Michigan need good jobs, economic opportunities, decent education, healthcare, services for children and seniors, along with environmental quality.

The wars to be continued by the potentialities of a Clinton or Trump administration will not serve the interests of the masses. It is the ruling class that needs changing not its navigators, minions and surrogates.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Election Reflections 2016 – Trump and Clinton Visit Detroit

Were Hillary Clinton’s medical records leaked to the public? Is Hillary Clinton really suffering from dementia, seizures and memory loss?

A new report indicates that Hillary Clinton’s medical records have been leaked, but not everyone agrees. Are the medical records fact or fiction?

According to the leaked medical records, Hillary Clinton allegedly suffers from Complex Partial Seizures and Subcortical Vascular Dementia. Included as symptoms Clinton is experiencing are blackouts, uncontrollable twitching and memory issues.

While the general consensus is the leaked medical records are fake, there is a bit of truth behind them.

The doctor named on the medical reports has been confirmed as one of Hillary’s doctors: Lisa R. Bardack.

Still, not everyone is convinced the medical records are fake. The following is a CBS News report from December 2013 reporting on Clinton’s health issues from 2012. Mentioned are two blood clots Clinton has been diagnosed with. One clot Clinton suffered in the ’90s. The other blood clot she was diagnosed with was in Dec. 2012. In a ABC News report, it was discussed that Hillary Clinton did have additional issues stemming from the concussion.

No one in Hillary Clinton’s camp would state what the additional issues or injuries she sustained were.

Dr. Lisa R. Bardack released the document clearing Hillary Clinton to run for office.

The statement of health was issued on July 28, 2015, and previously had been accessible through Scribd.

Since the controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Clinton’s health have escalated, the document’s settings have been changed to private. According to Dr. Bardack’s 2015 medical statement, Hillary Clinton was in excellent health, reported Time.

Politico also reported on the 2015 report that was described as Hillary Clinton releasing her medical records for the campaign. With the allegations that Clinton is suffering from seizures and then the leaked medical report saying she does indeed suffer from seizures and dementia, calls were made for Clinton to release her medical records once and for all. In the Politico report that was based upon Dr. Bardack’s assessment, Hillary Clinton suffered a concussion due to fainting after being dehydrated from a virus. In addition to the Politico article, the Mount Kisco Daily Voice also reported on Clinton’s excellent bill of health in 2015. Also mentioned was the section regarding Clinton’s 2012 concussion.

“In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated, fainted and sustained a concussion.”

Those who believe the newly released medical records are fake are comparing them to the 2015 bill of health. Many suggest the writing is different and point out there is official letterhead on the 2015 documents, but not the recent ones. Snopes reported that Hillary Clinton’s leaked documents were fake, but not everyone agrees. Snopes points out that the documents appeared briefly on a Twitter account @HillsMedRecords then quickly vanished. The dates on the leaked medical records are February 5, 2014 and March 20, 2014. Both dates are before the 2015 document.

The lack of letterhead on the leaked medical records has caused many people to believe they are fake. While there is great debate regarding Hillary Clinton’s health and fitness to run for office, there is one area it seems everyone can agree. Hillary Clinton should release her current medical records.

According to a new Rasmussen poll, people want Hillary Clinton to release her medical records. Some people are so convinced that Hillary Clinton is sick and dying, they’re using the hashtag #illary Clinton instead of Hillary. At this point, it might be the best way to quiet the rumors and stop the questions. Hillary Clinton has been seen in positions that make her appear old and weak. Is she really coughing nonstop? Is she suffering from a chronic cough or hyperthyroidism? Does she really have long-lasting damage from her previous brain injury? Are Hillary Clinton’s leaked medical records fact or fiction? What do you think?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Leaked Medical Records, Fact or Fiction? Alleged “Statement of Health issued in July 2015”

The Guardian reports: “Children as young as seven have been sexually assaulted in official European refugee camps, the Observer has been told. The claims come as testimony emerges suggesting that some camps are so unsafe that youngsters are too terrified to leave their tents at night.” The article refers specifically to a government-run camp at the outskirts of Thessaloniki, Greece, holding about 1,400 refugees, most of them Syrians. Aid organizations claim that “the level of risk of sexual attack is so acute that women are too afraid to visit the camp toilets alone at night.”

One volunteer serving at the camp, alleged that some young girls had been effectively groomed by male gangs. He said an Iraqi family had to be moved to emergency accommodation outside the camp after their daughter was attacked. “The parents are still in disbelief over what happened. A man from one of the ‘mafia’ groups asked their seven-year-old daughter into their tent to play games on his phone and then zipped up the tent. She came back with marks on her arms and neck. Later the girl described how she was sexually abused. It has scarred a seven-year-old child for life,”

The Guardian also talked to Anna Chiara Nava of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Thessaloniki, who confirmed allegations of children being victims of sexual violence. She said they, MSF, were in regular contact with at least 10 women from the camp who had complained of sexual violence and explained that many occupants, including children, were too afraid to speak out. “It’s really hard for the unaccompanied minors – 16 and 17 years-old – to survive. It’s the survival of the fittest in there. In the evening and night, it’s impossible to find them [children] because they are hiding in the tents. The women are afraid. They complain that during the night and evening they cannot go to the toilet alone. They have all heard of reports of others being attacked.”

The Greek Government built a number of refugee camps near Thessaloniki after the informal one at Idomeni, near the Macedonian border, was closed in May. This followed the European Commission’s (EC) allocation of £71 million (€82 million) of humanitarian funding for emergency projects to help the 57,000 refugees stranded in official government camps throughout Greece.

Sputnik News – interview

Question:
Do you think this report [The Guardian] is trustworthy?

Peter Koenig: Yes, absolutely…

This is first of all a typical EU crisis – where nobody wants to be responsible, yet the EU are involved up to their neck with causing the refugee crisis.

Sexual assaults on innocent children scar them forever. It is one of the most horrible crimes humanity can commit. It shows how low ‘humanity’ has sunk – in the drift of constant wars, where human values of life have been eviscerated, due to the never ending war on terror, instigated by the West – not the Muslims, not the Middle East…. Instigated to keep the profit war machine churning out more weapons, more killing, more profit.

Europe together with the US and NATO keep destroying the Middle East, bombing it to rubble, creating a flood of refugees, whose closest place to survive is – unfortunately – their executioner himself, Europe. Then they (EU) reject the refugees – perhaps with the exception of Germany – but especially the Brits and the French – and leave the problem in the hands of a country whose borders are closest to the place of origin of the refugees, Greece.

Greece is a nation that the very EU – her brothers and sisters, have basically liquidated with debt and privatization of public assets – a country starving itself and striving for the sheer survival of more than 50% of its own population. With hardly any funds from the bureaucrats in Brussels, Greece is left to fend on her own for holding and caring of the refugees. The €82 million of humanitarian funding for emergency projects to help the 57,000 refugees stranded in official government camps throughout Greece, is hardly a drop on a hot stone – and certainly not enough to police and protect the camps from thugs and sexual assault as described by The Guardian.

These people [the refugees] are punished three-fold by Europe, first their livelihood is being destroyed, then they are crammed into refugee camps, where they are assaulted, sexually and otherwise, then rejected from seeking refuge, shelter and survival in the ‘clean and snottily rich’ European countries – for having done nothing, absolutely nothing; these refugees have committed no crime whatsoever.

This is European justice. This is just another reason why the EU is not fit to survive, is not reformable. The EU is despicably unhuman and has nothing to do with a union of countries. Brussels and especially the EC that calls most of the shots, is a club of extravagant high-paid non-elected bureau- and technocrats, working for the plutocracy, for the ultra-rich, with total neglect of the people – in this case the refugees, but also the European populace at large.

The EU should be dismantled as soon as possible. I can only hope and trust that BREXIT will actually happen and that it will contribute to hastening the pace of the dissolution of the European Union and its fake currency the Euro, modeled after the US-dollar, made out of thin air, based on nothing but debt; an instrument to enslave and impoverish countries and rob their public assets. Greece is a master example.

Question:What do you think should be done now? Should women and girls be placed in separate camps to protect them?

PK: As a first and emergency reaction – yes, absolutely. As an interim measure and since nothing substantial can be expected to come from Brussels in ‘useful time’, Greece and other countries in solidarity may fund this emergency step, eventually to be reimbursed by Brussels. But in the long run its clearly a question for the EU / Brussels to resolve, allocating appropriate funding – and first of all stop the profit-driven wars that create abject poverty and prompt the flow of refugees.

Question: What do you think Brussels reaction will be now? Will they actually do something, provide the resources for countries like Greece to deal with the refugee problem properly – or will they continue dragging their feet?

PK: Well, one would hope that a damning report like the one in The Guardian would actually incite Brussels to react, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they again would just drag their feet and shove the problem from one bureaucratic commission of non-elected technocrats to another – and nothing will happen.

I’m often thinking of the EU as a huge uncontrollable mob of adolescents, where nobody wants to be responsible but all want to claim somehow ‘credit’ for their ‘grandeur’ – they are incompetent for the task that they should fulfill.

It is almost unthinkable that something like this could happen in an individual government of one of the EU nations that were once sovereign nations – no longer – if they had to deal with the crisis on their own. In the first place, they probably would have never participated in this cruel, senseless Washington invented war on terror, a smoke screen for endless war and endless profit for the (mostly US-based) war industry and – Wall Street that finances it. But all of them, through the EU as a block, have been coopted or coerced into participating – and this against the will of the people they are supposed to represent. The fear of ‘economic sanctions’ for those who don’t behave is overwhelming. And economic sanctions can only work as long as the west is bound to the fraudulent US-controlled dollar-euro system.

Some of the ‘stronger’ countries, that could wage some influence, like Germany, should exert the necessary pressure on Brussels that funds are made available to properly protect these refugee camps, and especially women and girls – protect them from sexual and other abuse.

This is an absolute priority to deal with – it is a human catastrophe that deserves immediate and serious attention. Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the EC, himself should jump in the frying pan and find the resources to protect these victim of US – EU – NATO agression.

As a long term solution – I repeat what I said before, the EU and its common currency should be resolved, dismantled as soon as possible and something new created in its stead – a federation of truly solidary countries, inspired by Europeans themselves, without transatlantic influence and sabotage, as is the case with the current set-up of Europe – of the EU and the Euro.

Note

This is an approximate transcript of a Sputnik phone interview on 14 August 2016, based on an article in The Guardian (13 August) about child abuse in a Greek refugee camp.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greece – Sexual Assaults on Children at Refugee Camps

China’s Presidency of the G20 culminates next month with the Hangzhou Summit, a gathering of world leaders and an extraordinary opportunity to steer the world economy toward a more equitable, stable and productive architecture which achieves the goal of “win-win” cooperation, long advocated by China, and ultimately benefiting both developed and developing countries alike.  The theme of the Hangzhou Summit is:  “Toward an innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive World Economy.”

During the April 21 Statement to the United Nations High-Level Thematic Debate on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals, China’s  Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and G20 Sherpa, Li Baodong stated:

“The G20 embraces development as a source of strength and stands ready to work with  developing countries to look for drivers of world economic growth.  Development shall be in the genes of the G20 agenda…Development is everywhere, be it in the macroeconomic policy, international trade and investment, innovative growth and global economic governance.  The G20 works for the benefit os not only its 20 member states, but the whole world.  We will listen to more voices, pool more wisdom, and make even bigger contribution to common development of mankind and greater prosperity of the world.”

 

In a diplomatic and intriguing statement to the press, at the United Nations, also on April 21, G20 Sous-Sherpa Wang Xiaolong captured the enormity of the challenge confronting the G20 Summit, and the entire world, stating:

“Eight years after the financial crisis, the world economy still is weak and fragile;  this is the slowest and weakest recovery process after a crisis, and one of the reasons is because the old modality of growth has largely run its course, and we need to find new drivers for the growth of the world economy.  An important source of growth is innovation and the development of the developing countries.”

Wang Xiaolong’s statement encapsulates the current global economic crisis which has reached staggering and unsustainable proportions, the crisis of burgeoning inequality denounced and unredressed almost a half century ago at the United Nations Eleventh Special Session on Economic Development, when Joachim Chissano, then Foreign Minister of Mozambique deplored the fact that:

“The existing economic order is profoundly unjust…It runs counter to the basic interests of developing countries.  We denounce any kind of economic prosperity or independence for part of mankind built on the dependence, domination and exploitation of the rest of mankind.”

The  severity of this persistent injustice was again denounced, three decades later, at the United Nations  General Assembly, on September 24, 2009 when Stjepan Mesic, then President of the Republic of Croatia stated:

“Our world is, finally, still dominated by an economic model which is self-evidently exhausted and has now reached a stage where it is itself generating crises, causing hardship to thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.  If one attempts to save this already obsolete model at any cost, if one stubbornly defends a system based on greed and devoid of any social note worthy of mention, the result can be only one:  social unrest harbouring the potential to erupt into social insurgence on a global scale.”

This relentless injustice of the current global economic architecture was directly confronted on April 21 by Li Baodong who stated:

“Inequality in the international system and governance mechanism is the biggest inequality of all…This year China has relaunched the G20 International Financial Architecture Working Group…held in-depth discussions on such issues as sovereign debt restructuring, global financial safety nets..We have also worked to promote inclusive finance and help to bring its benefit to developing countries and their vulnerable groups…As the biggest developing country, China knows full well that without the development of developing countries it would be impossible to invigorate the momentum of global development, tap into new and broader markets, or place the world economic recovery and growth on a solid footing.  True development will not be achieved until the world economies grow in a coordinated manner, various industries realize inter-connected and win-win progress, and people in all walks of life enjoy shared prosperity.”

At the Hangzhou G20 Summit China will encourage resolution of both the symptoms and root causes of economic problems, which inevitably morph into social and political problems.  China has courageously accepted and shouldered the Herculean task of persuading leaders and finance ministers of countries whose economies are based on outmoded and counterproductive zero-sum thinking of the imperative of change;  and recognizes the necessity of transforming that rigid mind-set into acknowledgment and acceptance of the fact that win-win cooperation is now the only hope for humanity’s survival.

The G20 Hangzhou Summit is at the cross-roads of world history, and a supreme opportunity to encourage world leaders to focus, predominantly on the paramount importance of investment in equitable global development, eschewing destructive investment tendencies which may inevitably provoke antagonism, confrontation and annihilating war.  It is impossible to ignore or minimize the fact that the G20 gathering of leaders of both developed and developing countries is taking place against a backdrop of countervailing  and sometimes ominous tendencies.

China’s task is daunting, but throughout the last and present century, China has shown almost superhuman ability to overcome enormous and virtually insurmountable obstacles, as a result of powerful strategic thinking, great determination, and formidable intelligence.  China’s success in restructuring its own economy and society, and ascending to global pre-eminence, is a basis for hope that their win-win approach to the new global economic architecture will prevail and gain acceptance by all participants in the G20 Summit.

Resurgence of the West’s Cold War Mentality 

Among the challenges faced by China, as a nation is the resurgence of a cold-war mentality in sectors of some of the countries participating in the G20 Summit.   Although this is a sensitive subject to raise, it would be tantamount to an ostrich hiding its head in the sand to omit the fact that despite fierce opposition by distinguished members of the US Congress, including Senator Diane Feinstein,and wiser leaders of the US Military, such as former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, the US is investing one trillion dollars in developing nuclear weapons in coming years.

“The diminished nuclear arms and nonnuclear weapons that Mr. Obama is developing could make the unthinkable more likely.  They make the weapons seem more usable, even if there’s no credible plan for how you control escalation. “ (Perry)

Britain’s new Prime Minister Theresa May recently supported Britain’s investment of 51 billion dollars in development of new nuclear weapons, and Germany has now pledged to invest 148 billion dollars in military development.

These provocative military investments by economies which prioritize profit maximization to the exclusion of all other considerations could precipitate another arms race, and ultimately Armageddon, for it is not possible to ignore the fact that war is one of the most profitable “ïndustries” of all for the miniscule group of arms merchants.

Further, the US is investing an exorbitant sum of money in the Thaad missile system based in the Republic of Korea, despite enraged domestic protest within the Republic of Korea against this provocative military expenditure, an increased militarization of the Korean peninsula which disrupts and destabilizes the geopolitical balance of North Asia, and constitutes a grave threat to the security of both China and Russia.  The reach of the Thaad X Band is so wide (almost 2,000 kilometers) that it is disingenuous to allege, and to expect anyone to believe that the target is the DPRK.

Five percent of the world’s military budget could fund the entire United Nations 2030 Agenda, transforming the world into a virtual paradise, funding research to discover the cure for terminal diseases, providing healthy environments and living spaces for everyone on the planet, and eliminating many of the root-causes of the now global scourge of terrorism.  One major war could obliterate all successful development efforts and accomplishments by the United Nations.

With China’s concentrated and compelling focus on development and win-win cooperation, it will be their Presidency’s ultimate triiumph to persuade the leaders of the G20 gathered in Hangzhou that investment in global development and human capital is a wiser and more lucrative long-term use of their resources than recklessly and mindlessly squandering trillions of dollars on life-destroying weapons, the result of which is inevitably fatal for humanity.  China’s victory at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou will be to persuade the participants of the entire conference that win-win cooperation is not only “the right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Hosts G20 Summit: Innovation, Structural Reform, “Towards an Inclusive World Economy”
US-Nuclear-War

America’s “Humanitarian War” against the World

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 14 2016

We are not dealing with piecemeal military and intelligence operations. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Asia Pacific region. A US-NATO war on Russia, China and Iran is part of the US presidential election debate.

Trump1Donald Trump and the ISIS Factor

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, August 13 2016

Ever straddling that fine line between the absurd and the puncturing revelation, Donald J. Trump’s “ISIS” remarks about the Obama administration and the Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, were vintage.  “[Obama] was the founder of ISIS absolutely, the way he removed our troops. … I call them [Obama and Hillary Clinton] co-founders.”

bankster-chess

Political Assassinations – The “New Normal” Trend Weapon of the Global Elites?

By Peter Koenig, August 14 2016

Assassinations to reach an objective is not new for the all-powerful. The practice has been going on at least for centuries, if not for millennia, but it has intensified drastically in the last fifty years, and it is becoming ever bolder, as the rulers of the Anglosphere tighten their grip on humanity – on Mother Earth and her resources.

New-Cold-WarRethinking The Cold War

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, August 13 2016

The Cold War began during the Truman administration and lasted through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and was ended in Reagan’s second term when Reagan and Gorbachev came to an agreement that the conflict was dangerous, expensive, and pointless.

Death of the Bees. Genetically Modified Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America

Bayer AG Makes “Bee Contraceptives”. It’s the German Chemical Company Which Absorbed Monsanto

By F. William Engdahl, August 15 2016

Most will wonder what I mean when I say Bayer AG, the German chemicals and drug company, the same one that just absorbed Monsanto, makes bee contraceptives. This is precisely what a newly-published, peer-reviewed scientific study confirms. Contraceptives for bees are not good for the world, no better than another product invented in the labs of Bayer, namely heroin. Bayer makes a class of insect killers known as neonicotinides. Their free use worldwide threatens bee pollination and the entire food chain.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: America’s “Humanitarian War” against the World

VIDEO : Homenaje a Fidel Castro por sus 90 años.

August 15th, 2016 by Jorge Zegarra

 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on VIDEO : Homenaje a Fidel Castro por sus 90 años.

The label ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used by Western Establishment gatekeepers as a means of shutting down debate and smearing those who have the temerity to challenge elite-friendly narratives

As I argued in an Op-Edge last year, there’s a great irony here. Over the last twenty years or so, the biggest pushers of conspiracy theories (CTs) have been Western Establishment gatekeepers themselves.

In fact, the most outlandish, fact-free and downright dangerous ‘CTs’ have been promoted by those who are the quickest to yell “conspiracy theorist!” at others.

So here are the top ten ‘acceptable’ Western establishment conspiracy theories. If you peddle them you won’t be labelled a ‘crank’ or nut-job’, but be hailed as an ‘expert’ who may even be deserving of a column in a ‘serious newspaper’ like the Washington Post, or the London Times. And who knows, you might even get a lucrative offer from a top publishing house to write a book about conspiracy theories.

1. Iraq has WMDs which threaten the world!

The most deadly conspiracy theory of them all – one which led to an illegal invasion and the destruction of a sovereign state and the deaths of up to 1m people. But the people who promoted it paid no professional penalty. Thirteen years on, the ‘punditocracy’ in the US and UK is still dominated by those who assured us Saddam had WMDs (and also that the secular, cigar-smoking Sound of Music lover had links to al-Qaeda). Remember that the next time you see a smug, self-regarding member of the neocon elite journos club loftily accuse someone they regard as their social and intellectual inferior of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

2. Iran’s developing nukes!

Since the early 90s we’ve been told the Islamic Republic is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, or has already got them. The claims made repeatedly over the past 25 years by Israeli PM Netanyahu have been echoed by the same bunch of uber-hawks who pushed conspiracy theory 1. If you assert, without any evidence that say, Zambia is on the brink of developing nukes, you’ll be called a nutcase. But if you assert, without any evidence, that Iran is doing the same, then you’ll greatly increase your chances of being invited as an ‘expert’ into the studios of Fox News or Newsnight.

3. Jeremy Corbyn deliberately sabotaged the ‘Remain campaign’ in Britain’s EU referendum.

This has been a popular conspiracy theory peddled in elite Blairite circles in the UK this summer. The same anti-Corbyn crowd who tell us that the left-wing Labour Party leader is a massive turn-off with voters, blame said Labour Party leader for not doing more to persuade Britons to vote to stay in the EU!

In fact, Corbyn’s qualified support for the EU was much more in tune with public opinion than the Blairites’ EU fanaticism. Labour under Corbyn did deliver a majority vote for Remain among its supporters. Meanwhile, Islington, where Corbyn has his own seat, registered the sixth best result for Remain (75.2 percent) in the country. Some ‘sabotage’, eh, folks?

4. Assad is helping/working with ISIS and wants them to expand.

This one has been pushed by and large by the same people who pushed CTs 1 and 2 above. The theory says that the wicked Syrian tyrant wanted ISIS to gain territory in order for him to present himself as the ‘good guy’ in the conflict.

However, we’ve learned from declassified secret US intelligence documents from 2012 that the prospect of a ‘Salafist principality’ being established in eastern Syria was “exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want” as it would “isolate the Syrian regime”. But let’s not mention evidence that it was Assad’s opponents – and not Assad – who welcomed the rise and expansion of ISIS.

That will only be dismissed as a conspiracy theory’!

And let’s ignore the Syrian Army’s liberation of Palymra from ISIS as well, shall we? It just doesn’t fit the ‘Why Assad won’t fight ISIS narrative!

5. Russia is providing ISIS with an air force

In October 2015, after Russia had started air strikes on terrorist targets in Syria, a new variation of Conspiracy Theory 4 started to circulate. Russia, we were told, was also helping ISIS and giving the Islamic State an air force!

Yet when a Russian passenger airliner was taken down by an ISIS/ISIL bomb later that month, we were told that it was a ‘warning shot’ for Moscow. If Russia was helping Islamic State/Daesh and providing it with an air force in Syria, why on earth would the group target a Russian plane?
As I wrote at the time: “You can’t say on one day that Russia is helping ISIS and that ISIS is gaining ground because of Russian actions and the next day claim that ISIS is bombing a Russian airline because they are, er.. angry with Russia”.

Or rather you can, if you’re a neocon who peddles outlandish anti-Russian conspiracy theories.

6. Trotskyists are taking over the Labour Party!

Record numbers of people are joining the Labour party to support leader Jeremy Corbyn, an anti-war democratic socialist whose policies represent a clean break with Blairism. And guess what?- these new members are disciples of a Russian revolutionary who died over 75 years ago!

Labour’s membership surged by 100,000 this summer – whoever would have thought there were so many Trotskyists in Britain! It’s all the more surprising given that the main Trotskyist party, the SWP, only has around 6,000 members.

According to Labour’s Deputy Leader Tom Watson, who opposes Corbyn, Trotskyist entrists’ are “twisting the arms” of young members. Perhaps they’re also threatening these young members with a spell in the Red Army…?

‘Trots under the bed’ is the 2016 variation of ‘Reds under the Bed’ for McCarthyite conspiracy theorists in the Labour Party, who are desperate to restrict party democracy and return to elite-friendly Tory-lite, pro-war policies.

7. Russia was behind the DNC email leak

No evidence has yet been produced that the Kremlin was responsible for the leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee, so let’s just push this conspiracy theory 24-7 shall we? It concerns Russia, an ‘official enemy’, so no need to wait for little things like facts, right? As Glenn Greenwald noted“Democrats not only treated this evidence free conspiracy theory as Truth, but following the Clinton campaign, proceeded to smear Wikileaks as a Kremlin operation”.

8. Putin orchestrated football hooliganism in the European Football Championships to get Britain out of the EU

This has to be a strong contender for the nuttiest CT of 2016. Russia is very keen for Western sanctions to be lifted. So what does the Russian Prez do? He gets Russian football hooligans to attack England supporters in Marseille. And this apparently will make it more likely that Britain will vote to leave the EU.

I’m sure there were millions of people in the UK who read about English and Russian fans fighting each other in France, who turned to their partners and said ‘That does it. I’m voting for Brexit on Thursday’!

What a load of (foot)balls.

9. Donald Trump is a Russian agent

The argument in the West against Donald Trump goes: Since the Republican presidential contender does not seem keen on starting WW3 with Russia over Ukraine or Syria, he must therefore be a Russian agent! Either a ‘witting’ one or an ‘unwitting’ one!

We’ve even had claims that The Donald is a ‘Manchurian Candidate’ who is secretly working either for Russia, or for Hillary Clinton.

Again, peddle these evidence-free CTs in the US or UK and you won’t lose your credibility as a ‘respected commentator’. Far from it. But if you argue that Tony Blair or David Cameron were agents of the US – either ‘witting’ or ‘unwitting’ on account of their ‘pro-US policies’ you’d face ridicule and career death. Proving once again, that some conspiracy theories are more equal than others.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. © Dominick Reuter

10. Dr Jill Stein is a Kremlin shill!

The Green Party candidate in the US Presidential Election is attracting plenty of support from progressives who can’t see what’s progressive about Wall Street-funded and neocon supported Hillary Rodham Clinton. So guess what? As her popularity rises, Dr Stein’s been smeared as a Kremin shill and is accused having ties to Vladimir Putin.

The ‘evidence’? Well, like Trump (see CT No 9), she doesn’t seem keen to start WW3, and wait for it, she attended, along with a lot of other public figures, the RT 15th Anniversary conference in 2015.

Going to Moscow and not wanting war with Russia – or indeed with anyone else – is apparently unacceptable, and enough to get another ‘acceptable’ Establishment conspiracy theory going, folks!

Follow Neil Clark on Twitter @NeilClark66

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Neil Clark

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative.

He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.

He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Ten “Acceptable” Western Establishment Conspiracy Theories