US Presidential Visit to Laos is About Confronting China

September 5th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

The United States is attempting highlight the historical nature of an upcoming visit to the Southeast Asian state of Laos by US President Barack Obama. By doing so, the US hopes perhaps the rhetorical narrative of the visit can compensate for a lack of real political substance.In an official White House statement titled, “Statement by the Press Secretary on the President’s Trip to China and Laos,” US spokespeople claimed:

President Obama will travel to China and Laos September 2-9, 2016. This trip will highlight the President’s ongoing commitment to the G-20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation as well as the U.S. Rebalance to Asia and the Pacific.

The statement would also claim:

President Obama will be the first U.S. president to visit Laos, where he will participate in the U.S.-ASEAN Summit and the East Asia Summit. Additionally, he will have bilateral meetings with President Bounnhang Vorachith and other key officials to advance U.S.-Lao cooperation on economic, development, and people-to-people ties, among other areas.

The White House statement would also mention President Obama’s intentions to participate in the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative  (YSEALI) Summit, an indoctrination program with strong parallels to both British and Roman imperial strategies used to “culturally colonize” targeted nations, regions, and peoples.Finally and most revealing, the statement claims (emphasis added):

This visit also will support the President’s efforts to expand opportunities for American businesses and workers to sell their products in some of the world’s fastest-growing markets. Central to this effort is the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP], the high-standards trade agreement that will unlock key markets to American exports and cement America’s economic leadership in the Asia-Pacific.

In other words, the US president’s visit to Asia, particularly Laos, is to expand – or perhaps attempt to reassert – US influence and more specifically control over the region.

From presiding over the YSEALI summit – indoctrinating and training youth from across Southeast Asia to serve amongst America’s vast network of faux-nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) – to pushing the unsolicited and very unpopular TPP trade agreement, the president’s visit represents a continuation of America’s coercive and disruptive brand of geopolitics standing in stark contrast to China, whom the US finds itself increasingly being pushed out of the region by.

Battlefield Laos 

Though rarely in the headlines, what is playing out in Laos is a powerful microcosm of a much larger geopolitical struggle unfolding across Asia.Even if all other metrics were even – the US would have an uphill battle before itself in challenging Chinese influence in the small but pivotal landlocked nation. Laos suffered immensely from America’s war with Vietnam in the 1960s-70s. According to the UN-funded Washington-based “Legacies of War” organization:

…from 1964 to 1973, the U.S. dropped more than two million tons of ordnance on Laos during 580,000 bombing missions—equal to a planeload of bombs every 8 minutes, 24-hours a day, for 9 years – making Laos the most heavily bombed country per capita in history.

To this day, even as President Obama prepares to visit Laos, nearly 100 Laotians a year are killed or maimed by US ordnance still littering the nation’s landscape.

In addition to this enduring and unenviable legacy, the US’ activities in Laos since the war have been less than constructive to say the least. While China builds railways and roads quite literally from one end of the nation to the other, and while China and its Southeast Asian neighbors help it construct dams to utilize its many rivers and mountainous terrain, the US has constructed instead an army of faux-NGOs dedicated to obstructing these infrastructure projects based on “human rights” and “environmental” concerns.

When President Obama and his entourage arrive in Laos, they will see joint Lao-Thai-Sino infrastructure and construction projects punctuating the increasingly modern and well-developed capital city of Vientiane. Chinese and Thai brands also are represented, as is a clear socioeconomic influence from neighboring Vietnam.

In contrast, President Obama’s entourage will also see SUVs with Western-funded NGO logos on their sides, racing around the city, posting up banners encouraging the Laotian people to use less electricity and resources in an effort to reduce demand for modernization and development and the joint infrastructure projects led by China and Thailand to address this demand.

What the US Lacks in Substance, It Makes Up for in “Soft Power” Coercion

Between both China and Thailand’s proximity and cultural ties to Laos – with Laotian and Thai languages being closely related and even discernible by both peoples – as well as their substantive and tangible contributions to Laos’ development as a modern nation-state, the United States’ policy of asserting geopolitical primacy over Asia, including Loas, its people, and its resources stand little chance of attracting widespread support from leadership in Vientiane.

However, what the US lacks in geopolitical substance, it can make up for with “soft power” geopolitical coercion. Part of the responsibilities of faux-NGOs operating within Laos is to apply pressure on the government to make unsound policy decisions favoring US interests at the expense of both Laos’ and Asia’s regionally.

President Obama’s participation in the YSEALI summit is part of this – indoctrinating young Asians, including those from Laos – to integrate themselves into the networks and institutions serving Western interests rather than those of Laos and Asia. Upon completion of the YSEALI’s programs, these young people will find themselves as part of America’s growing networks across Asia, opposing development in Laos, hampering constructive ties with Laos’ neighbors, and instead, favoring and promoting policies including the implementation of the TPP, “open markets,” US-ASEAN military integration, and other compromising policies that serve Washington’s interests at the expense of Laos, its sovereignty, development, and its future.

As awareness grows regarding the true nature of US “soft power” and the role it plays in coercing nations behind the scenes, its effectiveness will likely wane. With no alternatives able to compete with the current level of investment and engagement Laos’ immediate regional neighbors have committed, the US faces the prospect of its “primacy” in Asia being further undermined. Then again, for a North American nation to declare “primacy” over Asia to begin with is somewhat problematic and an issue the whole of Asia needs to address more openly and directly.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Presidential Visit to Laos is About Confronting China

Judicial Watch today released 510 pages of new State Department documents, including a 2009 request by Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band for diplomatic passports for himself and an associate.  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide Abedin responded to Band’s request positively, saying, “Ok will figure it out.”  The emails show Hillary Clinton forwarding classified information to Abedin’s unsecured, non-state.gov account. The emails also show Bill Clinton sought a meeting with Mrs. Clinton for a major Clinton donor with State Department officials and Hillary Clinton herself pushed for a joint event with the Clinton Global Initiative.  Band also pushed for and obtained special help from Abedin for seven-figure Clinton Foundation donor Chris Ruddy, of Newsmax.com.

Although an exchange sent from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton concerning the “disastrous nature of the Obama trip” and the U.S. being “totally out of the loop in Berlin – no ambassador” with the expectation that “Germans and Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc….” had previously published by the State Department, it was unknown until now that Clinton forwarded this exchange containing classified information that was redacted for security reasons to Abedin’s unsecure non-state.gov account

The new documents included 37 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date of such emails uncovered by Judicial Watch to 228 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).  These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

The Band request was for a special diplomatic passport for himself and his associates – an unidentified “JD” and apparently Justin Cooper, formerly a key member of Bill Clinton’s personal office and the Clinton Foundation who has been linked to registration documents for and the shutting down of the email server at the center of Mrs. Clinton’s State Department emails controversy.

The Band-Abedin exchange went as follows:

FromDoug Band

To: Huma Abedin

Sent: Jul 27, 2009 10:32 AM

Subject:

Need get me/ justy and jd dip passports

We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them

From: Huma Abedin [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:38:39 PM

To: Doug Band

Subject: Re:

Ok will figure it out

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations strictly limits the granting of diplomatic passports to members of the Foreign Service, their family members, or those working on U.S. government contracts. According to 22 CFR 51.3:

A diplomatic passport is issued to a Foreign Service officer or to a person having diplomatic status or comparable status because he or she is traveling abroad to carry out diplomatic duties on behalf of the U.S. Government. When authorized by the Department, spouses and family members of such persons may be issued diplomatic passports. When authorized by the Department, a diplomatic passport may be issued to a U.S. Government contractor if the contractor meets the eligibility requirements for a diplomatic passport and the diplomatic passport is necessary to complete his or her mission.

The newly released Abedin emails also contain additional instances of the Clinton State Department’s granting special favors to major contributors to the Clinton Foundation. A July 27, 2009, exchange of emails begins with Abedin advising Clinton scheduler Lona Valmoro that “wjc” (William Jefferson Clinton) wants special treatment for high-dollar Foundation donor and Dow Chemical’s CEO Andrew Liveris. Dow donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, making it one of the largest corporate donors in Foundation history.

From: Huma Abedin [email protected]

To: Valmoro, Lona J

Sent: Monday, Jul 27 06:02:01 2009

Subject:

Wjc wants to be sure hrc sees Andrew Liveris, ceo of dow tomorrow night. Apparently he is head of us china business council. Is he definitely going to be there?

From: Valmoro, Lona J [[email protected]

Sent: July 27, 2009 6:03:54 AM

To: Huma Abedin

Subject: Re:

I will check. He declined our invitation to dinner tonight at State.

FromValmoro, Lona J

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:24:08 AM

To: Huma Abedin; Narain, Paul F [Clinton aide]

Subject: Re: CEO of dow

Paul, Andrew Leveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, is going to be at the dinner tomorrow night. We would like HRC to see him, perhaps they can do a brief pull aside upon arrival. Huma, would that work for you?

From: Huma Abedin [[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:24:55 AM

To: Valmoro, Lona J, Huma Abedin, Narain, Paul F

Subject: Re: CEO of dow

Yes pull aside on arrival

FromNarain, Paul F

Sent, Monday, July 27, 2009 7:56 PM

To: Valmoro, Lona, Abedin Huma

Subject: RE: CEO of dow

Lona, I have arranged this pull aside for on the arrival in the Hold Room across the hall from the ballroom, immediately prior to the Secretary’s entrance and remarks.

The Abedin emails include a mid-August 2009, email exchange in which Band urges Abedin to follow up on a request from Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy to set up a meeting with then-Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson on behalf of lobbyist Amb. Otto Reich, President Reagan’s ambassador to Venezuela who maintained high-level government positions during the tenure of both President George H.W. Bush and President George Bush.  In early September, Ruddy then was contacted by State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roberta S. Jacobson, at the behest of Band and Abedin, in reference to Ruddy’s concerns about Wilson Lucom, whose estate was embroiled in a heated multi-million-dollar lawsuit.  Ruddy’s Newsmax Media Inc, made a contribution to the Clinton Foundation of between $1 million and $5 million. The emails show the responsible official was put in contact with Ruddy.

FromChristopher [Redacted]

To: Doug Band [Redacted]

Sent: Mon Aug 17 3:40:56 2009

Subject: Panama

Otto Reich is arriving in Panama tonite on the matter I discussed. He was hoping to meet with Barbara Stephenson or her Charge this week. He has not heard back from her. Any “air’ support you can give for this meeting would be helpful. Thanks! – Christopher Ruddy

From: Doug Band

To: Huma Abedin

Sent: Aug 18, 2009 10:37 PM

Subject: Fw: Panama

Would be good to do quickly.

Even a call

From: Huma Abedin

To: Doug Band

Sent: Wed Aug 19 4:51:35 2009

Subject: Re: Panama

Both of our point people are out on vacation. I can ask someone junior to deal with this?

From: Doug Band

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:20:13 PM

To: Huma Abedin

Subject: Re: Panama

Sure

From: Jacobson, Roberta S

Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 7:32 AM

To: ruddy [Redacted]

Subject: Panama case

Mr. Ruddy: Your inquiry about the Lucom case has been passed to the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs here at State. I apologize for not getting you a response on our position last evening, but we will get back to you as soon as possible today. Many thanks. Roberta Jacobson.

From: Christopher Ruddy

To: dband

Sent: Fri Sep 04, 08:01:20 2009 7:32 AM

Subject: FW: Panama case

From: Doug Band

To: Huma Abedin

Sent: Fri Sep 04 08:18:43 2009

Subject: Fw: Panama case

From: Huma Abedin

Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 8:37:21 AM

To: Doug Band

Subject: Re: Panama case

She’s the dep assistant secretary for the whole bureau.

The Panama desk guy is on leave so I asked that she at least reach out.

(Newsmax publishes a regular Judicial Watch column.)

The new Abedin emails also include an email exchange between Sidney Blumenthal and the then-Secretary of State in which Blumenthal proposes aClinton Global Initiative meeting in Ireland. Hillary Clinton forwarded Blumenthal’s email to Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Doug Band saying, “I think this is a good idea and see no conflict.” Band then responded that he and Bill Clinton think it is as “great idea.”

Again, Hillary Clinton’s involvement in CGI violates her ethics pledge to stay of out of Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative business.  Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”

In an email exchange in late August 2009, billionaire businesswoman Lynn Forester de Rothschild intervened directly with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to set up a Parade magazine interview for journalist Les Gelb, assuring Clinton, “He said he would give you a veto over content and looked me in the eye and said, ‘she will like it.’” Abedin then instructed State Department aide Phillip Reines. Reines acquiesced responding, “Yes, we’re trying to find a date that works for Les, but he is a little, shall we say, picky.” Rothschild is a longtime Clinton Foundation supporter who in mid-May of this year held a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser for the presidential candidate.

Also in the documents is an August 2009 communication from Hillary Clinton to her aides Abedin and Lauren Jiloty asking for the phone numbers ofDeclan Kelly, Clinton’s former economic envoy to Northern Ireland who is co-founder and CEO of Teneo.

“The idea that the State Department would even consider a diplomatic passport for Clinton Foundation executives is beyond belief,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “These emails show various violations of national security laws and ethics rules and further confirm that Hillary and Bill Clinton are personally implicated in the Clinton Foundation pay to play scandal.”

This is the eleventh set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.  The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”

On August 22, Judicial Watch released 725 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which Hillary Clinton top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state. In many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Abedin Emails Reveal Top Clinton Foundation Executive Sought Diplomatic Passport from Clinton State Department. Judicial Watch

Award-winning journalist Peter Oborne and Middle East Eye’s Nawal al-Maghafi are among the few correspondents to have ventured into war-torn Yemen during the past few weeks. Much of their reporting is from Houthi-held territory, where they were accompanied and their interviews monitored by Houthi minders. We are, however, confident that what they were told by their interviewees is authentic.

SANAA – Saudi bombers have not merely targeted civilians during the 18-month war in Yemen. They have struck time and again at the country’s thrilling architectural heritage, inflicting untold destruction.

Not even the old city of Sanaa, continuously inhabited for more than 2,500 years and a UNESCO world heritage site, has been spared. Its old quarter, which is every bit as as priceless and unique as those in European cities such as Venice and Florence, has also been targeted by planes from the Saudi-led coalition.

We spoke to Yemen’s director of antiquities, Mohannad Ahmad al-Syani, who graduated in archaeology from the University of Sanaa 30 years ago. He told us that “75 archaeological sites have been hit by the Saudi-led coalition or bombing by al-Qaeda”.

He accused Saudi Arabia of destroying ancient sites that have played no military role. “These are not places where you can hide weapons or militants,” he said, adding that several sites were hit “by 10 to 15 air strikes at a time, so we are not talking about a mistake”.

Syani gave as an example the Marib dam, which was one of the engineering wonders of the ancient world. Marib was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Saba, reputedly home to the Queen of Sheba, which thrived during the first millennium BC. The dam survived virtually intact for more than 2,000 years before being struck by Saudi bombers last year, an act descibed by Syani as “gratuitous”.

“Some of the walls have collapsed, and the bricks [have] burnt,” said Syani. “The south gate has been completely destroyed.” The area is now hard to reach because of the desperate recent fighting, but reports say that the ruins of the old city have also suffered severe damage.

In Saada, it’s one smashed building after another

We witnessed for ourselves the destruction that has taken place inside the old city of Saada, one of the most ancient and important in the north of the country, whose earthen architecture is very characteristic of Yemen.

Historic neighbourhoods of Sanaa’s Old City have come under fire duing the conflict (MEE)

At the start of the war, the Saudi-led coalition announced that all of Saada was a military target, and we saw abundant evidence that civilian areas had been bombed by coalition planes.

Driving along the city’s main street, we passed one smashed building after another. The square outside the Mosque of the Imam Hadi, spiritual centre of the Zaidi school of Islam, was completely destroyed. It was hard to imagine that any military purpose lay behind the bombing of this part of the old city. Locals told us that no soldiers had been in the area.

The old city of Sanaa, made up of ancient mud houses dating back thousands of years, has also come under ferocious attack. We visited the al-Fulayhi area of the old city, where several ancient houses were completely destroyed and numerous more damaged by a massive strike last September.

‘They are damaging the religious sites, for example tombs and historical graveyards’

The bomb killed a family of 10 as they sat down to dinner. Locals told us that some of them still had food in their mouths as their dead bodies were pulled from the rubble.

According to locals, the head of the family, Hafith Allah al-Ayani, was a greengrocer and had no connection with military issues. “He was an angel on Earth,” we were told by one neighbour. “He helped everyone. He used to give vegetables away to poor people.”

Vanishing: Evidence of ancient civilisations

The trail of destruction encompasses ancient cities, museums, mosques, palaces and ancient archaeological strikes. Although Saudi bombing has inflicted the worst of the damage, it is by no means the only offender. Houthi shelling has inflicted widespread damage, including in the old city of Taiz. Houthi forces seized the al-Qahira citadel in March 2015, from where they set about bombarding the city.

Syani stressed that a great deal of the destruction was caused by al-Qaeda. “They are damaging the religious sites, for example tombs and historical graveyards,” he said,  and suggested that the group and Islamic State (IS) may be the bigger threats. “At least with the Saudi coalition of states you can hold them accountable,” he observed. “Not so Daesh [an Arabic acronym for IS] and AQ.”

READ: A calamity is unfolding in Yemen and it is time world woke up

Rescuers search amid the aftermath of an air strike at a historic site in Sanaa in June 2015 (Mohammed Huwais/AFP)

If the international community is guilty of ignoring the humanitarian calamity facing the Yemen, it is equally guilty of turning a blind eye to the scale of the archaeological destruction.

Some experts accuse the Saudis of being driven by motives similar to those of IS and al-Qaeda. “The same obscurantist ideology by which Islamic State justifies its destruction of cultural heritage sites appears to be driving the Saudis’ air war against the precious physical evidence of Yemen’s ancient civilisations,” wrote Nishant Choksi in the New York Times.

“There is no other explanation for why the Saudi-led offensive should have laid waste to these irreplaceable world archaeological treasures.”

Choksi suggested that the Saudi-led coalition may be deliberately targeting Yemen’s heritage and that “several sources have confirmed that UNESCO and the [US] State Department gave the coalition a list of specific sites to avoid. But far from rebuking its ally for ignoring this advice, the United States is providing logistical, intelligence and moral support for the Saudi air campaign.”

On our trip to Saada we took advantage of a temporary ceasefire that had created a lull in the bombing. However, the attacks resumed with a raw intensity by the time we finally left.

The consequences for millions of Yemenis caught up in this awful conflict are dreadful. The loss to the world of parts of Yemen’s priceless architectural heritage are just one part of the developing calamity facing this tragic but beautiful country.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Yemen’s Past is Being Erased, One Air Strike at a Time

Will Israel Be Put on Trial for War Crimes?

September 5th, 2016 by Jonathan Cook

An expected visit by ICC delegation could increase the risk of Israeli officials being tried for war crimes 

Israel has agreed to allow the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague to send a delegation to Israel and the occupied territories, it was revealed at the weekend, in a step that could dramatically increase the risk of Israeli officials being tried for war crimes.

Emmanuel Nahshon, a foreign ministry spokesman, confirmed to Al Jazeera on Sunday that Israel had agreed to the visit in principle, though the “when and how” were still under discussion.

The ICC’s move comes as human rights groups have harshly criticised Israel for closing investigations into dozens of allegations that its military broke the laws of war during an attack on Gaza in the summer of 2014.

The Hague prosecutors are reportedly interested in examining how effective Israel’s legal mechanisms are in investigating allegations of war crimes.

Under the terms of its founding statute, the ICC could take over jurisdiction of such probes if it is persuaded that Israel is unable or unwilling to conduct credible investigations itself.

So far, only three Israeli soldiers have been indicted on a relatively minor charge – of looting – even though Israel’s 51-day offensive, named Protective Edge, in July and August 2014 resulted in some 2,250 Palestinian deaths. The vast majority were civilians, including 551 children.

The Israeli military exonerated itself late last month in 13 cases it had been investigating. These included lethal attacks on three Palestinian families, the shelling of a hospital and a United Nations shelter for civilians, and the bombing of Gaza’s main power plant. It declined to investigate another 80 complaints.

In response, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon criticised Israel for the “low rate of investigations opened into these serious allegations”.

Since Protective Edge, two of Israel’s largest human rights groups, B’Tselem and Yesh Din, have refused to cooperate with Israeli investigations in Gaza, accusing the Israeli military of using them to “whitewash” its actions.

In June, the New York-based monitoring group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), added to the pressure on the ICC, calling for it to open a formal investigation into the Gaza offensive.

The credibility of Israel’s probes has been further undermined by a report issued last week by two local human rights groups, Adalah and Al Mezan, based in Israel and Gaza respectively.

The report accused Israel of failing to examine properly the evidence they had collected relating to 27 suspected war crimes during the 2014 offensive. Five cases referred to Israeli attacks on UN schools sheltering civilians. Two years on, the groups noted, Israel had issued no indictments. Investigations, where they occurred, were “clearly flawed”.

Nadeem Shehadeh, a lawyer with Adalah, a legal centre for Palestinian citizens in Israel, told Al Jazeera the possibility of legal redress in many cases was close to “exhausted”.

“We have seen Israel conducting flawed investigations or dragging out the legal process with long delays,” he said. “The main aim appears to be to place obstacles in the way of the investigations so that Israel’s armed forces are not held accountable.”

Israel’s failure to conduct thorough and transparent inquiries could open the door to the ICC launching its own formal investigation, he said.

On Friday, an unnamed Israeli official tried to downplay the significance of the visit, telling the Haaretz daily: “We have nothing to hide.”

The official added that Israel would point out to the ICC that it “has neither the authority nor the justification to handle the Palestinians’ complaints”.

Nahshon told Al Jazeera: “The goal is to give the ICC a better grasp on Israel’s legal and judicial system.” However, he added, “That will make things easier if we move to another stage” – an apparent reference to the possibility that the ICC may consider launching a formal investigation.

Ghazi Hamad, a Palestinian official dealing with ICC matters, said the Palestinian Authority hoped that the visit would “speed up the opening of the investigation” by the court into Israel’s conduct during Protective Edge.

“That would provide a clear message to Israel that it cannot continue to commit crimes with impunity,” he told Al Jazeera. Hamad said the PA was not told whether the ICC had requested or was granted permission from Israel to access Gaza.

This is the first time Israel has agreed to cooperate with an international body over allegations that could ultimately lead to war crimes trials. Israel denied entry to UN commissions of inquiry in 2009 and 2014, following major offensives in Gaza.

Officials in Washington have repeatedly voiced their opposition to the ICC exercising jurisdiction over Israeli nationals. Neither the US nor Israel has ratified the Rome Statute, the document establishing The Hague court in 2002.

Sari Bashi, director of the Israel-Palestine branch of HRW, said Israel’s continuing restrictions on human rights organisations entering Gaza had further undermined the credibility of Israel’s investigations. The strict controls had made it “more difficult for [the groups] to do their jobs and to bring relevant information to light”, she told Al Jazeera.

Israeli authorities, she added, had previously conceded that human rights groups played an important role in helping to “overcome the fear that Palestinian residents have of meeting [Israeli military] personnel.”

Al Mezan and Adalah said that, in many cases, Israel had refused to speak to any witnesses outside the military before it dropped inquiries into suspected war crimes.

Israel has received a total of 500 complaints relating to 360 incidents in Gaza in which there are suspicions of violations of international law.

So far, only a handful of investigations have been opened, relating mainly to physical assaults on civilians, “unlawful firing” at buildings, and looting. On August 24, Israel announced the closure of more than 93 cases. In 80 cases, no formal investigation was conducted.

Two years on, Israel is still undecided whether to scrutinise some of the most contentious phases of its offensive, including the massive bombardment of Rafah to prevent an Israeli soldier from being taken prisoner. The incident, known as Black Friday, is believed to have killed more than 100 Palestinian residents of the area.

Aida Burnett-Cargill, a spokeswoman in Gaza for Al Mezan, said Palestinian human rights organisations had sent to the ICC Palestinian witness statements relating to Black Friday in March.

“We hope these materials and others are raising doubts in the minds of the ICC’s prosecutors about the seriousness with which Israel is handling its investigations,” she told Al Jazeera.

Hamad said that the Palestinian foreign minister, Riad al-Malki, had met the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, in The Hague on Friday to promise any help the court might need to launch a formal investigation.

The ICC is currently conducting a “preliminary inquiry” to examine whether an investigation is warranted into suspected violations of international law, either by Israel or Palestinian factions.

Protective Edge is the first major offensive against the Palestinians over which The Hague court has potential jurisdiction. In ratifying the Rome Statute last year, the Palestinians gave the ICC authority from June 2014, a month before Israel’s attack on Gaza.

Among the investigations Israel closed last month was one looking into the shelling of a UN school in Rafah that was serving as a temporary shelter for 3,000 Palestinians. Some 12 civilians, including eight children, were killed and at least 25 injured. Chris Gunness, a UN spokesman in Jerusalem, told Al Jazeera that Israel had been given the school’s coordinates and was warned on 33 separate occasions of its role as a shelter, the last time being an hour before the attack.

Human rights groups have challenged Israel’s claims that the school was hit because militants riding a motorbike changed course towards the school after a missile had been fired at them. Al Mezan’s testimonies suggest that the riders were civilians and should not have been targeted. HRW, meanwhile, discovered that the type of munition Israel used could have been diverted when it was clear it would explode near the school.

Adalah and Al Mezan said Israeli authorities had refused to divulge the basis for most of their decisions either to exonerate soldiers or refuse the opening of investigations, claiming the evidence was classified.

Human rights groups have criticised the closing of other investigations. In June, inquiries were dropped against Neria Yeshurun, a brigade commander who had admitted to ordering the shelling of a medical clinic “to raise morale”, apparently in revenge after one of his officers was killed. Yeshurun was reprimanded instead.

In another controversial case, Israel closed an investigation in June 2015 into the killing of four boys as they played football on a beach, close to hotels where foreign reporters were based. Shehadeh said Adalah, which supplied testimonies to Israel about the boys’ deaths, had immediately appealed the decision to Israel’s attorney general but had heard nothing for more than a year.

In May, leading Israeli human rights group B’Tselem said it would no longer submit complaints to the Israeli authorities. It said it was pointless to work “with a system whose real function is measured by its ability to continue to successfully cover up”.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Israel Be Put on Trial for War Crimes?

As Americans celebrate Labor Day, expect little meaningful talk about labor itself. Or about the great equalizer in the everyday engagement of labor and capital: the union movement — and its decades-long decline.

And yet, for a great portion of the American populace, that decline has already had a profound impact on their quality of life.

This spring, researchers at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported that in the last two years, 2014-2015, union participation dropped to a little more than 11% of the US workforce. That’s down dramatically from more than one in three workers who were represented in 1945.

While union representation plummeted, the highest paid 10% of workers took an even larger share of the country’s total wages. In 1945, the top 10% earned just under a third of total wages; in recent years, their share has grown to nearly half. That’s the biggest slice of the wage pie the upper crust has seen since 1917, the earliest date for which the EPI analysts could find reliable data.

“I think this strike demonstrated that despite a climate where strikes are rare it is still possible to carry the day if your workers are united and militant. ”

Judging by the recent upsurge of populism — manifested on the right in the rise of Donald Trump and on the left by Senator Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) campaign — voters continue to rank the economy, the decline of the middle class, and the nation’s growing wealth inequality, as hot button issues.

The demand for a $15 dollar minimum wage has gone nationalboosted by a dynamic grassroots movement that has prompted legislative action at the municipal and state levels across the country. This fall voters in several states will get to weigh in on a related ballot question, which would mandate an $7.75-an-hour raise in the federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2010.

Photo credit: The All-Nite Images / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Photo credit: The All-Nite Images / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Unions Still Relevant.

Despite the drop in the number of American workers represented by unions, when a union does flex its muscles the results can be impressive. A case in point is the recent Communications Workers of America (CWA) strike against Verizon last April.

When the six-week strike ended, and the smoke cleared, the CWA had won a 10.9% raise for workers, to be phased in over four years, plus enhanced job security, expansion of the union’s jurisdiction and the promise of more new hires.

“I think this strike demonstrated that despite a climate where strikes are rare it is still possible to carry the day if your workers are united and militant,” said Bob Master, assistant to the vice president of the CWA District One. “It is not lost on us that this strike played out in a very favorable political environment where the public had grown increasingly hostile to corporate greed and Verizon was making $1.5 billion in profits monthly.”

CWA also played an astute geopolitical hand, taking full advantage when a group of Filipino call-center workers, in an act of self-sacrificing solidarity, refused the overtime generated by the strike. When Verizon’s Filipino management called down local law enforcement on its workers. It only drew global press attention to Verizon’s outsourcing, something the company had attempted to downplay.

“The company over in the Philippines reacted so stupidly by calling in an armed military SWAT team when all we were trying to do was meet with management,” Master told WhoWhatWhy.

The strike was settled not long after.

Verizon Strike National Day of Action, May 5, 2016. Photo credit: Thomas Altfather Good / Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Verizon Strike National Day of Action, May 5, 2016.
Photo credit: Thomas Altfather Good / Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The Disconnect Between Making and Earning

But one successful strike can hardly reverse the erosion of the middle class that has been in the making at least since the 1970s. That’s when American workers stopped seeing their wages grow at a pace with their increasing productivity. Last month the Economic Policy Institute reported that from 1973 until last year, while productivity was increasing more than 73%, hourly pay for workers went up only 11% — in other words, productivity grew by more than six times the rise in wages earned by workers.

For his part, Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, has offered only bromides, pledging “to make America great again.” He promises to return the nation to those halcyon days, post-World War II, when America was a manufacturing dynamo that had saved the world, and was populated by middle class households that had both economic leverage and buying power.

And there are strong macro signs that things are going to continue to be problematic when it comes to the power balance between capital and labor, not just for American workers, but for their counterparts around the world.

For decades now American workers have been losing their leverage, as the world’s biggest corporations were able to successfully play one country’s workforce off another. But now the same corporate interests, which sparked the race to the bottom for wages and worker benefits between countries, are increasingly turning to robots and automation to reduce their human workforce planet-wide.

A few months back the BBC reported Foxconn, the Chinese-based manufacturer that is the key supplier for Apple and Samsung, had cut its 110,000 workforce by more than half — down to just 50,000 — with the introduction of robots.

“Economists have issued dire warnings about how automation will affect the job market, with one report, from consultants Deloitte in partnership with Oxford University, suggesting that 35% of jobs will be at risk over the next 20 years,” reported the BBC.

Foxconn’s statement put the best spin on the seismic shift, asserting that it was sparing humans the toil and trouble of “repetitive tasks,” while offering training to give employees a chance “to focus on higher value-added elements in the manufacturing process, such as research and development, process control and quality control.”

But, bottom line, there will be a whole lot fewer jobs.

Even as the $15-an-hour living-wage movement gains traction with the public, captains of industry are quick to counter by invoking the threat of automation.

Man Versus Machine.

Automated Food Processing Photo credit: MATSUOKA Kohei / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Automated Food Processing
Photo credit: MATSUOKA Kohei / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

“I was at the National Restaurant Show yesterday and if you look at the robotic devices that are coming into the restaurant industry — it’s cheaper to buy a $35,000 robotic arm than it is to hire an employee who is inefficient making $15 an hour bagging French fries — it’s nonsense and it’s very destructive and it’s inflationary and it’s going to cause a job loss across this country like you’re not going to believe,” former McDonald’s USA CEO Ed Rensi told FOX Business in an interview.

The threat of automation has been with us for decades. Historically the attitude has been that in the long run, this process would create more jobs than it destroyed. But experts say this time is different, and it is not just the specter of driverless cars and trucks.

A few months ago the Financial Times reported that China and Japan were going through a robotic explosion. Globally, over the last few years, the market has grown at a compounded rate of 17% per year. By 2019 the global robot market is expected to be worth $135 billion.

Paradigm Shift to a Post-Work World?.

Photo credit: Derek Yu / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Photo credit: Derek Yu / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is probably best known for his organizing campaign, “Justice for Janitors,” which brought thousands of immigrant workers into a union for the first time, helping to dramatically expand the ranks of the SEIU.

But these days, as an academic and author based at Columbia University, Stern believes society needs to come to terms with what he expects to be an increasing scarcity of work as automation slips into a higher gear.

Only a universal income, without means testing, can help buffer the US from the socio- economic dislocation that’s going to come from “permanent” job scarcity, Stern contends. He says that the current recovery, considered to be the most anemic since World War II, gives us an idea of what lies ahead.

“The wages of workers would have to be $5 a day to match the cost of robots in China,” Stern told WhoWhatWhy. “It is no longer people being poor because they are not working. Its people being poor because there is no work.”

“We already see in this recovery that the economy can produce economic growth skewed to the top 1% but without real wage growth for workers and the creation of quality full-time jobs with benefits,” said Stern. “All the job growth since 2008 has been alternative working arrangements, part-time or contingent, all part of the gig economy.”

Stern sees the current youth unemployment crisis — with as many as six million 16-to-24-year olds in the US not working and not in school — as a “harbinger” of things to come.

Under Stern’s proposal, laid out in his new book “Raising the Floor: How a Universal Basic Income Can Renew Our Economy and Rebuild the American Dream,” adults would get a $1,000 a month stipend, a form of universal social security, that would replace current programs like food stamps and unemployment benefits. It would be paid for with the cost savings from realigning the existing social safety net, and by raising taxes on the highest end earners.

“This is an idea that disappeared for 50 years and has resurfaced,” Stern told WhoWhatWhy, pointing out that President Richard Nixon had proposed a Family Assistance Plan that would have also ended welfare but replaced it with the concept of a basic income.

"World's largest poster" promoting basic income. Photo credit: Generation Grundeinkommen / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

“World’s largest poster” promoting basic income.
Photo credit: Generation Grundeinkommen / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

“In Martin Luther King’s last book he called for it,” Stern told WhoWhatWhy. In Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community, King wrote that a direct payment to impoverished families was far superior to the existing federal response to poverty, which was failing because it was “indirect” and sought to solve “poverty by first solving something else.”

Finland is preparing to start a two-year experiment to provide a monthly basic income of $600 up to 3,000 for  its citizens who are already unemployed and who will be selected at random. The government wants to see if the basic income pilot will cut bureaucracy, boost employment, reduce poverty and the social isolation that it is often associated with it.

The provincial government of Ontario, Canada, has also announced plans to roll out its own experiment offering a basic monthly income.

Slide in US Workforce Decades in the Making.

Since the 2008 meltdown a declining unemployment rate has been offered as proof that the US is in recovery. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans actually in the labor force, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines as anyone working, or looking for a job, has also been declining.

For decades the steady growth in workforce participation, along with increased new household formation,  lifted the US into its post-World War II economic expansion. But years after the Great Recession these twin engines for prosperity are stalling out.

In 1948, 59.3% of Americans were in the labor force. That number grew, as more women joined the labor force, so that by 1997 it peaked at 67.2%. But since then the rate has declined and is now in the low 60s, something not seen since the 1970s, suggesting that there’s something long-term going on that’s different.

Occupy Wall Street protest, March 16, 2012 Photo credit: Michael Fleshman / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Occupy Wall Street protest, March 16, 2012
Photo credit: Michael Fleshman / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

BLS predicts the participation rate will drop to 61.6% by 2022.

What accounts for this? Outsourcing? Automation? Some not so obvious factor, like the increase in the percentage of young people going to college? In the late 1960s just one in four opted for higher education. These days it is closer to 40%.

Another possible factor is the aging of the US population, with 10,000 Americansturning 65 every day, many of whom will retire and drop out of the workforce.

And another factor: For decades, during the war on drugs, the US came to lead the world in the percentage of the people it incarcerated, which resulted in more than 2 million people in jail and not on the job.

One more possible contributor to the drop in workforce participation: Increasingly, the US population has become sidelined from work by disability. In 1970 just 1.7% of Americans were on disability. Today it is 5.8%.

Whatever the reasons, the implications are significant for the nation: Just as the bill for keeping the social contract with the baby boomers comes due, a smaller percentage of the population will be hard at work to pay for it.

Several million Americans are underemployed and millions more have left the workforce. In what will be the third Presidential election since the start of the Great Recession, the candidates will, once again, call for the renewal of the American Dream without a trace of irony.

The US is in the midst of a profound shift that is having generational consequences. Coming to terms with it means re-assessing the ways that people have been thinking about labor and wealth for centuries — back to the transition from feudalism to the emergence of mercantilism.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Labor Day Gives US Workers Little to Celebrate. The Derogation of Labor Rights

Distinguished Author and Global Research Associate Stephen Lendman

First published in relation to Labour Day 2015.

US workers have little to celebrate this Labor Day weekend or any other one. America is being systematically thirdworldized – represented by weak unions complicit with management or none at all, unable to bargain effectively for higher wages.

Economic recovery is an illusion. A protracted Main Street Depression persists. Poverty is a growth industry. Around 23% of Americans wanting work can’t find it.

Most available jobs are rotten ones – temp or part-time low pay/poor or no benefit service ones with no futures. Conditions are getting worse, not better.

Millions of good jobs were offshored to low-wage countries. Millions more may follow. Many displaced workers remain unemployed longterm. Others finding work take huge wage cuts.

Labor force participation is the lowest in 40 years. A newNational Employment Law Project (NELP) report is titled “Low-Wage Occupations See Steepest Drop in Real Wages.”

“Stagnant wages have become a fact of life for nearly all of America’s workers, but workers in lower-paying occupations are finding it especially tough to keep up with the rising cost of living,” NELP executive director Christine Owens explained.

“Not only are their paychecks not growing, but their purchasing power has shrunk considerably, and to a far greater extent than that of higher-wage earners.”

NELP examined median hourly wage changes from 2009 – 2014 for 785 occupations – categorized into five groups with equal weighting.

It found 4% wage declines on average – low and “mid-wage” occupations hardest hit, up to 5.7%. Declines were greatest in restaurant sector jobs. Food preparation workers saw 7.7% lower incomes. For cooks, it was 8.9%.

Janitors, cleaners, personal care aides, home health workers, maids and housekeepers were hard hit. Many job categories expected to see strong growth in number of workers are experiencing above-average real wage declines.

“Five of the ten occupations projected to add the greatest number of jobs between 2012 and 2022 were at the bottom of the occupational distribution in 2014, with real median wages between $8.84 and $10.97,” NELP reported. “Six of the ten highest-growth occupations saw real wage declines of 5.0 percent or more between 2009 and 2014.”

At the same time, lowest paid workers earning poverty and sub-poverty wages saw wage declines of 1.6%. How much lower is the bottom of the barrel than already?

Minimum wage workers don’t earn enough to live on – why homelessness and hunger affect millions of Americans. Around 3.5 million men, women and children have no place to live. They sleep in parks, under bridges, in shelters, cars or on city streets.

Nearly one-fourth are military veterans. Many others are children, victims of domestic violence or mental illness sufferers – federal, state and local governments doing little or nothing to help them.

Homelessness is mainly an economic problem – caused by unemployment, underemployment and inadequate resources to live on.

During the 1950s and 1960s, government housing programs and other social services eradicated homelessness. Major cuts in these programs caused an epidemic of people unable to afford shelter.

America’s safety net is disappearing altogether. Hunger affects one in six Americans. Over 14 million children rely on food banks to eat.

Food insecurity exists in every US county nationwide – at its highest level at any time since the Great Depression. Hunger is a daily reality for around 50 million Americans – affecting 13 million households, including working ones.

Census data show poverty or borderline conditions affect around half the population. Food stamps provide a woefully inadequate $1.40 per person per meal. Food banks supplement recipients when monthly benefits run out. Most often it’s around 10 days or more before month’s end.

Official numbers understate reality. Growing millions suffer out of sight and mind. Government is dismissive at all levels.

America’s wealth disparity is unprecedented. Income inequality is greater than in all other developed countries. Over three-fourths of workers live from paycheck to paycheck – one missed one away from homelessness, hunger and despair.

Neoliberal harshness is official US policy. Bipartisan complicity force-feeds it – institutionalized when vital aid is needed. America wages financial war on its own people. Its social contract is on the chopping block for elimination.

Monied interests alone are served – ordinary people increasingly ignored. America’s political system is too corrupted to fix. Voters have no say whatever. Democracy is pure illusion.

Anyone believing they can change things electorally is living in a fantasy world. America’s one-party state with two wings affords voters no choice at all – no matter what candidates represent them at all levels of government.

The only solution is revolutionary change – bottom up, never top down.

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.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Little to Celebrate this Labor Day Weekend: Low-Wage America. Protracted Main Street Depression. Economic Recovery is an Illusion

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Labor Day—what is it?  Perhaps not many Americans any longer know, so here is my explanation.

In my time Labor Day was the unofficial end of summer, because school began after Labor Day.

Today school begins almost a month before.  When I was in school that would not have been possible, especially in the South.  The schools were not air-conditioned.  If school had started in August no one would have showed up. It was difficult enough getting through May before school was out in June.

As most Americans probably thought of Labor Day as the last summer holiday, now that Labor Day has lost that role, what is Labor Day?  The holiday originated as an apology capitalists tossed to labor to defuse a standoff.

Workers understood that labor was the backbone of the economy, not Wall Street moguls or bankers in their fine offices.  Workers wanted a holiday that recognized labor, thus elevating labor in public policy to a standing with capital. Some states created labor day holidays, but it wasn’t until 1894 that Labor Day was made a federal holiday.

Congress created the federal holiday in response to the murder of strikers by US Army troops and federal marshalls during the Pullman strike of 1894.  The factory workers who built Pullman railway cars lived in the company town of Pullman.  George Pullman provoked a strike by lowering wages but not the rents charged in the company town.

President Grover Cleveland relied on Attorney General Richard Olney to restore capitalist control.  Olney, a former railway attorney, sent in the federal violance to break up the strike.  Olney still received a retainer from his railway company that was larger than his salary as US Attorney General.  So we know whose side he was on. The presstitute media portrayed the beaten down strikers as unpatriotic foreigners, and the strike leader, Eugene Debs, was sentenced to federal prison. The experience radicalized Debs and turned him into a socialist.

The obvious injustice created more sympathy for labor than capitalists could stomach, so Congress defused the situation by creating Labor Day.  President Cleveland washed his hands of the blood on them by signing the legislation.

Officially what we are celebrating on the first Monday of September is American labor, but what is really being celebrated is the success of capitalist pigs again flummoxing the people and avoiding a real social revolution.

The labor movement, which gave us Labor Day, is no longer with us.  The American labor movement died about ten years after the death of its most famous leader, George Meany of the AFL-CIO.  Meany, born in 1894, died in 1980.

I remember when labor was at the center of politics and policy. There was even a field of economics called “labor economics.”  The political influence of labor ended with the offshoring of US industrial and manufacturing jobs.  For years US capitalists tried to avoid a fair shake for labor by locating their facilities in Southern states that had right to work laws.  But with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the change in attitude of India and China toward foreign capital, capitalists learned that they could increase profits by using foreign labor offshore to produce the goods and services that they sold to Americans. The difference in labor costs flowed directly into profits, executive bonuses, and shareholder capital gains.

Free market economists, who live in a make-believe world, pretend that the lower labor costs flow into lower US consumer prices and that consumers beneift despite the loss of well-paying jobs.  The problem with free market economics is that a priori reasoning takes precedence over empirical fact.  For free market economists, the way the world should be prevails over the way that the world actually is.

As a consequence of jobs offshoring, industrial and manufacturing cities became semi-ghost towns with decling populations.  Municipal and state governments, deprived of tax base, found themselves under duress to make pension payments. To avoid immediate bankruptcy, cities such as Chicago sold off public assets such as 75 years of parking meter revenues for a one time payment.

The Democratic Party, which had been the countervailing power against the Republican business party, was deprived of union funding as the jobs that paid union dues were no longer in America.  By moving production offshore, capitalists turned the Democrats into a second capitalist political party dependent on funding from the business sector.

Today we have one party with two heads. The competition between the parties is about which party gets to be the whore for the capitalists for the next political term. As Democrats and Republicans swap the whore function back and forth, neither party has an incentive to do anything different.

The offshoring of high productivity, high value-added US jobs has destroyed the labor movement. How much luck will labor leaders have organizing people who hold part-time jobs as waitresses, bartenders, hospital orderlies, and retail clerks?  As I have pointed out for years in my reports on the monthly payroll jobs reports, the United States now has the labor profile of a Third World country.  The absence of jobs that can support an independent existence and family life is the reason that more Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents than live independently.  The absence of jobs is the reason the  labor force participation rate has declined for years. The absence of jobs that pay sufficiently to provide discretionary income is the reason the economy cannot grow.

Looking at last Friday’s BLS payroll report, the jobs are in the lowly paid, part-time service sector. The goods producing sector of the economy lost 24,000 jobs.  The jobs are in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders, and government, a tax supported operation.

Whether Washington policymakers realize it or not, the American work force smells like India’s of a half centruy ago.  Whatever deranged Hillary and her neoconservatives claim, there is no evidence in the compositon of the US labor force that the US is a superpower.  Indeed, what the employment statistics show is that the United States is a third world country, a country whose leaders are so out of their minds that they are picking fights with first world countries—Russia and China.

The United States of America is on its last legs.  As there is no willingness to recognize this, nothing can be done about it. America’s last function is to cause World War 3 in which all of us will expire.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Labor Day. What Is it? History. “Restoring Capitalist Control”. Labor Movement No Longer the Center of Politics

Last month, India abruptly changed tack by expressing its willingness to drop three-tiered approach on tariff liberalization under the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement. This was communicated to trading partners at the fourth RCEP Ministerial Meeting held in Laos on August 5. India has been one of the key proponents of the three-tiered approach on tariff reduction under RCEP.

What led India to change tack? The precise reasons behind this policy shift are not yet publicly known but media reports suggest that India has made this offer conditional on getting higher levels of commitments on trade in services and investment from other member-countries of RCEP.

Unlike majority of RCEP nations, India has an offensive interest in seeking greater liberalization of trade in the IT and IT-enabled services (ITES) due to its globally competitive IT sector which is the largest contributor to services export.

While India may adopt a more cautious approach towards banking, retail trade and legal services. India has been seeking easier visa regime for the movement of IT and other service professionals in the RCEP member-countries. However, most RCEP members are unwilling to extend any meaningful market access to Indian service firms. On investment issues too, there is a yawning gap between India and other member-countries.

On the other hand, India has defensive interests in agriculture commodities and manufactured goods (except pharmaceuticals and textiles). In terms of manufacturing, India remains one of the most uncompetitive big economies in this region despite its huge market size and diversity.

In contrast, RCEP countries like China, South Korea and Japan are export powerhouses in manufactured goods and have strong offensive interests in opening up the goods market of India. Likewise, Australia and New Zealand are pressing for lower tariffs to gain greater market access in India’s food, wine and dairy sectors.

As compared to early harvest approach favored by other member-countries, India intends to achieve a single undertaking agreement which allows trade-offs across sectors during the negotiations.

For India, RCEP would be, by far, its biggest free trade agreement and the country may have to offer deeper commitments than already made under its existing FTAs with ASEAN, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

What is RCEP?

RCEP is a proposed mega regional free trade agreement between sixteen countries (10 ASEAN countries[1] and their six FTA partners, namely, Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. If accomplished, RCEP would pave the way to the creation of the largest free trade bloc in the world, covering 45 percent of the world’s population with a combined GDP of US$22 trillion and accounting for 40 percent of global trade.

The legally binding RCEP covers a wide range of issues including trade in goods, trade in services, investment, intellectual property rights, competition policy, dispute settlement and economic and technical cooperation.

The negotiations were officially launched in November 2012 at the ASEAN Summit in Cambodia and the 14th round will be held at Vietnam during August 15-19, 2016.

The core interests of RCEP member-countries are very diverse thereby delaying the conclusion of negotiations. Given the slow pace of negotiations on other key pillars (trade in services and investment), it is unlikely that this mega regional economic integration pact could be sealed this year.

India’s Three-tiered Approach

Under India’s three-tier approach, tariff reduction was based on whether it has a FTA with the member-country of RCEP or not. As noted above, India has already signed FTAs with ASEAN, South Korea and Japan.

In tier-I, India offered 80 percent reduction in tariff lines to the Asean countries. Out of which, 65 percent will come into force once the RCEP agreement is enforced and the rest 15 percent will take place over a period of 10 years. In tier-II, India offered 65 percent tariff elimination to South Korea and Japan while these two countries have reciprocated with 80 percent threshold over a decade.

The tier-III relates to countries with whom India has not yet signed any FTA. In tier-III, India offered 42.5 per cent reduction in tariff lines to China, Australia and New Zealand while each of these countries offered 42.5 percent, 80 percent and 65 percent, respectively.

In contrast, the single-tier system – where all member-countries get same reduction in tariff lines – is likely to pose a much higher competition threat to Indian producers.

Growing Concerns over Cheap Imports

Concerned about the possible negative impacts of RCEP, strong apprehensions have been expressed by the industry associations and farming communities in India over the cheaper imports (such as steel, chemicals and electrical goods from China, plantation crops from Asean countries, wheat and wine from Australia and dairy products from New Zealand) flooding the domestic market and driving local producers out of business.

Even the proponents who view RCEP as an opportunity for Indian economy to be globally competitive do acknowledge that the fear of being swamped by cheaper imports is real and the proposed pact could negatively affect the livelihoods of small producers and workers if safeguard measures are not adequately incorporated in the proposed pact.

In particular, much of concern is related to import of cheaper manufactured goods from China. In 2015, India’s trade deficit with China widened to a whopping $51.8 billion. With a bilateral trade of $71.2 billion in 2015, India’s exports to China were $9.6 billion while imports were $61.5 billion.

Over the years, China’s exports have been growing at a much faster pace than India’s. This is despite the fact that India has frequently used anti-dumping duties, safeguard duties and other countervailing measures to protect the domestic industry from unfairly low-priced imports from China. During 1994-2014, there were 134 cases where India imposed anti-dumping duties on goods from China. Much of the stiff competition from Chinese imports is in products manufactured by India’s micro, small and medium-sized enterprises who have been demanding curbs on cheaper imports.

India also runs a trade deficit with other RCEP nations – Australia, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The Potential Revenue Loss

The current debate misses a key point that India joining RCEP could result in significant tax revenue loss as the country imposes higher MFN applied tariff rates (on both manufactured goods and agricultural products) in comparison to other RCEP nations. According to Mint, commerce ministry officials have estimated that the potential tax revenue loss from joining RCEP could be around 1.6 percent of country’s GDP.

India’s Recent Experience with FTAs

For India, there is no point in entering into this mega regional trade agreement without assessing the impacts (positive and negative) of its existing bilateral trade agreements with other RCEP members.

India’s recent experience of FTAs with Japan, South Korea and Asean countries has not been very positive due to myriad reasons. Post-FTA, bilateral trade volumes have increased but imports from partner countries have increased at a faster pace than India’s exports with partners. Due to its relatively higher tariff regime, India had to reduce tariffs much more than partner countries. Take the case of India-ASEAN FTA. Post-FTA, India’s imports from ASEAN rose by 79 percent while exports grew by 39 percent.

The official Economic Survey 2015-16 also noted: “Increased trade has been more on the import than export side, most likely because India maintains relatively high tariffs and hence had larger tariff reductions than its FTA partners.”

Despite India’s active FTA policy, Indian exporters have not been able to achieve greater benefits from existing FTAs due to low awareness and cumbersome rules. According to the estimates of Asian Development Bank, utilization rate of India’s FTAs varies between 5 and 25 percent – one of the lowest in the region. Further, studies have found that large enterprises are more likely to use FTAs than SMEs.

As far as services sector is concerned, India was unable to secure greater market access in its trade pact with ASEAN. In the case of bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore where India successfully negotiated the Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) – aimed at facilitating movement of IT and other service professionals – anticipated gains have not yet materialized because of poor enforcement of MRAs.

For India, the policy priority should be to address the deficiencies of existing bilateral FTAs with RCEP members through the established review process rather than entering into mega regional FTAs like RCEP and TPP.

There is no denying that by being not part of RCEP, India may incur losses on account of trade diversion. But joining this mega pact would entail substantial economic and social costs. Unlike Australia, Japan and New Zealand, India lacks a comprehensive social safety net to fall back on. The threat of millions of Indian farmers, workers and self-employed entrepreneurs losing their jobs and livelihoods due to cheaper imports from RCEP member-countries cannot be underestimated. Close to 93 percent of India’s workforce is in informal sector.

What about Geo-political Gains?

India’s FTAs with ASEAN and other East Asian countries are often viewed as integral parts of “Look East Policy” which was formulated by the Narasimha Rao government way back in 1991. Since then, the successive governments have taken myriad steps towards deeper and more institutionalized economic integration with this region.

Indeed, motives for pursuing FTAs with the East Asian countries have been ascribed to advance India’s geo-political interests. This perspective was clearly outlined in a letter written in April 2006 by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Congress President Sonia Gandhi who had expressed concerns over the negative impact of India-ASEAN FTA on plantation workers. In his letter, Singh stated: “Our approach to regional trade agreements in general, and FTAs in particular, has been evolved after careful consideration of our geo-political as well as economic interests.”

There is nothing per se wrong in enhancing India’s influence and strategic position in the world but the time has come for the Government to share its assessment whether these FTAs are helping in achieving geo-political and other non-economic interests in this region or elsewhere.

Need for Wider Consultations

One of the major lacunae in India’s FTA policy is very limited consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The number of domestic consultations on RCEP held, so far, are not adequate given the size, depth and diversity of Indian producers.

To avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over again, the Indian authorities should involve all stakeholders into the consultation process. Besides, the government must initiate in-depth research and analytical studies to measure cross-sectoral and intra-sectoral impacts of RCEP.

In India and elsewhere, free trade agreements currently do not enjoy much support from the public. In recent years, the public view of free trade pacts has grown more negative. Therefore, it is very important for the Indian authorities to seek active engagement of farmers’ groups, industry associations, service providers, labour unions and NGOs in the process.

The Big Picture

Export-led growth has been a dominant paradigm for East Asian economies. However, the global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent recession in developed countries have revealed the vulnerabilities of export-led growth model and currently serious questions are being raised whether other economies should emulate this model to promote development. China, the world’s second largest economy, is currently attempting to move away from export-led investment-fueled growth model towards a more consumption-led model so as to reduce dependence on falling exports.

Unlike China, South Korea, Japan and other East Asian countries which follow export-led growth model, bulk of India’s growth emanates from domestic consumption which constitutes nearly 70 percent of GDP.

Due to weakening of external demand and growing protectionist sentiments around the world, India will have to pay greater attention to boost the domestic demand in the short and medium-term.

In the present global context, the chances of India becoming an economic powerhouse through exports are very slim. Already there are strong protectionist sentiments against India’s software and services exports industry in key markets.

Instead of expanding global footprint through FTAs, India should first focus on strengthening the domestic productive capacities and mobilizing resources to improve the physical and social infrastructure.

Note

[1] Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trade Liberalization in India and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement.

In Yemen, conflict, violence, and bloodshed are now a daily occurrence. In spite of ongoing human rights violations global media outlets have chosen to take a back seat and remain silent. Why has  the grave severity of Yemen’s rising conflict been kept in the shadows rather than exposed  as a recurrent headline?

If Western media outlets possess the power to shed light on injustice and ultimately aid in the eradication of warfare and conflict, why has Yemen’s crisis not been considered an issue worthy of international attention?

It is time to  question the “strategic” silence.

Is the dark veil drawn over Yemen’s struggle in the face of violent extremist groups a strategic manoeuvring on the West’s part? Does the Occidental world play a hidden role in this conflict? Would international superpowers much rather skim over the truth and dismiss the sheer horror of bombings and casualties as a means of protecting their own “favourable” global position?

Violations against children cease to discontinue in war-torn Yemen. Credit: Rebecca Murray/IPS.

Violations against children cease to discontinue in war-torn Yemen. Credit: Rebecca Murray/IPS.

The sheer gravity of Yemen’s conflict should subsequently ignite  a deafening  global cry for  justice, however, as long as the public are “strategically” kept  in the dark, little change can realistically be implemented.

The stifled cries of Yemen’s  grief-stricken will remain unheard. The unrest which plagues Yemen today was triggered by the Houthi takeover of Sana’a in 2014. This was later followed by the coalition airstrikes  led by Saudi Arabia in March 2015.

Destructive bombing worsened by perilous ground fighting have taken a devastating toll on the civilian population. Particularly in the case of Yemen’s vulnerable children who are continuously subjected to life-threatening human rights violations.

In an so-called  effort to eradicate the threat “Houthi” rebels pose, a coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia and militarily supported by the United States and the United Kingdom have waged war against Houthi rebel forces in a bid to”protect” Yemen and its people.

In reality, it appears the atrocity and devastation these unlawful airstrikes have inflicted on the people of Yemen has resulted in exactly the opposite. The Saudi-Led coalition’s definition of  “protection” has  led to nothing short of an  outbreak of chaotic destruction.

Impoverished families have enlisted their children with Houthi or pro-government forces in exchange for the equivalent of 7-15 USD per day.

The outcomes of ruthless warfare have proved detrimental to the future educational, economic and societal development of Yemen.

More than 6,500  people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced. As  one of the world’s poorest countries well before the conflict ensued, Yemen now not only faces the setbacks of poverty-stricken deprivation but the fearful strife of bloodshed  too.

The New York Times has stated that the US has actually been complicit in the carnage of Yemen, having sold over USD 20 billion in weapons over the course of 2015.

Since the beginning of Yemen’s downfall, the United Kingdom has not acted as the innocent bystander it wishes to portray to the public eye, with the sale of close to USD 4 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia.

As the US and the UK continue to sell weapons to the Saudi-led coalition and  ongoing bombings, killings, and corruption ceases to discontinue, Yemen’s Children are left scarred by the threats of exploitation and violence.

UNICEF has verified that more than 900 children were killed and 1,300 injured in 2015 alone, with a rate of 6 children killed or maimed every day since the escalation of hostilities in March 2015.

What’s more, Houthi forces, pro-government forces, and extremist groups continue to engage in the recruitment of child soldiers, who are estimated to make up one-third of the fighters in Yemen.

The UN documented up to 850 cases of child recruitment in 2015, a five-fold increase over 2014. These armed parties have also detained children who upheld suspected loyalty to enemy forces. They relentlessly  abuse their child prisoners and subject them to inhumane conditions whilst in captivity.

According to Human Rights Watch, of the 140 detained by southern armed groups, 25 of the victims were children under the age of 15.

For those who fear the threat of violence or captivity, a clear alternative shines through  the enticing employment prospects of fighting for Houthi Forces.

Many young boys are  lured in by the promise of safety, security and most significantly, economic prosperity. Economic hardship is, in fact, one of the fundamental pull factors in the process of child soldier recruitment Al Jazeeraconfirms. A vast number of impoverished families have enlisted their children with Houthi or pro-government forces in exchange for the equivalent of  7-15 USD per day.

“There are many families in several provinces that deliberately send their children to fight for the sake of money, after these families lost their source of income at the beginning of the war.”Amal al-Shami, the head of the Sanaa-based Democracy School, a non-profit organisation to raise awareness in human rights and democracy among children, explained to Al Jazeera.

Khalil, a former construction worker from Taiz has been unable to find secure employment due to the war. In a state of financial desperation,  he urged his 15-year-old son to join the houthi forces.   “I am not a supporter  of the Houthis, but I sent my eldest son to fight with them. They pay him 9.30 USD daily, and this is enough for us.” he stated. The necessity to join rebel forces is further accentuated by the widespread demolition of schools.

In many cases, with the destruction of their sole source of education these children and their families see no other
alternative than to engage in the warfare.

In many ways, Yemen has consequently developed into a new breeding ground for child soldiers.

The conflict has become ingrained and inter-generational. You’re seeing the cycle continue. Children are being killed because they are being seen as future fighters. Kids are being brought up to hate.” Anthony Nolan, a UNICEF child protection specialist  emphasised.

UNICEF has released a report stating that children as young as 14 are currently fighting on the front line in Yemen.

Both the Houthis and the government have gone back on anti-violence pledges they have made to end their merciless recruitment of children.

Western media outlets can no longer stand by in idle silence and keep the world ignorant of the devastation occurring in Yemen.

As the lives of  thousands are lost including those of vulnerable children, it is time to draw global attention to their plight.

In spite of ongoing UN-backed peace talks and half of all prisoners released by pro-government and opposing Houthi forces in early June 2016, more action needs be taken, particularly in the case of child soldiers.

The parties to the conflict in Yemen should be placed under international pressure to release captured children and stick by their commitments to not re-enlist child soldiers.

Through widespread awareness-raising by major media outlets  and the open condemnation of brutal war practices, we will not only strive for the eradication  of child soldier recruitment, we will help Yemen’s people restore peace in their war-torn nation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bloodshed and War Crimes: Yemen’s Children Deserve Better

Canada’s Colonial Past: The Bata Shoe Empire

September 4th, 2016 by Yves Engler

An elitist, nationalist, bias dominates all areas of Canada’s paper of record.

On the front of last weekend’s Style section the Globe and Mail profiled Sonja Bata on turning 90. Business partner and wife of the deceased Thomas Bata, the Globe lauded Sonja for the “many contributions she has made to Canada”, including the Bata Shoe Museum and various other establishment “cultural, environmental and social causes.” The article touched on the shoemaker’s early history and described how she “traveled the world building a shoe empire – between 1946 and 1960, 25 new factories were built and 1700 Bata stores opened.”

While the three-page spread included an undated photo of Sonja and her husband on the “African continent”, it ignored how the Toronto-based shoe company took advantage of European rule to set up across the continent. By the end of the colonial era Bata had production or retail facilities in Nigeria, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Libya, Sudan, Algeria, Senegal, Congo, Tanzania, Rhodesia and elsewhere. In the 1940s and 50s, notes Shoemaker with a Mission, “the organization’s expansion was especially great in francophone Africa. As Mr. Bata himself noted, there was no country in that part of the world where his company was not established as the number-one supplier of footwear.” While “Mr. Bata” may not be the most objective source on the shoemaker, a government study just after independence found the company controlled 70% of the footwear market in British East Africa (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania).

In a 1974 Saturday Night article titled “Canadians Too, Can Act like Economic Imperialists”, Steve Langdon describes the company’s operations in Kenya: “Bata seems to be undercutting decentralized rural development in Kenya, to be blocking African advance in other areas, and to be throwing its weight around politically — all at a handsome profit.” In a bid to subvert the establishment of a domestic competitor, the Toronto-based multinational wrote its overseas suppliers to discourage sales to its challenger and asked Kenyan government officials to intervene on its behalf.

Bata’s mechanized production methods squeezed out indigenous footwear producers all the while increasing imports of plastics and machinery, which came at the expense of local materials (leather) and employment. In the 1975 article Canada’s Relations with Africa Robert Matthews notes that Bata drained “money and opportunity from poor rural areas” to the benefit of a small group of locals and the Toronto head office.

When the post-independence Tanzanian government announced that it would acquire a 60 percent share of a multitude of major foreign firms Bata was the only hold out. The Toronto firm attempted to sabotage Tanzania’s push to acquire a controlling interest in the local company’s operations. In Underdevelopment and Nationalization: Banking in Tanzania James H. Mittelman explains:

“Bata Shoes (a Canadian-based concern), for example, ran down stocks, removed machinery, supplied imperfect items, and later withdrew all staff, supposedly closing down for annual repairs! The Company refused to relinquish more than 49 per cent of its controlling interests, tried to set up a new wholesaling operation dependent on its firm in Kenya, and urged other foreign investors to fight.”

Bata’s aggressive reaction to Tanzania’s efforts aimed to dissuade other newly independent African countries from following a similar path. The shoemaker no doubt feared for its significant operations across the continent.

Bata received Canadian government support as well. In mid-1973 the Canadian High Commissioner in Nairobi visited Uganda to ask Idi Amin if he would attend the annual Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place in Ottawa. But, the primary objective of the high commissioner’s meeting was to convince Amin to reverse his nationalization of Bata. A cable published by WikiLeaks read:

CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER OLIVIER MET WITH PRESIDENT AMIN JUNE 29 TO DISCUSS GOU TAKE-OVER OF BATA SHOE FIRM. AMIN REVERSED EARLIER DECISION AND ORDERED THAT A NEW PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT (51 PERCENT BATA, 49 PERCENT GOU) BE WORKED OUT.”

Through the 1970s Bata worked under the white regime in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). It broke sanctions against Rhodesia by exporting goods manufactured there to South Africa. Even more controversial, it operated in apartheid South Africa until the late 1980s. The company broke unions and blocked black workers from semi-skilled, skilled and executive positions. Listed among the “hardline defenders of investment in South Africa” in Ambiguous Champion: Canada and South Africa in the Trudeau and Mulroney years, Bata faced an international boycott campaign. During this period Sonja Bata was quoted in the Canadian media justifying the company’s South African policy and Thomas Bata proclaimed “we expanded into Africa in order to sell shoes, not to spread sweetness and light.”

The Globe and Mail is exposing its elitist, nationalist, bias in ignoring Bata’s unsavory history.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s Colonial Past: The Bata Shoe Empire

Seventeen years have passed and many people have already forgotten that the U. S. and a number of other NATO countries collectively waged one of the most destructive wars on the European continent since the end of World War II–the modern aerial bombing campaign against the Serbian people. In the tradition of the New World Order, this “intervention” wasn’t called “war.” It was argued by various Western politicians and the corporate media that the bombing campaign was directed against the late Serbian President Milošević and his “propaganda machine.”[i] In fact, the NATO bombs loaded with depleted uranium[ii] were falling on bridges, maternity hospitals, private residences of ordinary people, a moving train, a Serbian TV station, the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, as well as water plants, schools, electrical power plants, and many other objects that were crucial for the society to function.

Even in 2016, there are still several ruined buildings in downtown Belgrade. These sites have not been cleaned up nor repaired. Medical doctors are finally speaking up and emphasizing that the skyrocketing rates of cancer and other deadly diseases will only continue to rise because it takes 10-15 years for the accumulated environmental toxicity to also build up in people’s bodies.[iii] In other words, more than two thousand five hundred killed[iv] and several thousand wounded people were only immediate victims of the NATO’s “humanitarian intervention.” This military action will continue to take its toll affecting multiple generations as time passes. It is worth mentioning that NATO forces also bombed bridges, refugee centers, buses, hospitals and other important objects in Kosovo–then Serbia’s autonomous province–and now self-proclaimed country. Kosovo was the territory that NATO allegedly wanted to protect in 1999. Soon after the military intervention, NATO seized control over the province, making it a de facto U. S. protectorate, even though it was legally a U. N. protectorate[v]. The United States created its largest military base in Europe and took control over Kosovo’s population and its natural resources.[vi]

One would think that under these circumstances, no Serbian government would be allowed to become too friendly with NATO and to de facto accept the loss of Kosovo—a significant part of its territory that is also considered its cultural cradle. The reality has proven otherwise. In spite of significant opposition expressed by a great majority of the Serbian population,[vii] several governments have actually approved NATO’s plans for controlling the Balkan Peninsula and hosted NATO summits and leaders. While the most recent poll conducted in April 2016 revealed that 71.6% of the survey respondents[viii] didn’t want Serbia to join NATO, these governments signed agreements that gave NATO full access to Serbia’s territory and a promise of so-called military partnership. Such uneven partnership that requires Serbia to commit to making immense changes in its socio-economic and political system, while hardly mentioning any NATO obligations, is in the tradition of a post-Orwellian world called “Partnership for Peace.”

In this article I provide a brief background on the impacts of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign that devastated the whole society, followed by a detailed analysis of recent agreements between Serbia and NATO. These recent agreements were also accompanied with a local Serbian law ratifying the 2015 agreement on “logistical support.” In the concluding remarks I include some reflections on future developments that could possibly lead to Serbia’s full membership in the North Atlantic organization.

Background: Effects of the 1999 NATO Aerial Bombardment

In the last report issued by the “Dr. Milan Jovanović Batut” Institute for Public Health, Serbian health professionals provided alarming data for the period ending in 2012. According to this report, in Central Serbia and the northern province of Vojvodina, cancer rates, including leukemia and lymphoma grew 80% following the NATO bombing[ix]. Professor Slobodan Čikarić, who is a medical doctor and the President of the Serbian Cancer Society, emphasized that Serbia had the highest cancer mortality rates in Europe. Even the Kosovo Public Health Institute registered a 57% increase in cancer rates for the years 2013 and 2014. [x]

Earlier reports were equally disturbing. Michel Chossudovsky wrote in the fall of 1999:

Amply documented, the radioactive fall-out causes cancer potentially affecting millions of people for generations to come. According to a recent scientific report, “the first signs of radiation on children including herpes on the mouth and skin rashes on the back and ankles” have been observed in Yugoslavia since the beginning of the bombings. [xi]

In 2005, it was reported that between 1999 and 2001, 140,000 people were suffering from cancer in Serbia. On average, 25,000 new cases were registered per year. This data was reported by the Serbian Public Health Ministry during a press conference. Some Serbian media and the general public started calling this phenomenon, a “cancer epidemic.” [xii]

A team of scientists from Serbia and the Serbian diaspora organized an international conference in 2001 in Belgrade to inform the international community about the horrible truth about health effects and environmental devastation that followed the NATO bombing. Professor Jasmina Vujić, who teaches at the U. C. Berkley Nuclear Science Department, was one of the primary organizers of this conference. Vujić published an article with Dragoljub Antic in the New Serbian Political Thought (NSPM) in 2015, and provided references to some attempts to decontaminate the environment[xiii].

Some media and research institutions informed the public that there had been a media blockade and that many politicians had remained silent about depleted uranium for a long time. Such media outlets recognized that NATO had unleashed a “silent killer, low level nuclear war waged on the Serbian population[xiv]. Their realization that everything becomes even more serious if depleted uranium enters the waterways and food chain is consistent with the depleted uranium science that examines various effects of depleted uranium[xv]. This kind of examination is included in the basic documents published by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency[xvi]. While there could be disagreements about the lifespan of depleted uranium and there are different opinions about the effectiveness of clean up technologies, it should be also noted that the Serbian government hasn’t invested in any consistent cleanup efforts. While some clean-up is mentioned in several sources[xvii], it is most likely that Serbia has not had enough funds, equipment, and trained personnel to invest in a consistent decontamination process.

NATO bombings specifically targeted civilian populations and objects. Michael Parenti documented multiple examples of NATO war crimes and comprehensively analyzed the underlining motives of U. S. and NATO decision makers.

Sometimes, the NATO attackers defended their atrocities by claiming that a civilian target was really a military one, as when NATO mouthpiece Jamie Shea unblushingly announced that the bombing of Surdulica hospital was deliberate because the hospital was really a military barracks. This was a blatant fabrication. [xviii]

Some people still remember the media campaign during the bombing. Those images traumatized the majority of the Serbian population and disturbed many around the world.

We have seen those endlessly repeated snippets of footage of bomb explosions lighting up the night sky over Belgrade. We’ve even seen pictures of that burned train at the Grdelica gorge where fifty five Serb passengers were blown to bits or burned alive and another sixteen wounded.[xix]

Gregory Elich documented multiple examples of devastation caused by the NATO bombing throughout Serbia. One of the most striking examples was the destruction of Niš–the third largest Serbian city that was shelled with cluster bombs on multiple occasions, including hospitals, private homes and the DIN cigarette factory which was bombed on four occasions. [xx]

According to experts, exposure to depleted uranium is more dangerous for young people whose bodies are developing, as organs and cells that reproduce faster become more sensitive to the effects of radiation. [xxi] Millions of people, animals and plants were exposed to depleted uranium. However, deadly diseases and environmental devastation were not the only effects of NATO’s “intervention.”

In addition to displacement and ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Roma, dissident Kosovars and others, NATO’s occupation of Kosovo and its subsequent secession from Serbia became a reality. There is no secret that human and organ trafficking[xxii], trafficking in narcotics[xxiii], Israeli-like strategies to expand settlements to include the lands previously belonging to Serbian residents, and general desperation of the entire population have become Kosovo’s unfortunate reality.[xxiv]  Even in June of 1999, right after the NATO war was concluded, it was evident that very little would be improved in Kosovo. On the contrary, the situation became graver over the years.

Under NATO occupation, the rate of killing was about the same as before the bombings, thirty or so a week. The very level of killing that was detected as a human catastrophe and used to justify an eleven-week bombardment, continued after the bombardment. [xxv]

Here is how Diana Johnstone describes additional goals and effects of NATO’s war on Serbia:

In addition to “inflicting hardships in the daily lives of more Serbs”, bombing the country’s infrastructure also was seen as having a long-term political impact by destroying Serbia’s economic self-sufficiency. As an anonymous German official explained that the “kind of money that will be needed to rebuild bridges or even dredge the wrecks out of the Danube” was expected to provide “major leverage for Western countries.” The destroyed country would have to follow the dictates of the destroyers[xxvi].

The Serbia-NATO agreements analyzed in this article certainly resemble a situation in which the destroyed country has to follow the dictates of the destroyers. Johnstone added that:

In his first wartime interview, NATO’s air commander Lieutenant General Michael Short acknowledged that bombing was intended to cause distress among civilians. [xxvii]

In the passage included below Andrej Grubačiċ emphasized that NATO supervised the ethnic cleansing of Roma and Serbian population in Kosovo.

Before 1999 there was about 120,000 Roma in Kosovo. After the bombing in November of 1999, only 30,000[xxviii]. In March of 2000, former UN special investigator for the former Yugoslavia Jiri Dienstbier reported to the UN Commission on Human Rights that “330,000 Serbs, Roma, Montenegrins, Slavic Muslims, pro-Serb Albanians and Turks had been displaced in Kosovo.” [xxix]

Another immediate impact was that the bombing put approximately 500,000 people out of work[xxx]. Over the years Serbia’s rates of unemployment have remained among the highest in Europe. [xxxi]

A number of other prominent intellectuals also wrote about the NATO intervention and dismantling of Yugoslavia, providing data and theoretical frameworks to understand original goals and permanent consequences. Noam Chomsky often addressed multiple myths and ironies utilized by politicians and the media. Below is an example provided in one of his articles.

The sole purpose of the bombing was to demonstrate to Serbia and to the world NATO’s capacity to bomb, thus killing nearly 2,000 civilians, destroying much of Serbia’s infrastructure, prompting expulsion and flight of around a million Kosovars. The vast crimes took place after the bombing began: they were not a cause but a consequence. It requires considerable audacity, therefore, to take the crimes to provide retrospective justification for the actions that contributed to inciting them. [xxxii]

Tariq Ali said that the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a war for U. S. hegemony in Europe. [xxxiii] This is consistent with conclusions that were eloquently articulated by Michael Parenti, Diana Johnstone, Michel Colon, Michel Chossudovsky, Andrej Grubačić, Gregory Elich, Sara Flounders, and others. In Johnstone’s words: “As a result of intervention in Yugoslavia it was concluded that “the presence of U. S. conventional and nuclear forces in Europe remains vital for the security of Europe.”[xxxiv]

NATO’s Continuous Dominance and Serbia – NATO Agreements

The U. S. and NATO leaders knew that they couldn’t expect complete acceptance by the Serbian population right after they inflicted so much devastation and suffering. Consequently, Serbian authorities had concealed their talks with NATO officials[xxxv] and had to wait until 2005 and 2006 to enter into specific agreements. Serbian President Boris Tadić and Foreign Minister Vuk Drašković signed agreements regarding the use of information and communication systems. Tadić’s government paved the road for future governments to give even more access to NATO leaders. Behind closed doors, Serbian politicians have discussed “modernization” of the Serbian military, acquisitions of NATO technology and future support of NATO missions. At the same time, Serbia’s parliamentary resolution of 2007, asserting military neutrality still remains in effect.[xxxvi]

On May 25, 2010, the Serbian Ministry of Defense signed an agreement with NATO in Edinburgh, accepting NATO’s codification system[xxxvii]. This agreement was ratified by the Serbian Law that confirmed the formation of the Serbian National Codification Bureau. The codification agreement ensured that the Serbian Ministry of Defense accepted standardization of data, rules and procedures, as outlined in the NATO Codification Brochure. This also means that there would be an exchange of commercial and state codes of so called type S, internal Serbian codification and advertisement of such data in the NATO Master Catalogue of References for Logistics. In other words, the NATO Automated Business System will be used as the main source for the official state (and military) documents. It is not explicitly stated, but by using the NATO technology and data systems, Serbia is adjusting to NATO’s standards and also making its systems open to the oversight of the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD). So this was the first step of opening the door to “collaboration” with NATO. The parties to this agreement–Serbian Ministry of Defense and CNAD–committed to resolving any possible disputes by themselves, without taking them to international courts or third parties. Anyone familiar with dispute resolution principles might wonder how this can work in practice, especially between parties with such power imbalance.

According to the Individual Partnership Action Plan that was signed by Serbia and NATO in December of 2014, this agreement was connected to Serbia’s request to join the European Union (E. U.). Even though this plan was supposed to be a military type of “partnership,” there were numerous non-military reforms and conditions outlined within it. Serbia committed to specific standards imposed by the E. U. and NATO regarding human rights, the rule of law, global security, terrorism, cybercrimes, restructuring its economy and media, in addition to boosting its military power, and “managing crises.”

In the introduction to this agreement it is highlighted that since 2006, when Serbia joined the so-called “Partnership for Peace,” this collaboration has been continually advanced and a work group was formed to coordinate all activities. Composition and roles of this work group were not specified in detail. However, it was emphasized that comprehensive social reforms were expected from Serbia. Serbia’s previous collaboration in the areas of diplomacy, security, destruction and storage of excess ammunition, and implementation of UN Resolution 1325 (on Women, Peace and Security) was acknowledged.

When it comes to economic reforms, it is expected from Serbia to continue and soon conclude the process of privatization and otherwise reform its economy in order to attract foreign capital. This was not specified in the agreement, but we know from multiple sources that the phrase “attracting foreign capital/investments” means destruction of labor rights, as well as selling natural and human resources for bargain prices[xxxviii]. What was specified includes negotiations about Serbia’s membership in the World Trade Organization, and the expectation of Serbia’s greater participation in the E.U. and global markets. Serbia is expected to conclude negotiations, join the World Trade Organization and invite foreign investment. Tax reform is a part of this strategy to attract foreign capital by reducing taxes on foreign investments in Serbia. Completion of the privatization process is also a goal outlined in this agreement, implying that Serbia still has important resources that are not privatized. For example, there were recent attempts to privatize Serbian Telecom and remarkable displays of public resistance.

So called liberalization of financial services and domestic markets was also emphasized. At that time, the destiny of the South Stream pipeline was not known and Serbia’s possible participation in this project was mentioned, along with a diverse array of other possibilities to ensure “security” of energy resources.

By signing this agreement Serbia also accepted the responsibility and commitments to develop its military capabilities in order to make them available for possible participation in multinational operations overseen by the U.N. and E.U. Even though it was mentioned that Serbia could take advantage of the resources provided to all members through the Partnership for Peace, NATO’s obligations were not spelled out in the text of the agreement. However, Serbia committed to improve education, training and readiness of its military personnel. Furthermore, it was noted that Serbia was ready to improve its military equipment. Financial plans for this kind of modernization/improvement were not specified.

According to this agreement signed in 2014, Serbia also committed to conduct a media campaign to promote military reforms, including the extent and benefits of its collaboration with NATO within the Partnership for Peace framework. This comprehensive media strategy would include print and digital resources, and support given to academic, NGO, and research centers to organize round tables to promote NATO. The strategy would also encourage Serbian scientists, university professors and research institutions to collaborate with NATO and participate in joint projects. Support provided by NATO public diplomacy groups (it is not clear from the text of the agreement what these groups are and how they operate), other members of the Partnership for Peace, the taskforce for cooperation with NATO, as well as NATO’s Military Office located in Belgrade, was seen as crucial in the implementation of this strategy. It was not clearly defined why all of these resources were needed. However, knowing that less than 12% of Serbia’s population approves any kind of collaboration with NATO[xxxix], these clauses are better understood.

The section of this agreement that outlines specific individual actions also includes a timeframe for implementation. For example, continuation and further improvement of political dialogue with NATO was marked as “ongoing;” coordination and corresponding processes of “E.U. integration” as a “continuous process;” improvement of public opinion regarding global security and NATO as being “implemented in 2014,” etc. Another important goal outlined in the agreement was Serbia’s continued cooperation through the Serbian Mission at NATO. The so-called European integration processes were connected with Serbia joining an agreement for Stabilization and Association with the E. U. Negotiations about E. U. membership were connected with changing laws to correspond to the E. U. legal system, and to build positive relationships with neighbors, including Kosovo. Furthermore, this plan includes preparation and implementation of the National Program for Acceptance of E. U. Values and Traditions. These values and traditions are not listed in the agreement. Serbia committed to supporting various organizations for regional stability, the E. U. Strategic Partnership for the Danube River, and the continuation of negotiations with Priština regarding the Brussels’ Agreement, in collaboration with NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) in the context of U. N. Security Council Resolution 1244. Collaboration and work with the U. N., Organization for European Security and Cooperation—OEBS (Serbian acronym), and the European Council also became logical parts of this agreement, as Serbia has a long history of cooperation with these organizations.

When it comes to multiculturalism and human rights, Serbia committed to “anti-discriminatory practices,” inclusion of Roma, and to improve the social status of other marginalized groups. Serbia also has to reform its legal system according to an already accepted strategy for 2013-2018 and must harmonize its legal standards with international laws and the E. U.’s legal traditions. It is not specified what laws and legal traditions need to be incorporated.

In terms of international obligations and the “global fight against terrorism,” Serbia has special responsibilities to respond to the U. N. Security Council Resolution 1373, and to improve its readiness for this fight. By 2015 Serbia also needed to ratify an additional protocol to accompany its agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Training of personnel employed in the business and governmental sectors to improve their skills in the detection, control and prevention of controlled substances is yet another obligation that Serbia accepted by signing this agreement with NATO. Somewhat connected to that is the improved training regarding the transmission of sensitive information and protection of data from cyber-attacks.

Reforms of the military and intelligence agencies are also a demand put on Serbia. While it is stated that the Serbian Parliament has oversight role in this area, it is also emphasized that the members of Parliament needed to be trained in order to make informed decisions.

Military Aspects of the 2014 Agreement with NATO

It is stated in the agreement that, in order to expand its contributions to attaining global security, Serbia has to increase its participation in multinational military actions. Serbia should explore possibilities for participation in E. U. combat operations. This is an aspect of Serbia’s obligation to work closely with NATO’s Office in Belgrade in order to improve its military technology and defense system. In addition to Partnership for Peace, Serbia will also participate in NATO’s Building of Integrity program, particularly adapted for application in Southeast Europe.

Serbia’s obligations are numerous and include development of a NATO fund that will be given to the Serbian Ministry of Defense for the purposes of secure storage and demilitarization of excess ammunition.  These weapons and ammunition need to be safely stored by using the full capacity of the Technical and Overhaul Center located in Kragujevac. Another important activity is the collaboration with OEBS and UNDP towards expanding capacity for management of conventional ammunition supplies.

Serbia also committed to continue to work on its own defense strategy, develop new military doctrines, create new laws and regulations, and implement the long term strategic plan developed by the Serbian Government in 2011. In order to participate in multinational military operations, Serbia is obligated to develop a national codification system that is compatible with NATO’s codification standards. This includes national laws in the area of defense, transportation of military personnel, equipment and weapons. Serbia has to work towards establishing new models of supporting its own troops once they are ready to participate in multinational military operations and also support the host country where these operations occur. In preparation for this kind of readiness, Serbia is obligated to develop new types of military education and training, in accordance with NATO and Boulogne standards. It also has to exchange information with partners about its military. Serbia’s military personnel will join trainings and multinational military exercises conducted by its partners. A regional center for the training of Serbian military was supposed to be open by the end of 2015 within the “South NATO Base.” It is unclear from this agreement if the base is located in Kosovo or elsewhere.

Modernization of Serbia’s military is already in progress, based on this agreement. This kind of modernization includes acquisition of more complex weaponry and military equipment, including drones, ground vehicles, airplanes, communications controls, and information technology. Serbia also has to complete reports on these acquisitions and negotiations with contractors. Serbia’s Military-Technological Institute is obligated to conduct research on the possibilities for better international cooperation, modernization of its own defense systems and connections with NATO. To that end Serbia will participate in numerous activities of the Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) and coordinate its regulations with European regulations that control export of weapons.

Information Campaign

When the Serbian government signed the 2014 agreement with NATO’s Partnership for Peace, it also accepted an obligation to develop a public information strategy for collaboration with the Partnership for Peace in order to ensure public support. This public support should be displayed for both Serbia’s participation in NATO and Serbia’s own military force. Serbia is committed to participating in the NATO program called “Science for Peace and Security” and will inform the general public about it. For this purpose, informational events will be organized on a regular basis, and information will be posted on the Serbian Military Defense website. [xl] There will be a positive institutional atmosphere created for Serbia’s participation in this program by supporting development of infrastructure and tax-free acquisition of research technology. It is implicitly suggested that it is NATO’s obligation to provide tax-free scientific equipment and research technology.

Serbia also accepted the obligation to improve its relationships with other countries in the region. Some of these countries are partners or members of NATO. It is not specified what countries the agreement refers to. By the end of 2015, all documents and plans for emergency situations and crisis management were supposed to be completed and accepted by the Serbian government. Serbia also participated in regional multinational military training in 2014 and 2015, according to this Agreement.

Serbia’s Agreement with NATO Regarding Logistical Support

Serbia signed another agreement with NATO’s Support and Procurement Organization (NSPO) in the area of logistical support. This agreement was completed in Copenhagen in September, 2015. At the beginning of 2016 the Serbian Parliament passed a law that ensures implementation of this agreement.

In the preamble of the Agreement it is emphasized that as a participating member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Serbia expressed interest in services provided by NSPO in order to establish cooperation in the areas of logistics, operations and systems support. It is also noted that Serbia signed an Agreement on the Security of Information and the Code of Conduct with NATO in 2008. In 2015, NATO consented to provide the Republic of Serbia with support services. These services include, but are not restricted to, supplies, maintenance, procurement of good and services, transportation, configuration control and technical assistance. The Government of Serbia will pay for the cost of these services provided by NSPO.

Article 4 of the Agreement also reads: “Under no circumstance shall this Agreement lead to any liabilities for NSPO or NSPA.” The Serbian Government waived all claims for injury, death or damages resulting in normal use or operation of materials and services. Shipments are insured by NSPO. In terms of security requirements any exchange of classified information must comply with requirements outlined in NATO’s Security Policy. Both parties committed to treat information belonging to the other Party as classified information and avoid disclosure, dissemination or transfer.

NSPO, its assets, income and other property are exempt from all taxes and other duties, customs and quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) personnel shall be integrated with the personnel of NATO’s Military Liaison Office (MLO), located in Belgrade. It is not specified where exactly this Office is located in Belgrade. It would be enlightening to conduct a survey among Belgraders to discover how many of them are aware that this MLO exists. This agreement gives NSPA personnel and their vehicles the right to free passage and access throughout the Republic of Serbia. NSPA personnel is also exempt from taxation by Serbia on salaries received from NSPA, movable property, or any income received outside Serbia. NSPA is allowed to contract directly for acquisition of goods, services and construction within or outside Serbia and such contracts are also exempt from duties taxes or other charges.

This agreement also has a settlement of dispute clause. As was the case with previous agreements, this one also determines that any possible disputes should be settled between the two parties without recourse to any national or international court or tribunal, including third party mediation. In other words, if Serbia is not satisfied with implementation of any of the provisions of this agreement, it will have to rely on the much more powerful NATO to examine any sources of disagreements. Since the Serbian government accepted all provisions by signing the agreement it would be fair to conclude that those government and military representatives either believed that NATO dispute resolution teams would be truly impartial, or that it was highly unlikely that any disputes would arise in the future.

Serbia’s Future With NATO?

Many questions can be posed about Serbia’s collaboration with NATO and future developments in the entire region. While Serbian Prime Minister Vučić and President Nikoliċ both stated multiple times that Serbia had no plans to become a NATO member, it is reasonable to conclude that the country has, nevertheless, accepted many obligations that are typically expected from NATO countries.

While Serbia needs to remain neutral based on its own laws, it is difficult to understand the constitutionality of the Serbia – NATO agreements. Additionally, we can ask ourselves whether various sets of Serbian government and military leaders believed that by collaborating with NATO they had a greater chance to be accepted by the European Union. Perhaps they were also hoping that NATO countries would in return pay for at least some of the damage that resulted from the 1999 bombing campaign. Have they have also hoped that NATO would commit to decontaminate certain areas affected by depleted uranium? Or was it all about their own preservation of power and control? Some researchers and political scientists have testified that nothing positive has come forward as a result of Serbia’s cooperation with NATO. The Director of The Serbian Center for Geostrategic Studies, Dragana Trifković, expressed her views recently, highlighting that it wasn’t in Serbia’s best interest to collaborate with NATO, adding that this could even hurt its regional interests.[xli]

Serbia’s politicians often repeat that, in accordance with their country’s main values, they continue to promote military neutrality by working closely with both NATO and Russia.  Yet, many have observed that such “neutrality” remains quite asymmetric. Sergej Belous noted that Serbia had only two military exercises with Russia in 2015, while twenty two were performed with NATO. At the same time, it signed only two military agreements with Russia and twenty four with NATO. For that reason he added that this neutrality is “quite lame.”[xlii] Reuters also published an article by Aleksandar Vasović on July 3, 2016 entitled With Russia as an ally, Serbia edges towards NATO. The Serbian news agencies Tanjug and B92 reported just recently that Russia expected Serbia’s support for its efforts in Aleppo[xliii].

Maria Zakharova, spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said that it was a special humiliation to be dragged into NATO after fatal U. S. bombings. [xliv] The president of the Srebrenica Historical Project, Stephen Karganović had a similar idea and wrote about “Serbia’s march into NATO servitude.” He added that even though Serbia has laws on the books that prevent the government from joining any military block and require neutrality, government officials receive marching orders from their Western masters[xlv].  Tanjug reported on June 25, 2016 that Serbia already gave information about its security and military forces to NATO. This would be, indeed, consistent with the provisions of the above analyzed agreements to share data and relevant information. Regardless of different ways to approach this consistent cooperation with NATO, all of the agreements that Serbia signed with NATO can only be interpreted as heavily imbalanced, with one side—the Serbian side—accepting 90% of the obligations. It is often not clear what kinds of benefits stem from such agreements. In other words, it could be interpreted that Serbia accepted most obligations that stem from NATO membership, but since it is formally not a member, it cannot be given any rights exclusively given to members. At the same time, these deals seem profitable for NATO because they provide a platform for tax-free sale of data collection systems, military technology, and much more. They also provide additional avenues for NATO to be present on the ground in Belgrade and entire country.

The Serbian population doesn’t have a favorable opinion about their country’s relationship with NATO—the organization that waged a full scale war against them only seventeen years ago. In March of this year, the people’s voices were the loudest, demanding a referendum about NATO membership. Some local alternative and foreign media reported that as many as 10,000 people protested in downtown Belgrade on March 24, 2016, the anniversary of the beginning of NATO bombing[xlvi]. In the late 1990s Sara Flounders expected that the angry demonstrations against NATO would spread across the region, but over the years they have remained for the most part relatively small and easy to contain[xlvii]. The Serbian population is still struggling with economic, health, and social devastation, which makes it difficult to uncover concealed information and find time to organize. Additionally, it remains to be seen if the information campaign aimed at improving the image of NATO will become effective in the near future. The upcoming months and years might become critically important for the future of Serbia and the entire region.

Notes

[i] The corporate media and politicians often used this phrase throughout the 1990s: before, during and after the NATO war against Serbia. See: Barry Lituchy. Media Deception and the Yugoslav Civil War. In: NATO in the Balkans. 1998. New York: International Action Center. p. 205; also, Inside Milosevic’s Propaganda Machine, July 4, 1999 TIME magazine. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,27726,00.html

[ii] The use of depleted uranium was confirmed by multiple sources including U. S. and NATO officials. See: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/depleteduraniumlegacyyugoslavia28aug13.shtml

http://www.globalresearch.ca/15-years-on-looking-back-at-natos-humanitarian-bombing-of-yugoslavia/5375577

Michele Chossudovsky. 2003. NATO’s War of Aggression Against Yugoslavia. ahttp://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-war-of-aggression-against-yugoslavia-2/5517027

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-nato-military-intervention-in-kosovo/1666

Shay Lafontaine. NATO and the Humanitarian Dismemberment of Yugoslavia. Counterpunch, May 17, 2016. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/17/nato-the-humanitarian-dismemberment-of-yugoslavia/

Also see: Michael Parenti. 2000. The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia. http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

and Robert Fisk. 2000. Amnesty Internations: NATO Deliberately Attacked Civilians in Serbia. Independent, June 7, 2000. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060700-02.htm

[iii] This article was based on the report published by the Serbian News Agency SRNA. http://www.blic.rs/vesti/drustvo/posledice-nato-bombi-srbija-je-prva-u-evropi-po-smrtnosti-od-tumora/1c0wce1

[iv] NATO casualties are documented by multiple sources and they differ substantially. According to the Serbian officials, they are still confirming the exact civilian deaths, but the numbers that they published in 2013 include 2,500 dead and 12,500 injured civilians along with 631 members of Serbian armed forces in addition to 28 missing.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/number-of-victims-of-nato-bombing-still-unknown

[vi] Check out 2 documentaries by Boris Malagurski: The Weight of Chains and The Weight of Chains 2. http://weightofchains.ca/

[vii] The majority of Serbian population opposes any collaboration with NATO, as well as E. U. membership http://inserbia.info/today/201604/serbs-want-russia-do-not-want-eu-and-nato-poll/

[ix] This article was based on the report published by the Serbian News Agency SRNA; http://www.blic.rs/vesti/drustvo/posledice-nato-bombi-srbija-je-prva-u-evropi-po-smrtnosti-od-tumora/1c0wce1

[x] This article was based on the report published by the Serbian News Agency SRNA; http://www.blic.rs/vesti/drustvo/posledice-nato-bombi-srbija-je-prva-u-evropi-po-smrtnosti-od-tumora/1c0wce1

[xi] Michel Chossudovsky. NATO’s War of Aggression in Yugoslavia: Who are the War Criminals? Global Research, March 21, 2006. (reprinted the 1999 article) p. 2 http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-s-war-of-aggression-in-yugoslavia-who-are-the-war-criminals/2144

[xii] Posledice upotrebe municije sa osiromasenim uranijumom: epidemija kanceroznih oboljenja:

http://www.mycity-military.com/Opste-vojne-teme/Posledice-upotrebe-municije-sa-osiromasenim-uranijumom.html

[xiii] Jasmina Vujić and Dragoljub Antic. March 31, 2015. Ekološke i zdravstvene posledice NATO bombardovanja 1999, sa akcentom na osiromaseni uranijum. http://www.nspm.rs/srbija-i-nato/ekoloske-i-zdravstvene-posledice-nato-bombardovanja-1999-s-akcentom-na-osiromaseni-uranijum.html

[xv] Irving Wesley Hall. Depleted Uranium for Dummies. Global Research, April 17, 2006. http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-for-dummies/2269 

[xvi] Depleted Uranium Technical Brief: EPA 402-R-06-011. December 2006 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/402-r-06-011.pdf

[xvii] Example: Jasmina Vujić and Dragoljub Antic. March 31, 2015. Ekoloske i zdravstvene posledice NATO bombardovanja 1999, sa akcentom na osiromaseni uranijum. http://www.nspm.rs/srbija-i-nato/ekoloske-i-zdravstvene-posledice-nato-bombardovanja-1999-s-akcentom-na-osiromaseni-uranijum.html, p.

[xviii] Michael Parenti. 2000. To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia. New York: Verso. p. 121

[xix] A. Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair. 2004. Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia. New York: Verso. p. 17

[xx] Gregory Elich. 2015. No War Crimes Here. Counterpunch, April 22, 2015. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/22/no-war-crimes-here/ and Gregory Elich. 2006. Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit. Llumina Press. Pp.

[xxi] Rade Biočanin and Mirsada Badić. The mystery of depleted uranium in NATO projectiles, p. 7 www.cqm.rs/2010/pdf/5/22.pdf

[xxii] Organ trafficking in Kosovo:

http://www.justiceinfo.net/en/tribunals/mixed-tribunals/2509-european-court-in-view-on-kosovo-organ-trafficking.html

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/appeal-court-acquitted-two-in-medicus-case-03-03-2016

Clint Williamson, chief prosecutor of the Special Investigative Task Force (SITF), released a statement last year accusing KLA leaders of murdering a “handful” of people. The report follows the investigation of an earlier Council of Europe inquiry led by Dick Marty, a Swiss politician, in 2010. According to the investigation, senior officials led a “campaign of persecution” toward Serbs, Roma, other minority groups in Kosovo, as well as Albanians who either worked with Serbs or opposed the KLA.

Border kidnappings mentioned here: https://news.vice.com/article/kosovo-rejects-special-court-to-prosecute-organ-harvesting-and-other-alleged-war-crimes

[xxiv] Economic Desperation Forces Kosovars to Flee. Financial Times, March 26, 2015. https://www.ft.com/content/4a5b7426-d2cf-11e4-a792-00144feab7de

[xxv] Parenti, Ibid, p. 163

[xxvi] Diana Johnstone. 2002. Fools Crusade. Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. NY: Monthly Review. P. 250

[xxvii] Ibid, p. 249

[xxviii] Andrej Grubaċić. 2010. Don’t Mourn, Balkanize! Oakland: PM Press. P. p. 146

[xxix] Ibid, p. 155

[xxx] Ibid, p. 38

[xxxii] Noam Chomsky. 2001. A Review of NATO’s War over Kosovo. Z Magazine, April-May, 2001 and Chomsky.info

[xxxiii] Gray Carter. 2014. Why did NATO bomb Serbia? There Must be Justice, May 30, 2014, p. 1

[xxxiv] Johnstone, Ibid., p. 266

[xxxv] Serbian authorities conceal agreements with NATO, Pravda.Ru, February 26, 2016, p. 2; http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/europe/24-02-2016/133627-serbia-0/

[xxxvi]Ibid, p. 1; Resolution of the National Assembly on the protection of sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia: http://www.parlament.gov.rs/Seventh_Sitting_of_the_Second_Regular_Session_of_the_National_Assembly_of_the_Republic_of_Serbia_in_2007.6537.537.html

[xxxvii] I received copies of all Serbia – NATO agreements analyzed in this article from a Serbian friend. I am not sure how easy or difficult it would be for “ordinary Serbian residents” to obtain any of these copies.

[xxxviii] Check out 2 documentaries by Boris Malagurski: The Weight of Chains and The Weight of Chains 2. http://weightofchains.ca/ in these two documentaries Malagurski interviewed numerous experts who provided data on the destruction of the Serbian economy and impacts on the working people and compared the case of Yugoslavia with examples from other countries.

[xl] However, at earlier this year, the public support for any collaboration with NATO stayed as low as 11%. http://inserbia.info/today/201604/serbs-want-russia-do-not-want-eu-and-nato-poll/

[xlii] Serbia’s Asymmetric Neutrality: Teetering Between NATO and Russia. Nyatider.nu  https://www.nyatider.nu/serbias-asymmetric-neutrality-teetering-between-nato-and-russia/

[xliv] Rt.com news article about Serbia being dragged into NATO, February 22, 2016. https://www.rt.com/news/333218-serbia-joining-nato-humiliating/>

[xlv] Stephen Karganović. Serbia’s march into NATO servitude. The Saker, July 11, 2016. http://thesaker.is/serbias-march-into-nato-servitude/

[xlvii] Sara Flounders. 1998. NATO in the Balkans. New York: International Action Center. p. 9

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Embracing the US-NATO War Criminals Who Destroyed Our Country: Serbia’s Agreements with NATO. A War for US Hegemony in Europe…

After 5 years of total denial and what many would describe as an institutional cover-up, the United Nations has finally been forced to publicly admit that its own UN peacekeepers were responsible for the outbreak of cholera which as killed 10,000 and infected thousands of others so far, after the disease was introduced to Haiti six years ago in 2010. Haiti continues to suffer from the UN-induced epidemic until today. 

According to a recent report by one of the UN’s own top advisors, the epidemic was caused after 454 UN peacekeeper troops from Nepal set up camp in Haiti in 2010. Shortly after this new cholera strain was introduced, UN forces then helped to further spread the disease after allowing large amounts of its own untreated waste from the UN base to make its way into an adjacent river which fed local Haitian villages. Not long after, villagers began to get sick and die.

Even worse… thousands of lives could have easily been saved had the infected Cholera victims been supplied adequate amounts of clean water, as most cholera deaths are caused by severe dehydration resulting from symptoms of diarrhea and vomiting. Many Haitians who would normally drink from the river were unaware that the UN had infected it.

The UN’s record of denial and deflection this story is incredible. In a 2013 country report, the UN humanitarian office was still trying to shift the blame onto Haitians by citing their “poor Hygiene practice.”

The main cause for the persistence of cholera in Haiti is the lack of access to clean water and sanitation facilities and poor hygienic practices.

UN-Cholera-Haiti

Big Problems Equals Big Money

To compound the problem, at the time the UN’s Big Pharma agents pushed their own ‘solution’ to the epidemic – to source 600,000 vaccines for the poor people of Haiti. Some officials claimed they needed to raise $5 million more in oder to enact this ‘solution’ to the outbreak. Other expensive excuses used to obfuscate the UN’s role in the thousands of dead included claims that the only way to rid poor Haiti of the disease was to raise a further $2 billion (in western corporate contracts, of course) “from the rich countries” in order to build a new water and sanitation infrastructure for Haitians.

UN-Haiti- 2016-09-03 at 14.05.17
UN head Ban Ki-Moon on a photo-op in Haiti in 2010 (Article source: Zimbio)

Although know word so far from the obtuse UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, one of Moon’s surrogates issued a typical white-wash sounding bureaucratic half-hearted response saying that the UN “needs to do much more regarding its own involvement in the initial outbreak and the suffering of those affected by cholera.”

One can only wonder how the UN is allowed to get away with issuing such a weak statement – after 10,000 Haitians have been left dead by the UN’s own blunder – one which it has been systematically avoiding and denying over the last 5 years. 

Many 21WIRE readers already knew about this story a number of months ago from Dady Chery’sfirst appearance on the SUNDAY WIRE SHOW back on June 12, 2016, when the Haitian-born writer and activist exposed the institutional corruption of the United Nation and its celebrity-driven, international NGO Complex, as well as some very damning information regarding dubious international ‘charities’ like the Clinton Foundation and in particular, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s own role in propagating a culture of corporate and political corruption and the damaging cycle of ‘aid’ dependency in the poverty-stricken Caribbean island nation of Haiti.

Listen to that stunning interview in Episode 139 entitled, ‘The Do-Gooders’ featuring guest Dady Chery:

The United Nations silence about its own responsibility for this disaster is simple stunning – which only goes to show that those employed by the UN and those NGO gravy train riders making fortunes from UN-administered ‘projects’ – are more concerned with their high-paid career paths and lucrative supply contracts – than they are with talking responsibility, or being truly accountable for the situations they create.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Imported “New Cholera Strain”: United Nations Brought Cholera Epidemic to Haiti, Killing 10,000, and Counting

A federal court will rule on an injunction in September.

WASHINGTON D.C — A federal court said on Wednesday it will rule next month whether to temporarily halt construction of a controversial oil pipeline that has prompted large protests in North Dakota.

After more than an hour-long hearing, Judge James E. Boasberg said he’ll decide as early as Sept. 9 on the injunction request the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed against the so-called Bakken pipeline, a massive fracked oil line that would cut through four Midwestern states and hundreds of waterways.

“We are pleased that we had our day in court today, and we look forward to a ruling soon,” said Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archaumbault II. “I believe that everyone who attended the hearing today will understand that the tribe is seeking fundamental justice here.”

Scores of people gathered outside a U.S. District Court in Washington Wednesday
to call for a stop to the so-called Bakken pipeline.
CREDIT: ALEJANDRO DÁVILA FRAGOSO, THINKPROGRESS

Native Americans say the pipeline threatens sacred sites and drinking water resources, and that no meaningful consultation took place. The Army Corps of Engineers disagrees. During the court hearing, the agency said the tribe declined to be part of the process. The tribe in turn said they didn’t want to legitimize a flawed process. The company building the pipeline, Dakota Access, says the project is safe and will benefit the region and boost energy independence. They have, however, agreed to stop construction in that area of North Dakota until the court rules on the injunction.

The hearing in D.C. comes about a month after the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued the Corps over the permits the Corps gave to the developer, Dakota Access, to build on an area roughly half-mile north of the reservation, and through the Missouri River — as well as other federal waterways.

For months tribe members have protested one of the construction sites located near where the Cannonball and Missouri rivers meet. At first these gatherings were reportedly small “spirit camp” protests where tribe members prayed. But this month protests escalated in size and intensity as construction crews moved in, garnishing the attention of celebrities, and national and international media.

The state and county governments have escalated their response. Nearly 30 people have been arrested in the past two weeks, according to Amnesty International, which said Wednesday it sent a delegation of human rights observers, and a letter to law enforcement authorities outlining how safety agencies are required to act in accordance with international human rights standards.

Earlier this week North Dakota Homeland Security Director Greg Wilz ordered the removal of state-owned trailers, including two air-conditioned trailers and water tanks from the protest encampment, in response to alleged disorderly conduct, the Bismarck Tribune reported Monday. Tribe members had requested and been given mobile public health services like water to ensure the safety of the protesters as summer temperatures can climb to 80 degrees or more.

And late last week, Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R-ND) issued an emergency declaration for southwest and south-central North Dakota as recent events have created a “significant public safety concern.” Tribes maintain the protests have been peaceful.

The Bakken pipeline is roughly 48 percent complete, officials said during the court hearing, and the line is scheduled to start delivering oil in January. Construction is ongoing almost everywhere else, though a small group of Iowa landowners managed to get a construction reprieve from state regulators Wednesday.

As the court hearing went on indoors in D.C., outside scores of mostly Native Americans from as far away as Arizona gathered in a packed rally that continued even after the hearing was over. Actresses Susan Sarandon and Shailene Woodley were part of the protest. Woodley, who has been protesting in North Dakota, is one of many celebrities that have over the past few months called along Native Americans for a halt to construction and a repeal of pipeline permits.

CREDIT: ALEJANDRO DÁVILA FRAGOSO, THINKPROGRESS 

Comparable in size to the more-famous (but rejected) Keystone XL, the Bakken pipeline is slated to be the largest oil line coming out of North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields, among the nation’s most active due to the fracking boom. The line would move up to 570,000 barrels of sweet crude oil daily through the Dakotas, Iowa, and Illinois.

The nearly $3.8 billion pipeline is slated to cross multiple watersheds in its more than 1,150 mile course. Aside from the alleged threat to sacred sites, critics say the pipeline brings the threat of spill damage to thousands of miles of fertile farmland, forests, and rivers. Federal agencies have said the Bakken Pipeline avoids “critical habitat.”

Most of the affected land is farmland, but the project does run through wildlife areas and major waterways like the Mississippi, and the Missouri, the longest river in North America.

Actresses Shailene Woodley, fourth from right, and Susan Sarandon, second from right, and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe member Bobbi Jean Three Lakes, right, participate in a rally outside the US District Court in Washington. CREDIT: AP/MANUEL BALCE CENETA

The company has said in permitting documents it will have personnel all along the pipeline for operation and maintenance, use a 24-hour monitoring system that can detect small pressure changes, and ensure shut-off valves that can be remotely activated if a leak happens.

It furthermore contends that the project will create nearly 12,000 jobs and open up rail capacity for crops and other commodities. Otherwise, the company said in documents, some 750 rail cars would be required to depart the tank terminal daily to fulfill its projected production. That would represent a 50 to 60 percent increase in the number of trains transporting crude oil out of the state, according to Dakota Access.

As the federal court decision looms, protests in North Dakota are likely to continue. Though figures fluctuate, tribe officials say that as many as 4,000 people have reached the area, and that tribal flags from as far away as California can be seen flying, showing that support extends beyond Great Plains tribes.

 The so-called Bakken pipeline is poised to run through the Dakotas, Iowa, and Illinois.

CREDIT: DAKOTA ACCESS

But despite the growing support of a movement that echoes the outcry that the proposed Keystone XL sparked a couple of years ago, some tribal leaders said they were upset about the court’s inaction. “I’m disappointed,” said Harold Frazier, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe chairman, in an interview moments after the hearing.

Frazier, whose tribe is a party to the lawsuit, said he hoped the judge would have made a decision Wednesday. Yet Frazier added he is encouraged to have learned in the hearing that Dakota Access is missing a permit to build across Lake Oahe, a reservoir close to the Missouri River that crosses the boundaries of North and South Dakota. Up until Wednesday it was widely believed the company had all the state and federal permits it needed for build out.

As tribes push against the Bakken pipeline in the courts of D.C. and through massive protests in North Dakota, landowners in Iowa are also making a stand.

On Wednesday, the Iowa Utilities Board told Dakota Access to keep away from the properties of 15 landowners who haven’t granted easements, the Associated Press reported. This halt in construction will run until at least Monday, when the board is set to be done reviewing a lawsuit landowners filed.

This comes days after an Iowa district court denied an injunction request, saying landowners didn’t first exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing legal action, The Gazette reported. The landowners, who are facing eminent domain, filed an emergency action Monday asking state regulators to temporarily halt construction.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Protest against This Fracked North Dakota Oil Pipeline Just Keeps Getting Bigger

In the period from 1945 until approximately 1989, the white empire in North America learned to rely upon its cadres of military officers throughout the world to directly control its non-white (in the US a term which extends to most of the world’s population) dominions. This was defended by the pretext– inherited from the propaganda of WWII– that the Red Army which had quite surprisingly defeated Western attempts to destroy it culminating in Operation Barbarossa (a campaign that would have been impossible without the tacit consent of France, Britain and the US), would be able to drive the forces of Western empire out of its vast colonial territories or worse deprive the US of the markets it hoped to inherit from its exhausted allies.

The US anti-Soviet propaganda was enormously successful– not because of anything inherent in the threat– but because then, as now, the best way to attack the declared enemy was to accuse it of all the things the US or its friends were doing. The point here is that propaganda must be based in fact, even if it is composed by deceit. This was the real lesson taught by Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann and Edward Lansdale– not to lie outright but to control the context of interpretation. The reason the US regime could always convincingly present a “communist threat” was because it was perpetrating all those acts that terrorised people. Hence the terror was real. More importantly however, the US regime, especially the corporate media, which has always been a part of that regime, controlled and controls the means of interpretation.

Hence it has always been immaterial– even absurd– for opponents of the US regime to a) defend the Soviet Union or any other enemy b) try to disprove the facts or c) show that there were some lies involved. None of these approaches can have any effect on propaganda because they all ignore the critical problem that it is not the “truth” but the “belief” (which is just about the same thing) that the regime controls.

I recently spoke to some educated French artists and told them that the killings in Nice must have been in the interest of the Hollande government.(1) The fact that this peculiar disaster occurred just one day before Hollande’s emergency decrees were due to expire did not even seem suspicious to them. For both it was clear, France is a democracy and that does not happen in a democracy. In other words, the facts themselves have no bearing on the judgement of what happened in Nice. Of course I do not claim to know how this event was organized. Moreover I can easily imagine that there is no one person who knows all the facts and can document the entire sequence that led to the 80+ deaths and injuries.

Two hundred years ago, it is safe to say that quite aside from mass illiteracy, access to the documentary evidence of the State’s acts– whether genuine or forged– was extremely limited. While archives were kept there was certainly very little expectation that the masses would ever have access to the official record. Since the end of the 19th century it has become increasingly common to expect people called historians or biographers to produce texts which claim to be based on the statements found in official documents or the correspondence of political and economic actors. At about the same time, Business– as the ruling class calls itself in the US– began to develop what is today called “journalism”.

The founder of the first US journalism faculty (University of Missouri) was a robber baron in the print industry, Joseph Pulitzer. Together professional journalism and professional historical research began to create the foundation for modern propaganda. The theoretical basis for what has now come to be called psychological warfare was laid by the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, who coined the name “public relations” to avoid the negative connotations of the German use of the Latin word “propaganda” during World War I.

In fact the origins of “propaganda” are in the almost primordial centre of organised corporate violence in the West– the Roman Catholic Church. The congregation “Propaganda Fidei” was the ministry responsible for “selling the Catholic ideology”– also called “faith”. If there ever was an institution in the West with the capacity to master “context” then it is certainly the Roman Catholic Church. Propaganda was– as Lansdale practiced– never just convincing people by means of clever slogans. That is what most people seem to think advertising is. Hence one finds the fetishists of so-called “public broadcasting” snobbishly insisting that their TV sets do not condescend to advertising. Snobs like to call advertising “sponsorship”. Ironically they do not notice the frequent use of the word “sponsor” by the regime, e.g. “sponsoring terrorism”. Why does the regime not say “advertising” terrorism? Exxon-Mobil (both Standard Oil) “sponsored” Masterpiece Theater and Texaco “sponsored” the Metropolitan Opera.(2) The Pew (Sun Oil) foundations “sponsor” lots of social science research. All that fine culture and pure social science is sponsored by members of the global oil cartel that has dominated most of the world’s energy resources since the 1930s. Why is that not advertising?

But I am getting side-tracked. The reason why I decided to write this explicit opinion piece is because while I write the President of Brazil (suspended) Ms Dilmar Rousseff is being removed from office by the Brazilian fascists that the US has supported since 1964– albeit not always in military uniform.(3) At the same time a massive spectacle is being held in what was once the Brazilian capital, Rio de Janiero– the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.

I am old enough to remember when a typical attack on Soviet, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian, or Yugoslavian Olympic teams was that they were not “amateur” in the original spirit of the invented Olympic tradition. When the US lost in competitions against USSR or GDR athletes Americans (and presumably the subjects of their post-war dominions) were told that this was because US teams were only “amateur” and the Communist Bloc was fielding athletes who were trained and paid by the State. State athletes were not real competitors. Whereas Western amateurs were the real athletes. When the Soviet Union collapsed, not only did an ever-expanding batch of commercially lucrative “sports” join the list of Olympic disciplines but also the pretence that there was any distinction between amateur and professional athletes was abolished.

Although as far as I know there has never ever been an Olympic location whose subsidised infrastructure was paid by the event itself or the supposed spin-offs, the IOC has succeeded in perpetuating the myth that an Olympic venue is a blessing instead of the curse it really is.

The answer for this is quite simple. The facts do not count– it is their interpretation. When promoters (or sponsors) of the Olympics raise the five-ringed host above their heads they are practicing finance according to the Tridentine rite. The blessings (profits) are for the priests and the church, not the congregation (which also under Catholicism pays all the costs of the clergy’s sloth, gluttony and paedophilia). Yes, the Olympics are profitable. Yes, they create a variety of long-term financial opportunities. But for whom? This is transubstantiation in the highest degree– profit and opportunity to the most high (the capitalists) and purgatory (at best) for the rest.

This year however propaganda fidei has reached new levels of mendacity and political effectiveness.

After the election to the papacy of a Jesuit collaborator with the Argentinian military regime (actually no great surprise when the retired pope was in the Hitler Youth and began his clerical career under the most avowedly fascist pope of the last century (Pius XII)) the fairly democratic president of Argentina was replaced by a descendant of that very regime. Here the similarity to the demise of Poland after election of a Polish pope is hard to discount. A bit further to the north, the popularly elected president of Brazil has been removed from office by the same elite that deposed the Brazilian president in 1964— with the explicit (if covert) aid of everyone in New York and Washington DC that counts.

President Rousseff is being impeached as the official responsible for irregularities in the Brazilian government’s national accounts. Of course it defies common sense– no let me rephrase that– it defies informed sense to suppose that any countries national accounts are genuine and accurate. The very premise that national accounts could be held to the same (dubious) standards as those supposedly maintained by private business corporations is farcical. (4) However, a pretext is necessary because this is not 1964 and the US is not able to send a fleet to protect a military coup in Latin America– even if it wanted to do so. So imitating the script of the farcical Clinton impeachment (whereby that impeachment was more a pre-emptive strike to prevent impeachment than to actually remove a certified war criminal).

So what makes this all possible: why can Rousseff most certainly be removed from office (although smart money would prefer that she just resign so that the impeachment weapon is not actually used– for fear it could backfire)?

The Olympic Games in Rio of course. The Rio Games– like most sports events of any magnitude– distract most of the population, dominate media time and more importantly have provided an enormous conduit for money and other favours needed to buy whoever was not entirely willing to vote for Rousseff’s removal. Everyone know– I dare say– that the Olympic Games are a swamp of corruption, not to mention the shadows cast on the IOC in the past. So even accusations that people in the Brazilian government participated in this massive corruption are hardly surprising and most certainly accurate. Some political forensics might reveal similar manipulation in the course of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa.

Meanwhile it has become common knowledge that the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the National Endowment for Democracy, the political foundations in Germany, and a wide range of Western so-called NGOs directly or indirectly function as instruments of what US policy calls “regime change”. The expansion of major corporate athletic associations and their penetration of countries previously excluded from the sports business (presumably due to their weak advertising/ consumer markets) may in fact be an innovation in corporate political intervention. Those who vehemently criticise the corruption of international sports may be overlooking a more insidious aspect. The revolution may not be televised, but the counter-revolution certainly is. (5)

But the big story– the context, the interpretation– will go largely unnoticed. The Olympics in Rio is propaganda but it is also advertising and it is also terror– economic terror and sponsorship for the terror that has been reaching from its shallow trench (that some thought was a grave in 1986) to recover in the open, in track suits instead of camouflage and khaki, what is certainly the “gold” in the competition to defeat popular politics and political movements in the Western Hemisphere.(6) The Clinton Foundation has long relied on the Brazilian military to defend its plunder in Haiti (in the guise of a UN peacekeeping force a la Congolese).(7) The coming change in Washington will bring the chance for more rewards between the White House and the new masters in Planalto.(8)

The US “Reconquista” is not finished but as Joseph Biden notoriously said in a campaign speech for Ms Clinton, “We never bow. We never bend. We never kneel. We never yield. We own the finish line. That’s who we are. We are America!” (9)

 Notes

(1) On 14 July 2016, Bastille Day (the French national holiday), a 19 tonne cargo truck drove through the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. It had been blocked off for pedestrians. The action resulted in the death of 86 people.

(2) For readers beyond US borders, Masterpiece Theater was a series produced by the Boston-based WGBH and syndicated through the PBS (US state-owned domestic broadcasting network). It was funded by corporations and featured mainly British-produced programs for and to maintain the intensely Anglophile US East Coast middle class. In fact, PBS could be considered a domestic version of Voice of America, US propaganda broadcasting aimed at foreign audiences. Texaco had agreed to sponsor Metropolitan Opera broadcasts for years in a settlement of anti-trust charges against the oil company.

(3) On 31 March 1964 Joao Goulart, President of Brazil, was deposed in a military coup coordinated with the support of the US regime, especially through its military attaché and coup-master Vernon Walters. Lyndon Johnson gave assurances to the Brazilian generals that a US fleet was available to guarantee the coup’s success. The literature here is now extensive for anyone interested in US – Brazilian military relations.

(4) The notion of national accounts is a fiction invented by 18th century philosophers, later called political economists. Although Business runs the State and until the 19th century the State was engaged in business monopolies, there is not only a quantitative but also a qualitative difference between what is called in German Volkswirtschaft and Betriebswirtschaft— the principles of political economy and the methods of business administration. (My appreciation to Alan Shipman of Britain’s Open University for an elucidation of this point.) One of the great deceptions of liberalism has been to confuse the two. To explain the extent of this deceptive confusion would however require far more space than any one article could supply. Karl Marx tried to explain this in three (unfinished) volumes (Capital).

(5) “The Revolution will not be televised”, Gil-Scott Heron, 1969.

(6) In 1986 the Brazilian military regime agreed to the return of civilian elected government. This author was a witness to part of this process at the time.

(7) UN troops were deployed in the Congo and indirectly assisted the removal and murder of elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. The elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed by the US regime in 2004. He was kidnapped and held captive in Central Africa. UN troops, primarily Brazilian, have been used to keep the “peace” in Haiti which has become a Clinton protectorate.

(8) Planalto in Brasilia is the official residence of the Brazilian president.

(9) cited in John Pilger’s piece. http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/08/provoking-nuclear-war-by-media/

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sports News, Propaganda, Regime Change and the History of the American Empire

Eleanor Fairchild, an 82-year-old grandmother who owns a 425-acre ranch outside of Winnsboro, Texas, has advice for anyone who is asked to sign a contract by a company that wants to build a pipeline to transport tar sands oil on their land: “Don’t sign it.”

During a recent visit to her ranch, I saw the damage to her land caused by the installation of TransCanada’s Gulf Coast Pipeline, which is the original southern route of the Keystone XL pipeline before the project was broken into segments.

I first met Fairchild in October 2012, a few days after she was arrested, along with environmentalist actress Daryl Hannah. The two had stood in the way of land-moving vehicles on Fairchild’s land where TransCanada had started clearing trees and readying a right-of-way to install its pipeline. At that time, Fairchild was refusing to make a deal with TransCanada, but the company moved forward with clearing her land anyway.

Eleanor Fairchild standing in a cut on her land caused by erosion connected to the Gulf Coast Pipeline
that TransCanada has agreed to fix. ©2016 Julie Dermansky

Video: Eleanor Fairchild on Eminent Domain

My first visit coincided with TransCanada filing a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP suit) that accused Fairchild — along with activists in the Tar Sands Blockade — of being eco-terrorists. I took a picture of her behind the stack of paperwork that was over an inch thick. She thinks the use of SLAPP suits by companies like TransCanada should be forbidden because their sole purpose is to try to silence critics.


Eleanor Fairchild flipping though the SLAPP suit. ©2012 Julie Dermansky


Fairchild on the TransCanada’s right-of-way during the construction of the Gulf Coast Pipeline. ©2012 Julie Dermansky

The charges lingered until late 2014, when she reached an agreement with TransCanada. Besides settling on a dollar amount for the company’s use of a right-of-way through her property, TransCanada dropped the charges and apologized for calling her an eco-terrorist. The apology was a condition Fairchild insisted on before any agreement would be signed.

Fairchild now regrets that she made a deal with TransCanada.

“Once I signed an agreement, TransCanada seemed to think it could get away with ruining my property,” she said.

But she plans to do everything in her power to stop that from happening.

During my first visit to Fairchild’s ranch, we went to the easement where workers with land-moving machines were digging.  We walked across the creek to the other side where a wide swath of trees running the length of the right-of-way had been cut down to make room for the pipeline.

Fairchild warned that clearing the trees would cause erosion issues, and she was right. A hole large enough for her to stand in opened up in January 2013.


Eleanor Fairchild in a hole that opened up on her land due to erosion caused by the KXL pipeline installation. ©2013 Kathy Redman

TransCanada filled in the hole and did some work to strengthen the banks of the creek that the pipeline installation had weakened.

But Fairchild believes that whatever work the company did ended up making problems worse.

“TransCanada sends people who don’t know what they are doing,” she told me.

The contractors sent to plant trees admitted it was their first time ever planting trees. “Only 30 of the 200 trees that were planted are still alive,” Fairchild said.

Four years later, Fairchild and I went back to the same spot we visited in 2012. This time we couldn’t walk down to the creek because the banks were covered with loose rocks too dangerous to walk on.

Fairchild recounted what a horror it was for her to find TransCanada had dumped truckloads of rocks down the banks and into the creek bed to deal with the erosion that had worsened since the company’s first restorative attempt in 2013. She let the company know its first effort to stop the erosion had not worked, and asked them to try again. But she never imaged the company would move forward without discussing with her what they planned to do.

TransCanada maintains that covering the banks of the creek with medium-sized rocks, known as rip-rap, is a good solution to stabilize creek banks. But Fairchild doesn’t believe it will work. The rocks are continuing to sink into the sand, making the banks more unstable than they had been.

She is not the only one with a negative assessment of TransCanada’s restoration efforts. Earlier this year, an inspector sent by TransCanada to check the status of erosion on Fairchild’s land, told her the work TransCanada is doing to fix her land is patchwork that ultimately won’t do the job. In his opinion, all the rip-rap needs to be removed and a drain system constructed, like one TransCanada installed for one of her neighbors whose land had similar problems. He also confirmed that a deep cut that formed alongside the right-of-way was caused by remediation work already done.

But another TransCanada representative had told Fairchild the company was not responsible for the cut because it wasn’t part of the right-of-way.


Rocks lining the banks of a creek on Fairchild’s land that the Gulf Coat pipeline crosses. ©2016 Julie Dermansky

Agreements between TransCanada and landowners require the company to return property to its original condition, or as close as possible to it.

“The banks and the creek bottom didn’t have rocks before the pipeline installation, and now they do. There were no rocks anywhere in that area, it was just solid sand.” Fairchild said. “How can this be considered returning my land to its original condition?” she wonders.

TransCanada doesn’t deny that some landowners have complaints. The company’s media specialist Matthew John told me that more than 90% of the landowners are satisfied with restoration efforts. “Restoration along the Keystone System right-of-way has been progressing well,” John claimed in an email to me. As for issues on Fairchild’s land, the company is still working with her on that, according to John.

After Judah Lopez, the TransCanada land representative for Fairchild’s area told her the company would address the problems on her land — but that there was no money to get to them this year — Fairchild wrote to TransCanada’s CEO and the company’s Dallas office to let them know waiting until next year was not acceptable.

In response to Fairchild’s letter, Andrew Craig, the land manager for the Keystone Pipeline, came to take a look with a team. He agreed to fix the cut in her land this fall, but her request to take the rip-rap away was denied. “I am pleased that things look better,” he wrote Fairchild following his visit.

Things didn’t look good to me. I wondered where landowners like Fairchild could turn after the government green lighted a pipeline company’s eminent domain use of their land, and then that company didn’t restore it to near its original condition.

I asked the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) if it has any role in helping a landowner in a case like Fairchild’s.

PHSMA representative Damon Hill explained in an email that it isn’t PHMSA’s job to handle complaints from landowners unless the complaint is directly related to the pipeline, for example a spill incident.

“We can only hope they hire people who know how to do the job”

So what agency should a landowner turn to if a pipeline operator damages their land, if not PHMSA? Hill suggested the landowner try a state agency, but could not say which one. In a follow-up conversation*, he also added that the landowner could sue the pipeline company.

I contacted the Texas Railroad Commission, the agency that regulates the oil and gas industry in Texas, about Fairchild’s situation and asked if it handled landowners’ complaints about damage caused by pipeline companies. Ramona Nye, a spokesperson for the commission, referred me to PHMSA.

Next I tried the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). I was unable to get a response from the Fort Worth office, which deals with creeks in the Winnsboro area, but a spokesperson in the Galveston office, Kristi McMillian, returned my call. The Corps would like to be able to respond to all the complaints concerning damage to creeks caused by pipelines, she said, but its manpower is limited.

I asked Smith if TransCanada needed to use licensed contractors to do restoration work when a problem arose along a creek after the pipeline installation, as in Fairchild’s case.

“We can only hope they hire people who know how to do the job,” she said, but there is no license required for a contractor to do restoration work on the creek banks.

Fairchild reached out to the USACE after my June visit. She spoke to Corp compliance officer David Madden on June 16* about the situation on her land. He told her he would look into it and get back to her. A couple of months later, Fairchild called him again to ask if anyone was planning to have a look. Ryan told her he had passed on her information and would check to see on the progress.

Fairchild bristles when she hears Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talk about how people can get rich from eminent domain.

“It’s not true,” she said. “That is a lie.”

If a company can claim it is entitled to use eminent domain to get a project built, you can either make the best deal you can with that company, or the government will allow the company to take your land anyway, she said.

My takeaway from Fairchild and other landowners who have opposed the pipeline from the start — and have had to deal with issues similar to Fairchild’s — is that once a pipeline company decides it is going to take your land, you are on your own.

“It just isn’t right how these companies are allowed to treat people,” Fairchild told me. “But if TransCanada thinks it can just wear me down and I’ll stop fighting, they are wrong.”

She plans to do whatever its takes to get TransCanada to comply with not only its contract with her but also the federally mandated rules, which obligates the company to restore her land to its original condition or as close as possible to it.

Video: Eleanor Fairchild on David Daniel and the fight against tar sands pipelines

* This story has been updated to clarify dates and names of agency contacts.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Texas Ranch Owner Battles TransCanada to Restore Her Pipeline-Scarred Land

Racism in America is a sensitive issue for politicians especially among U.S. presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The question you need to ask yourself is Hillary Clinton a true champion of the African-American community? Her husband and former U.S. president Bill Clinton was called “the first black president” by author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker in 1998 where she wrote “white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.” Morrison’s comment did not have any merit regarding President Clinton as the “first black president”, in fact his actions against the African American community suggests otherwise.

Does Hillary Clinton on the other hand care about the plight of a minority group who suffers from high-unemployment and incarceration rates that seems to be increasing year after year? Actions do speak louder than words and sometimes in Hillary Clinton’s case “words” alone can say it all.  You don’t have to dig deep to find out the truth about Bill and Hillary’s actions against the African American community.

In fact, there are past words and actions that prove the Clinton’s policies have been destructive for the African American community. It is a fact that William J. Clinton’s Crime Bill and Welfare Reform devastated African Americans and to an extent the Latino Community, both policies were fully supported by Hillary Clinton. It was the Clinton crime bill that has incarcerated African Americans at unprecedented levels. According to Michelle Alexander, a human rights advocate, legal scholar and author of ‘The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness’, says the Clintons decimated Black America. Alexander wrote an incisive article for ‘The Nation Magazine’ in early February of this year criticizing Bill Clinton’s policies regarding the African American community titled ‘Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote: From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America’. Alexander wrote:

Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.   

Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”

A fact that holds true today in modern day America. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP) Criminal Justice Fact Sheet explains the incarceration rate of young African American men:

African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population.

African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites.

Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population

The U.S. population has roughly 5% of the world population while it holds 25% of the world’s prison population which places the U.S. at number #1 for the most prisoners in the entire planet.

Regarding the U.S. economy, African-American’s and Latino’s are suffering from high-unemployment rates and reduced benefits for poor families. The correlation between Clinton’s crime bill and the economy is striking. Many argued that the Clinton Administration’s economic policies were effective in reducing unemployment rates for African Americans but that could not be further from the truth. Michelle Alexander makes its clear about Bill Clinton’s economic miracle:

The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate 

Alexander further explains:

Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.” When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics. 

To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.” In his 1996 State of the Union address, given during his re-election campaign, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and immediately sought to prove it by dismantling the federal welfare system known as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The welfare-reform legislation that he signed—which Hillary Clinton ardently supported then and characterized as a success as recently as 2008—replaced the federal safety net with a block grant to the states, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, added work requirements, barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, and slashed overall public welfare funding by $54 billion (some was later restored) 

Bill Clinton’s policies increased the incarceration rate for African Americans which benefitted the Prison Industrial Complex while claiming he reduced the unemployment rates at the same time ignoring the clear correlation between both statistics. African American politicians support Hillary Clinton as “loyal Democrats” but the truth is they are being used by the Clinton political machine to win votes and ignore the failed policies that have been destructive to their communities.

Hillary Clinton and the “Super Predators” Speech

Hillary Clinton called young African Americans “Super Predators” in 1996 but the media is quick to forget.

Video: Hillary Clinton in Keene, New Hampshire, on January 25, 1996:

Actor and former Rapper from the popular 1990’s group ‘NWA’, Ice Cube was interviewed by Bloomberg news this past April and criticized Hillary Clinton for calling African Americans “Super Predators.” He said “To call your own citizens ‘super predators’ is pretty harsh and a pretty big indictment,” Ice Cube said “It’s really not solving the problem, it’s just making it worse.”

“My Friend and Mentor Robert C. Byrd” Hillary Praises Former KKK Member

Senator Robert C. Byrd was a “former racist” but changed his views when he got into political office. Hillary Clinton saw him as a mentor. Here is Hillary Clinton’s statement after his passing in 2010 when she said “Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd” she went on to say.

It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart, its soul, and its historian. From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always generous with his time and his wisdom.

I admired his tireless advocacy for his West Virginia constituents, his fierce defense of the Constitution and the traditions of the Senate, and his passion for a government that improves the lives of the people it serves.

Former Democratic U.S. Representative and Senator from West Virginia Robert Carlyle “Bob” Byrd was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. In the 1940’s Byrd created a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia. A racist by every definition, Byrd refused to serve in the military with African-Americans during World War II in a letter he wrote to Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) in 1944. What he said is striking:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds

Calling African Americans “race mongrels” is as racist as you can get. Hillary Clinton knows Byrd’s history of hatred against the African American community but he was her friend, her mentor. Maybe he taught Hillary Clinton how to maneuver against the republicans on the senate floor on various issues? Who knows? In a letter to the Grand Wizard (a leader of the Klan Byrd stated “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation.” In 1946, Byrd supposedly became “disinterested” in the KKK as he changed his stance on his membership when he said “After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.” He also claimed he joined the KKK because it was exciting and it was anti-Communist.

In 1997 Byrd said “be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don’t get that albatross around your neck. Once you’ve made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena” in an interview stating that joining a racist organization can destroy your political career if you decide to become a politician. Sure it was decades ago that Byrd was a member of an organization that consistently lynched African-Americans but his views changed as the years went by. I guess he finally saw the light! In the 1960’s Byrd backed Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) against John F. Kennedy for President in West Virginia primaries. The Kennedy’s took advantage of Byrd’s past regarding his involvement with the KKK and Kennedy went on to win the primary in that state. Byrd voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act, during the following summer that allowed a measure by LBJ which allowed federal judges to appoint referees (or monitors) to register voters who were discriminated against if they proved it in court.

It is important to know Byrd opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Around that time, Byrd supported the Vietnam War but decades later, in 2002, he voted against the Bush administration’s push for the war on Iraq (Hillary voted for the war).

Going back to Byrd’s history of diplomatic racism, Byrd filibustered (delayed a vote to prevent the passage) the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours straight (which showed his commitment to defeat the Civil Rights Act) but eventually backed it in 1968 after his views changed when he became a practicing Baptist. The real reason he changed his views was mainly to move the Democratic Party into a mainstream political party that needed the African American votes not because “Jesus Christ” assured him salvation and a one way ticket to heaven. Byrd was aligned with other Democrats and Republicans during his political career that opposed “desegregation” and “civil rights” for African-Americans. One of the Democrats Byrd was closely aligned with was Senator James Eastland (D-Miss), Lyndon B. Johnson once said,“Jim Eastland could be standing right in the middle of the worst Mississippi flood ever known, and he’d say the niggers caused it, helped out by the Communists.” Senator James Eastland and several other Senators including Byrd attempted to block the confirmation of the first African American to the Federal Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. All of the political actions Senator Byrd took against the African American community are well documented. Hillary is not ignorant of the historic facts of her colleagues in the halls of Washington; nothing is really secret among them. It is on public record that Byrd was a member of an organization with racist ideologies particularly against African Americans. Byrd’s participation in the KKK was a long time ago and people do change, people do make mistakes, and Byrd made a huge one which he claimed he regretted. But his actions in Washington clearly prove that he did not support the possibility of the African American community becoming a major political power in the halls of Washington. That was clear.

Is Hillary Clinton a friend of the African American community? Is she a “closet racist”? Not sure. But one thing is clear; Hillary and Bill Clinton both have a long history of supporting policies and certain politicians that have been more harmful to the African American community than one might think. Bill Clinton playing saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show in the 1990’s did not mean anything; it was just a political stunt for the African American community to show he had some sort of “soul”. He does not. The Clinton’s have decimated the African American community, yet Hillary and her supporters believe she is the answer to the problems facing the African American community today and that is just wishful thinking, nothing more.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Clintons and the Politics of Racism: Hillary Clinton and the Plight of African Americans

Keynote Speech by H.E. Xi Jinping (see image right), President of the People’s Republic of China at  the Opening Ceremony of the G20 Summit

Full Transcript (Translated from Chinese). Courtesy of People’s Daily

*      *      *

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

Good afternoon! I am so glad to have all of you with us here in Hangzhou. The G20 Summit will begin tomorrow, an event much anticipated by the international community as well as the business community, think tanks, and the labor, women and youth organizations. And all of us share one and the same goal, that is, to make the Hangzhou Summit deliver fruitful outcomes.

Hangzhou is a renowned historical and cultural city and a center of business and trade in China. Famous for Bai Juyi, a leading Chinese poet in the Tang Dynasty and Su Dongpo, a popular poet in the Song Dynasty who spent time in Hangzhou, as well as the West Lake and the Grand Canal, Hangzhou has a fascinating history and rich and enchanting cultural heritage. Hangzhou is also an innovative and vibrant city with booming e-commerce. Just click the mouse in Hangzhou, and you connect the whole world. Hangzhou is also a leader in ecological conservation. Its green hills and clear lakes and rivers delight the eye on sunny days and present a special view on rainy days. Hangzhou is imbued with a charm unique to the south of the Yangtze River that has been fostered over many generations.

I spent six years working in Zhejiang Province and was personally involved in its development endeavor. So I am familiar with everything here, its land and its people. In China, there are many cities like Hangzhou which have gone through great changes and achieved tremendous development over the decades. Millions of ordinary Chinese families have changed their lives through hard work. When added up, these small changes have become a powerful force driving China’s development and progress. What we see here in Hangzhou showcases what has been achieved in the great course of reform and opening-up China has embarked upon.

― This is a course of blazing a new trail. Modernizing a big country with a population of more than 1.3 billion is an endeavor never undertaken in the history of mankind, and this means China must pursue its own path of development. What we have done is, as a Chinese saying puts it, “crossing the river by feeling for stones”. We have deepened reform and opening-up, broken new ground and forged ahead, and established and developed socialism with distinctive Chinese features.

― This is a course of delivering tangible outcomes. We have pursued economic development as the top priority and never slackened our efforts. We have moved with the times and taken bold initiatives. Thanks to our perseverance, resolve and dedication, and the spirit of driving the nail, we have succeeded in turning China into the world’s second biggest economy, the biggest trader of goods and the third largest direct overseas investor, and lifted China’s per capita GDP to close to 8,000 US dollars.

― This is a course of achieving common prosperity. Development is for the people; it should be pursued by the people and its outcomes should be shared by the people. This is what China’s reform, opening-up and socialist modernization drive are all about. Thanks to this reform and opening-up endeavor, China has lifted over 700 million people out of poverty and significantly made life better for its 1.3 billion-plus people. In pursuing development, we have accomplished just in a few decades what has taken other countries several hundred years to achieve.

― This is a course of China and the world embracing each other. We have pursued an independent foreign policy of peace and a fundamental policy of opening-up. We have endeavored to develop in an open environment, starting by introducing large scale overseas investment and then going global with big strides. We have been actively involved in building a fairer and more equitable international order. China’s interaction with the outside world has deepened. And indeed, we have friends all over the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

Thirty-eight years of reform and opening-up have unfolded rapidly. Today, as China’s economy grows in size and its cooperation with the world deepens, the prospect of China’s economy has drawn keen international attention. Many people wonder whether China can maintain sustainable and steady growth, whether China can continue its reform and opening-up, and whether China can avoid falling into the “middle income trap”.

Actions speak louder than words. China has answered these questions with actions. Early this year, China drew up the outlines of the 13th five-year plan for economic and social development. These outlines call for implementing the vision of innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development, addressing acute challenges of uneven, uncoordinated and unsustainable development, and ultimately achieving a moderately prosperous society in all respects.

China has reached a new historical starting point. It is a new starting point for China to deepen reform across the board and foster new drivers of economic and social development. It is a new starting point for China to adapt its economy to a new normal and transform its growth model. It is a new starting point for China to further integrate itself into the world and open itself wider to the world. We have the confidence and ability to maintain medium-high rate of growth and deliver more development opportunities to the world while ensuring our own development.

― Proceeding from this new starting point, we will steadfastly deepen reform in an all-round way and open up brighter prospects of development. China’s economic development has entered a new normal, a stage it cannot bypass if China is to upgrade its economy and make it better structured. Reform is crucial to maintaining medium-high rate of growth under the new normal. Sticking to convention will get us nowhere. Fear to advance will only result in losing the opportunity. China’s goal of reform has been set and we will not deviate from it. China will take sure and firm steps in advancing reform and will not slow down its pace.

China’s reform has entered the deep water zone where tough challenges must be met. We have the resolve to make painful self-adjustments and tackle problems that have built up over many years, particularly underlying issues and entrenched interests and carry reform through to the end. We will continue to carry out supply-side structural reform, resolve major problems in economic development and improve the performance of the supply system by optimizing factors allocation and adjusting industrial structure. With these efforts, we can energize the market and achieve coordinated development. We will continue to explore new institutional mechanism, break through the resistance of vested interests, exercise law-based governance and better leverage both the decisive role of the market in resource allocation and the role of the government.

― Proceeding from the new starting point, we will pursue an innovation-driven development strategy to create stronger growth drivers. Scientific and technological innovation holds the key to development. We are keenly aware that many sectors of China’s economy are not strong or competitive enough despite their big sizes. Over the years, they have depended on input of resources, capital and labor force to achieve growth and expand scale. But this model is no longer sustainable. China now faces the challenging task of changing its growth drivers and growth model and adjusting its economic structure. To make China an innovative country and a leader in science and technology is what China must do now in pursuing development.

We are implementing the innovation-driven development strategy so as to leverage the role of innovation as the primary growth driver and make growth quality based rather than quantity based. We will promote all-dimensional, multi-tiered and wide-ranging changes in principles guiding development, institutional structures and business models so as to bring about a fundamental transformation of the forces driving development and create new impetus for it. We will strive to make breakthroughs in major projects and priority areas and take the lead in undertaking major international scientific programs and projects. We will conduct research on and resolve pressing scientific and technological issues holding back economic and industrial development. We will speed up the commercialization of R&D achievements to meet the need of shifting the growth model, adjusting economic structure, building a modern industrial system, fostering strategic emerging industries and developing a modern service industry. In short, we aim to move our industries and products up to the medium-high end of the value chain and create more innovation-driven growth areas with first-mover advantages that will lead development.

― Proceeding from the new starting point, we will promote green development to achieve better economic performance. I have said for many times that green mountains and clear water are as good as mountains of gold and silver. To protect the environment is to protect productivity, and to improve the environment is to boost productivity. This simple fact is increasingly recognized by people.

We will unwaveringly pursue a strategy of sustainable development and stay committed to green, low-carbon and circular development and China’s fundamental policy of conserving resources and protecting the environment. In promoting green development, we also aim to address climate change and overcapacity. In the next five years, China’s water and energy consumption as well as CO2 emission per unit of GDP will be cut down by 23%, 15% and 18% respectively. We will make China a beautiful country with blue sky, green vegetation and clear rivers, so that the people will enjoy life in a livable environment and the ecological benefits created by economic development.

Starting from 2016, we have been vigorously advancing supply-side structural reform and taking the initiative to adjust the relationship between supply and demand. We will cut down production capacity of crude steel by another 100 million to 150 million tons in the next five years, close more coal mines with production capacity of around 500 million tons and cut production capacity of around 500 million tons through coal mine restructuring in three to five years. This is an initiative that we are taking to cut excess capacity, adjust the economic structure and pursue steady growth so as to sustain long-term development. China has taken the most robust and solid measures in cutting excess capacity and we will honor our commitment with actions.

― Proceeding from the new starting point, we will promote equity and sharing of development outcomes to deliver more benefits to the people. The people are the foundation of a country and only when the people lead a good life can the country thrive. We need to be people-oriented, a principle that we should follow in everything we do in advancing economic and social development.

We will meet the people’s aspirations for a better life, raise their living standards and the quality of their lives, improve the public services system and enlarge the middle-income group. In particular, we will provide stronger and more targeted support to those living in difficulty, so that the over 57 million poor rural population below the current poverty line will all be lifted out of poverty and poverty will be alleviated in all poor counties by 2020. Since the beginning of reform and opening-up, China has lifted more than 700 million people out of poverty which accounted for over 70% of the global population living in poverty, thus making significant contribution to poverty reduction worldwide. And we will continue to contribute to the global fight against poverty. With more attention paid to equity and fairness, we will make the pie bigger and ensure that people get a fair share of it. We will resolve the most pressing problems affecting the immediate interests of the people to their satisfaction.

― Proceeding from the new starting point, we will open up wider to achieve greater mutual benefit and win-win outcomes. To pursue a win-win strategy of opening-up and open up China in a more comprehensive, profound and diversified way is a strategic choice of ours. China’s opening-up will not stall, still less will it reverse course.

We will continue to be fully involved in economic globalization and support the multilateral trading regime. We will expand access for foreign investment, facilitate such investment to promote fair and open competition and create a sound business environment. We will also accelerate negotiation on FTAs and investment treaties with relevant countries and the development of high-standard pilot free trade zones in China. While carrying out market-based reform of the RMB exchange rate in an orderly manner and phasing in the opening of domestic capital market, we will continue efforts to make the RMB an international currency and further internationalize China’s financial sector.

China’s development has benefited from the international community, and we are ready to provide more public goods to the international community. I have proposed the initiative of building the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road to share China’s development opportunities with countries along the Belt and Road and achieve common prosperity. Major progress has been made in launching key projects and building the economic corridors of the Silk Road Economic Belt, and the building of the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road is well underway. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank initiated by China has already started its positive role in regional infrastructure development.

Here, I wish to stress that the new mechanisms and initiatives launched by China are not intended to reinvent the wheels or target any other country. Rather, they aim to complement and improve the current international mechanisms to achieve win-win cooperation and common development. China’s opening drive is not a one-man show. Rather, it is an invitation open to all. It is a pursuit not to establish China’s own sphere of influence, but to support common development of all countries. It is meant to build not China’s own backyard garden, but a garden shared by all countries.

We are firm in our resolve to implement the above-mentioned reform and development measures; and they have indeed worked. In the first half of this year, China’s GDP grew by 6.7%, its industrial upgrading and structural adjustment picked up pace, the final consumption expenditure contributed 73.4% to GDP, and the added value of the tertiary industry took up 54.1% of GDP. Household income grew steadily, and 7.17 million urban jobs were created. We have reasons to believe that China will embrace even better prospects and make still greater contribution to the world.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

The world economy is now in profound adjustments and moving along a twisted path to recovery. It stands at a crucial juncture where new growth drivers are taking the place of old ones. The dynamism provided by the last round of scientific and industrial revolution is waning while new impetus for growth is still in the making. Currently, protectionism is rising; global trade and investment are sluggish; the multilateral trading regime faces bottlenecks in development, and the emergence of various regional trade arrangements have led to fragmentation of rules. Complex geopolitical factors and regional hot-spot issues as well as global challenges such as political and security conflicts and turmoil, refugee crisis, climate change and terrorism have all affected the world economy with consequences that cannot be overlooked.

Against such complex situation as well as risks and challenges facing the world economy, the international community has high expectations on the G20 and the Hangzhou Summit. At the G20 Antalya Summit last year, I proposed that we make an accurate assessment of the health of the world economy and give right prescriptions. China will work with other parties to ensure that the Hangzhou Summit comes up with an integrated prescription to address both the symptoms and root causes so that the world economy could move along a path of strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth.

First, we need to build an innovative world economy to generate new drivers of growth. Innovation holds the key to fundamentally unleashing the growth potential. The new round of scientific and industrial revolution with Internet at its core is gathering momentum, and new technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality are developing by leaps and bounds. The combination of the virtual economy and the real economy will bring revolutionary changes to our way of work and way of life. Such changes will not take place overnight or be problem-free. They require all countries to work together to maximize and quicken their positive effects while minimizing the potential negative impacts.

China has made “breaking a new path for growth” one of the major agenda items of the Hangzhou Summit and has worked for the formulation of a G20 Blueprint on Innovative Growth. What we want to achieve is to seek impetus through innovation and vitality through reform. We need to seize the historic opportunity presented by innovation, new scientific and technological revolution, industrial transformation and digital economy to increase medium- and long-term growth potential of the world economy. This will be the first time that the G20 takes action on innovation. It is important for us to pool together the strength of innovation-oriented policies of individual countries and make sure that our action is guided with conceptual consensus, and implemented according to concrete action plans with sufficient institutional guarantee. In light of the pronounced issue of lackluster global economic growth, we need to innovate our macroeconomic policies and effectively combine fiscal and monetary policies with structural reform policies.

Second, we need to build an open world economy to expand the scope of development. The path of world economic development shows that openness brings progress and isolation leads to backwardness. To repeat the beggar-thy-neighbor approach will not help any country get out of the crisis or recession. It only narrows the space for common development in the world economy and will lead to a “lose-lose” scenario.

According to the teaching of Chinese classics, “The governance of a country should be based on simple customs procedures, improved infrastructure, convenience for business transactions and preferential agricultural policies.” What it implies is the importance of building an open world economy. China has put trade and investment high on the G20 agenda. We support the G20’s efforts as it endeavors to strengthen institution-building in trade and investment, formulate the strategy for global trade growth as well as the guiding principles for global investment policy-making, consolidate the multilateral trading regime and reaffirm its commitment against protectionism. We hope that these measures will open up greater market and scope for the development of individual countries and help revitalize trade and investment, the two major engines of growth.

Third, we need to build an interconnected world economy to forge interactive synergy. In the age of economic globalization, countries are closely linked in their development and they all rise and fall together. No country could seek development on its own; and the one sure path is through coordination and cooperation. We need to realize interconnected development by promoting common development of the world economy.

We need to increase the interconnection of our rules and policies. We need to maximize the positive spillovers and minimize the negative external impacts through coordination of our macroeconomic policies. At the same time, we also need to encourage mutual learning to address asymmetries in systems, policies and standards. We need to enhance the interconnection of our infrastructure. China has put forward the global infrastructure connectivity alliance initiative to encourage multilateral development banks to adopt joint declaration of aspirations and give greater funds and intellectual support to infrastructure projects to speed up the process of global infrastructure connectivity. We need to promote win-win interconnection, foster and improve the global value chain and increase the participation of parties concerned so as to create a chain of win-win global growth.

Fourth, we need to build an inclusive world economy to strengthen the foundation for win-win outcomes. We need to eradicate poverty and hunger and advance inclusive and sustainable development. This is not just a moral responsibility of the international community. It also helps unleash immeasurable effective demand. According to relevant statistics, the world’s Gini coefficient has reached around 0.7, higher than the recognized alarm level which stands at 0.6. This is something we must pay great attention to. At the same time, global industrial restructuring has had its impact on different industries and communities. We need to face this issue squarely and properly handle it in order to make economic globalization more inclusive.

To realize the above goal, this year’s G20 has, for the first time, put the issue of development front and center of the global macro policy framework. The first action plan has been formulated for implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and for the first time, cooperation is being carried out to support African countries and LDCs in their industrialization. All these are moves of pioneering significance. The parties have all committed themselves to working for an early entry into force of the Paris Agreement on climate change. We have also formulated joint action plans on energy accessibility, energy efficiency, renewable energy and entrepreneurship, and have strengthened cooperation on food security and agriculture. We care for the needs of different social strata and communities, especially the needy, and encourage discussions among countries concerned on public administration and adjustment of redistribution policies.

We hope to convey a message to the international community that the G20 works for the interest of not just its 20 members, but the whole world. We will work to ensure that growth and development benefit all countries and peoples and that the livelihood of all people, especially those in developing countries, will get better day by day.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

One action counts more than a dozen programs. I believe G20 members should join other members of international community and act immediately and in good faith in the following aspects:

First, we can work together to build a peaceful and stable international environment. History has proven time and again that without peace, there will be no development and without stability, there will be no prosperity. Countries are all closely linked in their security. No country can develop solely on its own or resolve all problems without working with others. It is important to reject the outdated Cold War mentality and build a new concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. We call on all countries to cherish the hard-won peace and tranquility and play a constructive role in maintaining global and regional stability. All countries should uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, adhere to multilateralism, settle disagreements and disputes through dialogue and consultation, seek consensus and dissolve tensions rather than doing the opposite and make the international order more just and equitable.

To seek harmony and coexistence is in the genes of the Chinese nation throughout history. It represents the very essence of Eastern civilization. China is committed to the path of peaceful development. The logic that a strong country is bound to seek hegemony no longer applies and the willful use of force will lead to nowhere. China is the biggest contributor of peacekeepers among the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The proud sons of the Chinese people are among the UN peacekeepers that gave their lives to the mission of peace in Mali and South Sudan not long ago. China will continue to fulfill its international obligations and serve as the builder and defender of world peace.

Second, we can work together to build a global partnership for win-win cooperation. In the era of economic globalization, there is no island completely cut off from the rest of the world. As members of the global village, we need to cultivate the awareness of a community of shared future for mankind. Partnership is the most valuable asset of the G20 and the choice of all countries as they rise up together to global challenges.

We need to seek common ground while shelving and narrowing differences in an effort to build a new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, must treat each other as equals. We need to help each other achieve sound development as we work to ensure our own development. The world will be a better place only when everyone is better off.

We need to step up communication and coordination on major global issues and provide more public goods for the fostering of a peaceful, stable and prosperous world. We need to institute and steadily improve macroeconomic policy coordination mechanisms, be mindful of the related and chain effects of our domestic policies and ensure their positive rather than negative spillovers. We need to rely on partnerships, uphold the vision of win-win results, step up practical cooperation across the board, continue to enrich and expand cooperation and ensure that such cooperation delivers outcomes to meet people’s expectations. We need to enable people of different countries, cultures and historical backgrounds to deepen exchanges, enhance mutual understanding and jointly build a community of shared future for mankind.

Third, we can work together to improve global economic governance. As a Chinese saying goes, people with petty shrewdness attend to trivial matters while those with greater wisdom attend to governance of institutions. As the world economic situation changes, it is necessary that global economic governance remains relevant and adaptive to the changing times. Global economic governance should be based on equality, better reflect the new realities of the world economic landscape, increase the representation and voice of emerging markets and developing countries and ensure that all countries have equal rights, equal opportunities and equal rules to follow in international economic cooperation.

Global economic governance should embrace openness. It should be based on open concepts, open policies and open mechanisms so as to adapt to the changing situation. It should be open to constructive suggestions and the recommendations and aspirations of different quarters of society. It should encourage active participation and integration of various parties, reject exclusive arrangements and avoid closed governance mechanisms and fragmentation of rules. Global economic governance should be driven by cooperation, as global challenges require global responses, and cooperation is the necessary choice. Countries need to step up communication and coordination, accommodate each other’s interests and concerns, and work together to discuss the rules, build mechanisms and meet challenges. Global economic governance should be a mechanism of sharing. It should be about participation by all and benefits for all. Instead of seeking dominance or winner-takes-all results, it should encourage the sharing of interests and win-win prospects.

At this stage, global economic governance should focus on the following: jointly ensure equitable and efficient global financial governance and uphold the overall stability of the world economy; jointly foster open and transparent global trade and investment governance to cement the multilateral trading regime and unleash the potential of global cooperation in economy, trade and investment; jointly establish green and low-carbon global energy governance to promote global green development cooperation; and jointly facilitate an inclusive and interconnected global development governance to implement the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and jointly advance the well-being of mankind.

Since the G20 has convened ten summits, it has come to a crucial juncture of development. One of the goals of China’s G20 Presidency is to enable the G20 to transform from a crisis response mechanism focusing on short-term policies to one of long-term governance that shapes medium- to long-term policies, and solidify its role as the premier forum for international economic governance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

The business community is the main driver of growth. By convening the B20 Summit on the eve of the G20 Summit, China wishes to fully pool the ideas and wisdom of the business community. I am pleased to see that the business people from G20 countries have taken an active part in the G20 process throughout the year. Together with people of other communities, you have presented your views and suggestions on financing growth, trade and investment, infrastructure, SME development, employment, anti-corruption and other subjects of G20 priorities. You have provided important recommendations for G20 policy making and contributed positively to the Hangzhou Summit.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

The tidal bore is sweeping up the Qiantang River these few days. As an ancient Chinese poem reads, “The tide riders surf the currents; the flags they hold up never get wet”. I, like all of you, look forward to a G20 that will ride the tides in the world economy. I believe that, with various parties working together, the Hangzhou Summit will certainly achieve success.

In conclusion, I wish the B20 Summit a full success.

Thank you.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China’s President Xi Jinping’s Opening Address of G20 Summit: A New Blueprint for Global Economic Growth

US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

September 4th, 2016 by Washington's Blog

First published by Global Research in June 2016

Presumption of a Cover-Up …

Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime.  American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guiltfor  the person who destroyed the evidence.

So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence

For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspectsconspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.

(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company.  And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)

Destruction of Videotapes

The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

And:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Destruction of Air Traffic Control Tapes

The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.

Black Boxes

The FBI long ago found and analyzed the “black box” recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found.

Pentagon Fibs

The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.

Soviet-Style “Minders”

The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this).

In other words, the minders obstructed witnesses from openly and candidly talking about what they knew.

Undermining Investigation

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures.”

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced (by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims) to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the “pre-emptive war” doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission’s inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this and this).

The administration then starved the commission of funds.  The government spent $175 million – over$300 million in today’s dollars – investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster. It spent $152 millionon the the Columbia disaster investigation. It spent $30 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But the government only authorized $15 million for the 9/11 Commission.

The government also failed to provide crucial documents to the 9/11 investigators. And see this.

The government refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to force high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

Moreover, as reported by ACLUFireDogLakeRawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission againstprobing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The 9-11 Commission took this warning to heart, and refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism – who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration – “there were things the [9/11] commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.

Saudi Role

Investigation into Saudi government aid to 9/11 conspirators was also obstructed.

For example, Philip Shenon – the 20-year New York Times reporter who wrote a book on the 9/11 Commission – reports:

The [911] commissioner said the renewed public debate could force a spotlight on a mostly unknown chapter of the history of the 9/11 commission: behind closed doors, members of the panel’s staff fiercely protested the way the material about the Saudis was presented in the final report, saying it underplayed or ignored evidence that Saudi officials – especially at lower levels of the government – were part of an al-Qaida support network that had been tasked to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the US.In fact, there were repeated showdowns, especially over the Saudis, between the staff and the commission’s hard-charging executive director, University of Virginia historian Philip Zelikow, who joined the Bush administration as a senior adviser to the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, after leaving the commission. The staff included experienced investigators from the FBI, the Department of Justice and the CIA, as well as the congressional staffer who was the principal author of the 28 pages.

Zelikow fired a staffer, who had repeatedly protested over limitations on the Saudi investigation, after she obtained a copy of the 28 pages outside of official channels. Other staffers described an angry scene late one night, near the end of the investigation, when two investigators who focused on the Saudi allegations were forced to rush back to the commission’s offices after midnight after learning to their astonishment that some of the mostcompelling evidence about a Saudi tie to 9/11 was being edited out of the report or was being pushed to tiny, barely readable footnotes and endnotes. The staff protests were mostly overruled.

***

But Kean, Hamilton and Zelikow clearly do not speak for a number of the other commissioners, who have repeatedly suggested they are uncomfortable with the perception that the commission exonerated Saudi Arabia and who have joined in calling for public release of the 28 pages.

Indeed, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

Letting Terrorists Go Free

A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis — has stated that “this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated”?

Destruction of Physical Evidence

The former head of fire science and engineering for the agency responsible for finding out why the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 collapsed on 9/11 (the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) – who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering – wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed. And see this.

In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

The government has also refused to release the computer models showing how the trade centers fell, making it impossible for anyone to double-check its assumptions.

Whether you believe the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 were brought down with explosives or by airplanes and fires, destroying evidence prevented engineers and scientists from figuring out what went wrong … to prevent skyscrapers from collapsing in the future.

9/11 Commissioners Disgusted … and Call For a New Investigation

The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:

  • The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said“At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
  • The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it
  • 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman says that a new investigation should be “vigorously pursued

Planting False Evidence

Planting false evidence is another act which creates presumption of guilt.

The type of torture used by the U.S. on alleged surviving 9/11 co-conspirators is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creatingFALSE confessions. (and see thisthisthis and this).

According to NBC News:

  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”
  • One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the Iraq torture and Vietnam massacre stories – writes:

Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately — for the F.B.I. to chase“.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

First published by global cResearch in January 2016

Myth # 1:

“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”

False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies. The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.

Myth # 2:

“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”

False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years). The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process. For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!

Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the nation. Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.

Myth # 3:

“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”

False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous, results). Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.

In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.

But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past? And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?

Myth # 4:

“Mental ‘illnesses’ are caused by ‘brain chemistry imbalances’”

False. In actuality, brain chemical/neurotransmitter imbalances have never been proven to exist (except for cases of neurotransmitter depletions caused by psych drugs) despite vigorous examinations of lab animal or autopsied human brains and brain slices by neuroscientist s who were employed by well-funded drug companies. Knowing that there are over 100 known neurotransmitter systems in the human brain, proposing a theoretical chemical ”imbalance” is laughable and flies in the face of science. Not only that, but if there was an imbalance between any two of the 100 potential systems (impossible to prove), a drug – that has never been tested on more than a handful of them – could never be expected to re-balance it!

Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry because corporations that want to sell the public on their unnecessary products know that they have to resort to 20 second sound bite-type propaganda to convince patients and prescribing practitioners why they should be taking or prescribing synthetic, brain-altering drugs that haven’t been adequately tested.

Myth # 5:

“Antidepressant drugs work like insulin for diabetics”

False. This laughingly simplistic – and very anti-scientific – explanation for the use of dangerous and addictive synthetic drugs is patently absurd and physicians and patients who believe it should be ashamed of themselves for falling for it. There is such a thing as an insulin deficiency (but only in type 1 diabetes) but there is no such thing as a Prozac deficiency. SSRIs (so-called Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors – an intentional mis-representation because those drugs are NOT selective!) do not raise total brain serotonin. Rather, SSRIs actually deplete serotonin long-term while only “goosing” serotonin release at the synapse level while at the same time interfere with the storage, reuse and re-cycling of serotonin (by its “serotonin reuptake inhibition” function).

(Parenthetically, the distorted “illogic” of the insulin/diabetes comparison above could legitimately be made in the case of the amino acid brain nutrient tryptophan, which is the precursor molecule of the important natural neurotransmitter serotonin. If a serotonin deficiency or “imbalance” could be proven, the only logical treatment approach would be to supplement the diet with the serotonin precursor tryptophan rather than inflict upon the brain a brain-altering synthetic chemical that actually depletes serotonin long-term!

Myth # 6:

“SSRI ‘discontinuation syndromes’ are different than ‘withdrawal syndromes’”

False. The SSRI “antidepressant” drugs are indeed dependency-inducing/addictive and the neurological and psychological symptoms that occur when these drugs are stopped or tapered down are not “relapses” into a previous ”mental disorder” – as has been commonly asserted – but are actually new drug withdrawal symptoms that are different from those that prompted the original diagnosis

The term “discontinuation syndrome” is part of a cunningly-designed conspiracy that was plotted in secret by members of the psychopharmaceutical industry in order to deceive physicians into thinking that these drugs are not addictive. The deception has been shamelessly promoted to distract attention from the proven fact that most psych drugs are dependency-inducing and are therefore likely to cause “discontinuation/withdrawal symptoms” when they are stopped. The drug industry knows that most people do not want to swallow dependency-inducing drugs that are likely to cause painful, even lethal withdrawal symptoms when they cut down the dose of the drug.

Myth # 7:

“Ritalin is safe for children (or adults)”

False. In actuality, methylphenidate (= Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana, Metadate and Methylin; aka “kiddie cocaine”), a dopamine reuptake inhibitor drug, works exactly like cocaine on dopamine synapses, except that orally-dosed methylphenidate reaches the brain more slowly than snortable or smoked cocaine does. Therefore the oral form has less of an orgasmic “high” than cocaine. Cocaine addicts actually prefer Ritalin if they can get it in a relatively pure powder form. When snorted, the synthetic Ritalin (as opposed to the naturally-occurring, and therefore more easily metabolically-degraded cocaine) has the same onset of action but, predictably, has a longer lasting “high” and is thus preferred among addicted individuals. The molecular structures of Ritalin and cocaine both have amphetamine base structures with ring-shaped side chains which, when examined side by side, are remarkably similar. The dopamine synaptic organelles in the brain (and heart, blood vessels, lungs and guts) are unlikely to sense any difference between the two drugs.

Myth # 8:

“Psychoactive drugs are totally safe for humans”

False. See Myth # 3 above. Actually all five classes of psychotropic drugs have, with long-term use, been found to be neurotoxic (ie, known to destroy or otherwise alter the physiology, chemistry, anatomy and viability of vital energy-producing mitochondria in every brain cell and nerve). They are therefore all capable of contributing to dementia when used long-term.

Any synthetic chemical that is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain can alter and disable the brain. Synthetic chemical drugs are NOT capable of healing brain dysfunction, curing malnutrition or reversing brain damage. Rather than curing anything, psychiatric drugs are only capable of masking symptoms while the abnormal emotional, neurological or malnutritional processes that mimic “mental illnesses” continue unabated.

Myth # 9:

“Mental ‘illnesses’ have no known cause”

False. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is pejoratively called “the psychiatric bible and billing book” for psychiatrists. Despite its name, it actually has no statistics in it, and, of the 374 psychiatric diagnoses in the DSM-IV (there is now a 5th edition) there seem to be only two that emphasize known root causes. Those two diagnoses are Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. The DSM-V has been roundly condemned as being just another book that laughingly pathologizes a few more normal human emotions and behaviors.

In my decade of work as an independent holistic mental health care practitioner, I was virtually always able to detect many of the multiple root causes and contributing factors that easily explained the signs, symptoms and behaviors that had resulted in a perplexing number of false diagnoses of “mental illness of unknown origin”. Many of my patients had been made worse by being hastily diagnosed, hastily drugged, bullied, demeaned, malnourished, incarcerated, electroshocked (often against their wills and/or without fully informed consent). My patients had been frequently rendered unemployable or even permanently disabled as a result – all because temporary, potentially reversible, and therefore emotional stressors had not been recognized at the onset. Because of the reliance on drugs, many of my patients had been made incurable by not having been referred to compassionate practitioners who practiced high quality, non-drug-based, potentially curable psychotherapy.

The root causes of my patient’s understandable emotional distress were typically multiple, although sometimes a single trauma, such as a rape, violent assault or a psychological trauma in the military would cause an otherwise normally-developing individual to decompensate. But the vast majority of my patients had experienced easily identifiable chronic sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and/or spiritual traumas as root causes – often accompanied by hopelessness, sleep deprivation, serious emotional or physical neglect and brain nutrient deficiencies as well. The only way that I could obtain this critically important information was through the use of thorough, compassionate (and, unfortunately, time-consuming) investigation into the patient’s complete history, starting with prenatal, maternal, infant and childhood exposures to toxins (including vaccines) and continuing into the vitally important adolescent medical history (all periods when the patient’s brain was rapidly developing).

My clinical experience proved to me that if enough high quality time was spent with the patient and if enough hard work was exerted looking for root causes, the patient’s predicament could usually be clarified and the erroneous past labels (of “mental illnesses of unknown origin”) could be thrown out. Such efforts were often tremendously therapeutic for my patients, who up to that time had been made to feel guilty, ashamed or hopeless by previous therapists. In my experience, most mental ill health syndromes represented identifiable, albeit serious emotional de-compensation due to temporarily overwhelming crisis situations linked to traumatic, frightening, torturous, neglectful and soul-destroying life experiences.

My practice consisted mostly of patients who knew for certain that they were being sickened by months or years of swallowing one or more brain-altering, addictive prescription drugs that they couldn’t get off of by themselves. I discovered that many of them could have been cured early on in their lives if they only had access – and could afford – compassionate psychoeducational psychotherapy, proper brain nutrition and help with addressing issues of deprivation, parental neglect/abuse, poverty and other destructive psychosocial situations. I came to the sobering realization that many of my patients could have been cured years earlier if it hadn’t been for the disabling effects of psychiatric drug regimens, isolation, loneliness, punitive incarcerations, solitary confinement, discrimination, malnutrition, and/or electroshock. The neurotoxic and brain-disabling drugs, vaccines and frankenfoods that most of my patients had been given early on had started them on the road to chronicity and disability.

Myth # 10:

“Psychotropic drugs have nothing to do with the huge increase in disabled and unemployable American psychiatric patients”

False. See Myths # 2 and # 3 above. In actuality recent studies have shown that the major cause of permanent disability in the “mentally ill” is the long-term, high dosage and/or use of multiple neurotoxic psych drugs – any combination of which, as noted above, has never been adequately tested for safety even in animal labs. Many commonly-prescribed drugs are fully capable of causing brain-damage long-term, especially the anti-psychotics (aka, “major tranquilizers”) like Thorazine, Haldol, Prolixin, Clozapine, Abilify, Clozapine, Fanapt, Geodon, Invega, Risperdal, Saphris, Seroquel and Zyprexa, all of which can cause brain shrinkage that is commonly seen on the MRI scans of anti-psychotic drug-treated, so-called schizophrenics – commonly pointed out as “proof” that schizophrenia is an anatomic brain disorder that causes the brain to shrink! (Incidentally, patients who had been on antipsychotic drugs – for whatever reason – have been known to experience withdrawal hallucinations and acute psychotic symptoms even if they had never experienced such symptoms previously.)

Of course, highly addictive “minor” tranquilizers like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Ativan, Klonopin, Librium, Tranxene, Xanax) can cause the same withdrawal syndromes. They are all dangerous and very difficult to withdraw from (withdrawal results in difficult-to-treat rebound insomnia, panic attacks, and seriously increased anxiety), and, when used long-term, they can all cause memory loss/dementia, the loss of IQ points and the high likelihood of being mis-diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (of unknown etiology).

Myth # 11:

So-called bipolar disorder can mysteriously ‘emerge’ in patients who have been taking stimulating antidepressants like the SSRIs”

False. In actuality, crazy-making behaviors like mania, agitation and aggression are commonly caused by the SSRIs. That list includes a syndrome called akathisia, a severe, sometimes suicide-inducing internal restlessness – like having restless legs syndrome over one’s entire body and brain. Akathisia was once understood to only occur as a long-term adverse effect of antipsychotic drugs (See Myth # 10). So it was a shock to many psychiatrists (after Prozac came to market in 1987) to have to admit that SSRIs could also cause that deadly problem. It has long been my considered opinion that SSRIs should more accurately be called “agitation-inducing” drugs rather than “anti-depressant” drugs. The important point to make is that SSRI-induced psychosis, mania, agitation, aggression and akathisia is NOT bipolar disorder nor is it schizophrenia!

Myth # 12:

“Antidepressant drugs can prevent suicides”

False. In actuality, there is no psychiatric drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of suicidality because these drugs, especially the so-called antidepressants, actually INCREASE the incidence of suicidal thinking, suicide attempts and completed suicides. Drug companies have spent billions of dollars futilely trying to prove the effectiveness of various psychiatric drugs in suicide prevention. Even the most corrupted drug company trials have failed! Indeed what has been discovered is that all the so-called “antidepressants” actually increase the incidence of suicidality.

The FDA has required black box warning labels about drug-induced suicidality on all SSRI marketing materials, but that was only accomplished after over-coming vigorous opposition from the drug-makers and marketers of the offending drugs, who feared that such truth-telling would hurt their profits (it hasn’t). What can and does avert suicidality, of course, are not drugs, but rather interventions by caring, compassionate and thorough teams of care-givers that include family, faith communities and friends as well as psychologists, counselors, social workers, relatives (especially wise grandmas!), and, obviously, the limited involvement of drug prescribers.

Myth # 13:

America’s school shooters and other mass shooters are ‘untreated’ schizophrenics who should have been taking psych drugs”

False. In actuality, 90% or more of the infamous homicidal – and usually suicidal – school shooters have already been under the “care” of psychiatrists (or other psych drug prescribers) and therefore have typically been taking (or withdrawing from) one or more psychiatric drugs. SSRIs (such as Prozac) and psychostimulants (such as Ritalin) have been the most common classes of drugs involved. Antipsychotics are too sedating, although an angry teen who is withdrawing from antipsychotics could easily become a school shooter if given access to lethal weapons. (See www.ssristudies.net).

The 10% of school shooters whose drug history is not known, have typically had their medical files sealed by the authorities – probably to protect authorities such as the drug companies and/or the medical professionals who supplied the drugs from suffering liability or embarrassment. The powerful drug industry and psychiatry lobby, with the willing help of the media that profits from being their handmaidens, repeatedly show us the photos of the shooters that look like zombies. They have successfully gotten the viewing public to buy the notion that these adolescent, white male school shooters were mentally ill rather than under the influence of their crazy-making, brain-altering drugs or going through withdrawal.

Contrary to the claims of a recent 60 Minutes program segment about “untreated schizophrenics” being responsible for half of the mass shootings in America, the four mentioned in the segment were, in fact, almost certainly being already under the treatment with psych drugs – prior to the massacres – by psychiatrists who obviously are being protected from public identification and/or interrogation by the authorities as accomplices to the crimes or witnesses.

Because of this secrecy, the public is being kept in the dark about exactly what crazy-making, homicidality-inducing psychotropic drugs could have been involved. The names of the drugs and the multinational corporations that have falsely marketed them as safe drugs are also being actively protected from scrutiny, and thus the chance of prevention of future drug-related shootings or suicides is being squandered. Such decisions by America’s ruling elites represent public health policy at its worst and is a disservice to past and future shooting victims and their loved ones.

The four most notorious mass shooters that were highlighted in the aforementioned 60 Minutes segment included the Virginia Tech shooter, the Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter and the Sandy Hook shooter whose wild-eyed (“drugged-up”) photos have been carefully chosen for their dramatic “zombie-look” effect, so that most frightened, paranoid Americans are convinced that it was a crazy “schizophrenic”, rather than a victim of psychoactive, brain-altering, crazy-making drugs that may have made him do it.

Parenthetically, it needs to be mentioned that many media outlets profit handsomely from the drug and medical industries. Therefore those media outlets have an incentive to protect the names of the drugs, the names of the drug companies, the names of the prescribing MDs and the names of the clinics and hospitals that could, in a truly just and democratic world, otherwise be linked to the crimes. Certainly if a methamphetamine-intoxicated person shot someone, the person who supplied the intoxicating drug would be considered an accomplice to the crime, just like the bartender who supplied the liquor to someone who later committed a violent crime would be held accountable. A double standard obviously exists when it comes to powerful, respected and highly profitable corporations.

A thorough study of the scores of American school shooters, starting with the University of Texas tower shooter in 1966 and (temporarily) stopping at Sandy Hook, reveals that the overwhelming majority of them (if not all of them) were taking brain-altering, mesmerizing, impulse-destroying, “don’t give a damn” drugs that had been prescribed to them by well-meaning but too-busy psychiatrists, family physicians or physician assistants who somehow were unaware of or were misinformed about the homicidal and suicidal risks to their equally unsuspecting patients (and therefore they had failed to warn the patient and/or the patient’s loved ones about the potentially dire consequences).

Most practitioners who wrote the prescriptions for the mass shooters or for a patient who later suicided while under the influence of the drug, will probably(and legitimately so) defend themselves against the charge of being an accomplice to mass murder or suicide by saying that they were ignorant about the dangers of these cavalierly prescribed psych drugs because they had been deceived by the cunning drug companies that had convinced them of the benign nature of the drugs.

Myth # 14:

“If your patient hears voices it means he’s a schizophrenic”

False. Auditory hallucinations are known to occur in up to 10% of normal people; and up to 75% of normal people have had the experience of someone that isn’t there calling their name. (http://www.hearing-voices.org/voices-visions/).

Nighttime dreams, nightmares and flashbacks probably have similar origins to daytime visual, auditory and olfactory hallucinations, but even psychiatrists don’t think that they represent mental illnesses. Indeed, hallucinations are listed in the pharmaceutical literature as a potential side effect or withdrawal symptom of many drugs, especially psychiatric drugs. These syndromes are called substance-induced psychotic disorders which are, by definition, neither mental illnesses nor schizophrenia. Rather, substance-induced or withdrawal-induced psychotic disorders are temporary and directly caused by the intoxicating effects of malnutrition or brain-altering drugs such as alcohol, medications, hallucinogenic drugs and other toxins.

Psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions, can be caused by substances such as alcohol, marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics, inhalants, opioids, PCP, and the many of the amphetamine-like drugs (like Phen-Fen, [fenfluramine]), cocaine, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, and agitation-inducing, psycho-stimulating drugs like the SSRIs).

Psychotic symptoms can also result from sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and the withdrawal from certain drugs like alcohol, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics and especially the many dopamine-suppressing, dependency-inducing, sedating, and zombifying anti-psychotic drugs.

Examples of other medications that may induce hallucinations and delusions include anesthetics, analgesics, anticholinergic agents, anticonvulsants, antihistamines, antihypertensive and cardiovascular medications, some antimicrobial medications, anti-parkinsonian drugs, some chemotherapeutic agents, corticosteroids, some gastrointestinal medications, muscle relaxants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and Antabuse.

The very sobering information revealed above should cause any thinking person, patient, thought-leader or politician to wonder: “how many otherwise normal or potentially curable people over the last half century of psych drug propaganda have actually been mis-labeled as mentally ill (and then mis-treated) and sent down the convoluted path of therapeutic misadventures – heading toward oblivion?”

In my mental health care practice, I personally treated hundreds of patients who had been given a multitude of confusing and contradictory mental illness labels, many of which had been one of the new “diseases of the month” for which there was a new psych “drug of the month” that was being heavily marketed on TV.

Many of my patients had simply been victims of unpredictable drug-drug interactions (far too often drug-drug-drug-drug interactions) or simply adverse reactions to psych drugs which had been erroneously diagnosed as a new mental illness. Extrapolating my 1200 patient experience (in my little isolated section of the nation) to what surely must be happening in America boggles my mind. There has been a massive epidemic going on right under our noses that has affected millions of suffering victims who could have been cured if not for the drugs.

The time to act on this knowledge is long overdue.

Bibliography

(Authors and books that I used as background for the assertions in the above article)

Toxic Psychiatry; Your Drug May Be Your Problem; Talking Back to Prozac; Medication Madness: by Peter Breggin;

Prozac Backlash; and The Antidepressant Solution: A Step-by-Step Guide to Safely Overcoming Antidepressant Withdrawal, Dependence, and “Addiction”: by Joseph Glenmullen;

Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill; andAnatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America: by Robert Whitaker;

Soteria: Through Madness To Deliverance: by Loren Mosher and Voyce Hendrix; Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare: by Peter Goetzsche;

Rethinking Psychiatric Drugs: A Guide for Informed Consent; and Drug-Induced Dementia: A Perfect Crime: by Grace Jackson;

The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It: by Marcia Angell;

Let Them Eat Prozac: The Unhealthy Relationship Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Depression; and The Antidepressant Era: by David Healy;

Blaming the Brain: The TRUTH About Drugs and Mental Health; by Elliot Valenstein;

Selling Sickness; How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients: by Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels;

Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs: by Melody Petersen;

Excitotoxins: by Russell Blaylock;

The Crazy Makers: How the Food Industry is Destroying our Brains and Harming our Children: Carol Simontacchi;

Dr. Kohls is a retired family physician who practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care. His patients came to see him asking for help in getting off the psychotropic drugs to which they were addicted and which they knew were sickening and disabling them. He was successful in helping significant numbers of his patients get off or cut down their drugs using a thorough and therefore time-consuming program that was based on psychoeducational psychotherapy, brain nutrient therapy, plus a program of gradual, closely monitored drug withdrawal. Dr. Kohls warns against the abrupt discontinuation of any psychiatric drug because of the common, often serious withdrawal symptoms that can occur in patients who have been taking any psychoactive drug, whether illicit or legal. Close consultation with an aware, informed physician who is familiar with treating drug withdrawal syndromes is important.

Dr. Kohls is a past member of MindFreedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. He is the editor of the occasional Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter which has been emailed in the past to some of his old patients and also to others who have expressed to him an interest in alternative, non-drug, approaches to mental ill health.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Psychotropic Drugs, Are They Safe? Fourteen Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors in Medical School Taught Us

U.S. Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) recently came out in support of the Dakota Access pipeline, the hotly contested Energy Transfer Partners-owned pipeline envisioned to move oil obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale basin. As the pipeline transports oil across North and South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, it will cross farms, natural areas, and perhaps most notably, ancestral lands of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which is one of several tribes disagreeing with Sen. Hoeven’s assessment that this pipeline is “infrastructure we need.”

What Sen. Hoeven — an outspoken supporter of TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline — did not mention, however, is his personal investment in 68 different oil-producing wells in North Dakota under the auspices of the company Mainstream Investors, LLC according to his most recent congressional personal financial disclosure form.

Seventeen of those wells are owned by Continental Resources, the company whose CEO Harold Hamm also serves as a campaign energy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Those wells have a value of between $11,000–$171,000, and 14 of them, named Wahpeton, are located within 18 miles of the Dakota Access Watford City terminal site.

In a twist of irony, Wahpeton is part of the namesake of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe, whose reservation sits in southeast North Dakota and northeast South Dakota. The tribe passed a resolution in 2014 in opposition to the building of the Dakota Access pipeline.

Image Credit: Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe

Many Native American tribes have come out against the pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose current reservation is also within a half mile of the proposed pipeline’s path, has filed a lawsuit and requested a court-ordered injunction in the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, Sen. Hoeven insists he has been supportive and “respectful” of tribal concerns about consultation during the pipeline permitting process, despite criticisms from three federal agencies about the process and continued complaints and protestsfrom tribal members.

Hoeven is a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, where he has the responsibility to ensure tribal concerns are heard and adequately addressed. However, not all of his constituents feel he is living up to this role.

“It is deplorable that Senator Hoeven, and others like him, sit on the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs,” said Krystal Two Bulls, a participant in the Red Warrior Camp, which has joined up with the Sacred Stone Camp and is an ongoing encampment situated along the pipeline’s route at the Standing Rock Reservation. “It’s a Committee that should be comprised of people who will look out for the best interest of Indian country, but has turned into a gateway for predators to take advantage of Native American people and their lands.”

Continental has given Sen. Hoeven $10,200 in campaign contributions during this campaign cycle, and Hamm and his former wife Sue have given him $8,000 in campaign contributions since 2010, according to Oil Change International’s Dirty Energy Money database.

The senator also has hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of investments in 33 North Dakota-based oil wells owned by Whiting Petroleum Corporation and hundreds of thousands of dollars more in investments in seven wells owned by ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy. Both companies have donated generously to his 2016 senate campaign.

“Senator Hoeven makes his decisions based on the merits,” Hoeven spokesman Don Canton said via email when asked if the investments and campaign money influenced his support for the pipeline. “As far as his other investments, they’re all fully disclosed.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Senator Promoting Dakota Access Pipeline Invests In Bakken Oil Wells Named After Indian Tribe

The potential influence of marketing strategies used by drug production companies on the prescribing habits of doctors has been the subject of recent intense debate. Currently, doctors’ groups and the manufacturers themselves espouse professional and industry self-regulation in the marketing of drugs or medical equipment to doctors.

The argument is that these voluntary measures, teamed with personal integrity, clinical objectivity and being current with the latest evidence-based therapies are sufficient to guard against any favouritism that company gifts (monetary or otherwise) and sponsorship of professional meetings might engender.

The social science of giving and receiving gifts suggests otherwise. A recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association(2006;295:429-433) contends that giving even small monetary value items such as office stationery items, desktop toys and drug samples subtly increases the likelihood of a doctor prescribing that company’s drugs.

Positive prescribing habits are more pronounced with drug company gifts and sponsorships of a greater value, such as subsidies for medical education including medical conference funding, funds for travel to conferences, speaker bureau fees, ghost writing of drug-related research articles, consultancies and research projects.

An article in the New York Times in June found doctors more likely to use biomedical devices manufactured by companies that have a direct or indirect tie to the clinician. In this climate, a panel of prominent American clinicians recently published stringent, comprehensive and externally regulated guidelines in the Journal of the American Medical Association, aiming to reduce conflicts of interest between specialist physicians in academic medical centres (the equivalent of our teaching hospitals and medical research institutions), and pharmaceutical companies.

Company rewards and gifts are considered effective in improving the likelihood of a doctor prescribing certain better-marketed drugs. A report in the Boston Globe in 2004 said nearly $US19 billion was spent on drug company marketing to American physicians. This vast outlay is outweighed by improvements in drug prescription volume, often for chronic conditions and lifelong treatment.

A recent worrying trend is that of drug companies employing overt direct-to-consumer advertising, most notably marketing drugs used to treat erectile dysfunction. Undue pressures on doctors to prescribe anti-impotence drugs may be exerted by men with erectile dysfunction, regardless of cause or whether the medication is necessary.

Furthermore, critics of drug companies argue that the trend towards “medicalising” what previously were considered lifestyle or brief adjustment problems (obesity or mild depression, for instance) leads to the creation of new territorial markets for drug companies.

Australia-wide expenditure on non-hospital prescriptions in the year ending June 30, 2005, was $5 billion. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has grown a phenomenal 8-12 per cent per year between 1993 and 2004. Most of these scripts are dispensed by GPs who are exposed to surgery visits and other gifts dispensed by drug company representatives.

The influence of drug companies on the prescribing habits of GPs may be mitigated by non-drug- company-sponsored educational activities, such as that overseen by the National Prescribing Service and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Patients benefit by being prescribed older medications that remain effective rather than being changed to, or started on, newer ones that are not necessarily better.

By restricting availability of the latest (and often more expensive) drugs to specialists or to patients with approved illnesses, the PBS reduces inappropriate prescribing and limits pharmaceutical costs. Government spending on the latest or more expensive drugs is curtailed without decline in patient benefit.

Drug marketing is designed to boost drug sales, improve returns for shareholders and recoup the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in developing a new, effective and safe drug. High-volume sales of relatively costly drugs in developed countries partly funds the development and sales of drugs used to treat diseases prevalent in developing countries (such as malaria and tuberculosis), as well as orphan drugs (those used for treating rare diseases). Company earnings from these drugs are expected to be meagre relative to the cost of developing and distributing drugs to the poor. This is offset to some extent by marketing-driven improved sales of better-earning, higher-volume drugs.

Drug companies have recently allowed licensed producers in South Africa and India to make expensive HIV drugs still patented to these companies at a fraction of their cost in the West. They have also sold these expensive drugs at reduced cost to poorer countries.

Rational prescribing by health care workers may be enhanced either by applying stringent regulation, such as barring any academic doctor from involvement in drug company-sponsored trials or accepting research funding from drug companies, or a more congenial approach of disseminating evidence based guidelines, such as that seen with GPs.

Drug companies have been accused of unduly attempting to influence doctors’ prescribing habits. Doctors are seen to be susceptible to drug company marketing influence. There are several ways of minimising adverse effects of this company-doctor interaction on patients, including improved independent external regulation of the relationship between drug companies and doctors. Better educating doctors regarding effective evidence-based drug therapies and personal susceptibility to company marketing strategies could also be of benefit.

Solely blaming drug companies for unsustainable and spiralling drug costs ignores the role doctors play in this unhealthy dynamic. Being stridently anti-drug-company benefits no one, sick or otherwise. If drug production was not profitable or became non-viable, no one would be making our current catalogue of therapeutic drugs or developing new ones, such as the cervical cancer vaccine, vaccines for HIV and avian influenza.

The influence of remuneration and gifting cannot be curtailed by by drug and medical equipment companies espousing self-regulation in the marketing of their products to doctors. In Australia, the move towards greater donor and recipient transparency has led to Medicines Australia’s legally supported policy to name individual doctors and their remuneration arrangements. This could be the best deterrent against doctors and drug companies perpetuating an unhealthy dynamic. As some on the most recent list are known to me, I’d imagine the threat of a very public loss of professional reputation among peers is likely to discourage a physician accepting drug and medical device company generosity.

Dr Joseph Ting is an emergency, prehospital and aeromedical physician as well as adjunct associate professor for clinical research methods and prehospital care at Queensland University of Technology’s School of Public Health and Social Work and Clinical Senior Lecturer in the Division of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care UQ. He is the coauthor of several publications on ambulance use and is a member of the Emergency Health Services Qld Group.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Prescription Drugs: Doctors and Drug Companies Create an Unhealthy Dynamic

The Next Escalation: Turkey’s Invasion of Syria

September 4th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The move by Turkey into Syrian territory was given the necessary couching by Ankara’s ideologues. Conducted from the air and on the ground after weeks of scouting and reconnaissance, it saw the taking of Jarabulus and the banishment of Islamic State fighters. The anti-Assad rebels (well, an assortment of them) cheered. “Jarabulus,” claimed Ahmad Othman, commander of the Sultan Mourad group, “is completely liberated.”

If only this operation had been quite so forensic, cleanly confined to objectives invariably wider and more difficult to fathom. The Syrian conflict has been an object study in murkiness and orchestrated dissimilitude. Its prolongation signals, not so much clarity as readjustment for the next intervention, the next interference. The big powers continue to soil themselves; smaller powers hope for some look-in in a potential redrawing of the Syrian map.

Washington on this score was bound to dither, enthused on the one hand that Ankara was getting serious about actual military engagement, but worried about how far such engagement would go. In conjuring up monsters, the key has always been controlling them. Clio’s archive is filled with instances where such control has proven impossible.

In Syria, agents and groups have resisted the wishes of their backers. As David L. Philips of Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights suggested, “Supporting Turkey’s invasion and occupation of Syria would be a strategic mistake, making the United States a protagonist of Syria’s civil war.”[1]

US Vice President Joe Biden was not having any of it. Ever lacking in caution, he enthusiastically weighed in, offering parcels of support. “Operation Euphrates Shield” received his enthusiastic blessing, and he even went so far as to suggest that US air power had been involved in the venture. Eye witnesses failed to spot any dropped ordinance from US fighters, but then again, Biden’s command of certain facts has been shown to be faulty at points.

Biden’s enthusiasm was even more misplaced given the Obama administration’s backing of the Kurds. The People’s Protection Forces (YPG), numbering somewhere in the order of 40,000, have been receiving weapons and air support fromWashington. They stand to be disadvantaged by the Turkish move.

The operation also smacked of some form of conciliation with the Islamic State forces, or at the very least an understanding. Turkey has assiduously avoided blotting its copybook with an organisation deemed terrorist by some, or a useful business making power broker on the other. For that reason, Islamic State fighters were not in the direct line of the Jarablus operation, saving their ammunition for a future engagement. As Turkish tanks thundered in, IS repaired to fight another day.

Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a few day’s after the operation commenced, made his intention clear. The offensive would continue, he claimed on August 29, “until the YPG is no longer a threat.” As Fehim Taştekin surmised, an equation emerged in this foggy episode of war: “that groups supported by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), accompanied by Turkish tanks, are clashing with groups backed by the US military.”[2]

The other great power in this calculation, Russia, has also been playing with the Sultan-like Erdoğan. The warming of relations between Russia and Turkey initially looked like leading to tangible results. Iran’s Fars News even floated the idea, sifted from various sources, that President Vladimir Putin was more than useful to Erdoğan, not least for giving him a tip off hours before the impending coup that almost took his life.[3]

Neither government has been quite so upfront about this, given that both states were at belligerent loggerheads over the November 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber in Syrian airspace. But waters had warmed somewhat with Erdoğan’s more conciliatory approach to Moscow, while Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT) did admit to receiving a juicy tip off.

In dealing with Ankara, the obvious point was how far an invasion of northern Syria was going to be directed againstRussia’s own foes. Islamic State is an obvious foe to Moscow, but is more of a convenient alibi for Erdoğan.

The Kurds supply an odd, inconvenient piece in the puzzle of interests. They have every claim to be the most formidable presence in the area, and for that reason, an obvious target forTurkey’s efforts at neutralisation. The last thing Ankara wishes to see is full-blooded Kurdish independence thriving on its borders. Any benefit for the Kurdish diaspora is deemed an internal threat to Turkish stability.

Turkey’s operation was bound to overcook the new found value between Ankara and Moscow. The Jarablus operation could hardly have had the imprimatur of Moscow. There was more than a touch of irritation registered in such channels asKommersant, which tends to take its draught from semi-official, if not official sources. “The operation in Syria, not coordinated with Moscow, threatens to complicate the process of normalization of bilateral cooperation” agreed between Turkeyand Russia in St. Petersburg on August 9.[4]

The situation on Washington’s side of this brittle fence is hardly much better. Embrace Ankara’s ambitions at your peril, becoming complicit in broader historical patterns best left alone. Engaging in anything touched by Turkish ambition suggests a simultaneous, convenient relationship with Islamist forces when necessary. (Not that that has stopped US policies in the Middle East before. Think Afghanistan versus the Soviet Union; the Taliban; the malignant House of Saud). The chances of having any safe zone within the north of Syria are, at best, childish hopes. As is much in the nature of the brutal smattering of alliances across the conflict.

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

Notes

[1] http://dckurd.org/2016/08/31/erdogans-waterloo-turkey-invades-and-occupies-syria/

[2] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/turkey-syria-kurds-ankara-can-get-stuck-quagmire.html

[3] http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160721/1043373832/russia-warned-turkey-coup-attempt.html

[4] https://rbth.com/international/2016/08/26/turkey-has-gone-further-than-promised-in-syria-says-moscow_624453

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Next Escalation: Turkey’s Invasion of Syria

In 2014, the New York Times (10/12/14) ran a major investigative piece by reporter James Risen about several billion dollars gone missing, part of a shipment of pallets of $12 billion–$14 billion in C-notes that had been flown from the Federal Reserve into Iraq over a period of a year and a half in an effort to kickstart the Iraqi economy following the 2003 US invasion. Risen reported that about $1.5 billion of the cash, somehow stolen, had been discovered in a bunker in Lebanon by a special inspector general appointed to investigate corruption in the US occupation of Iraq. The article got front-page play.

Earlier that same year, the Washington Post (4/7/14) ran a story reporting the US State Department inspector general’s finding that during Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary, the State Department had lost records for or misreported some $6 billion in government contracts. (State claimed the money was not lost, just not accounted for.)

These stories are basic Journalism 101, the kind of bread-and-butter reporting on government that one expects from a major news organization. So how to explain that neither of these prestigious and influential newspapers—or practically any of the corporate media in the US, for that matter—bothered to mention it when the Pentagon’s inspector general this year issued a report blasting the US Army for misreporting $6.5 trillion (that’s not a typo; it’s trillion with a T) as its spending total for the 2015 fiscal year.

Now, clearly that number cannot be correct, since the entire Pentagon budget for 2015 was a little over $600 billion, or less than 10 percent of what the Army was saying it had spent.

Even if this were just an outrageous accounting error, it would certainly seem to merit a news article. But the IG’s office did not see it as a laughing matter. The 63-page report, released July 26 at the direction of Principal Deputy Inspector General Glenn A. Fine (the last IG left office in January and hasn’t been replaced), concludes:

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFAS Indianapolis) did not adequately support $6.5 trillion in year-end JV adjustments made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation. The unsupported JV adjustments occurred because OASA(FM&C) and DFAS Indianapolis did not prioritize correcting the system deficiencies that caused errors resulting in JV adjustments, and did not provide sufficient guidance for supporting system‑generated adjustments.

In addition, DFAS Indianapolis did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System‑Budgetary (DDRS-B), a budgetary reporting system, removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during third quarter FY 2015. This occurred because DFAS Indianapolis did not have detailed documentation describing the DDRS-B import process or have accurate or complete system reports.

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. Furthermore, DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.

There’s a lot of jargon and a lot of use of DOD acronyms in there, but the key point that makes this story newsworthy is the last sentence (as well as the alarming bit about 16,500 missing records). If the Army is making up numbers—and that’s exactly what “unsupported adjustments” means to an accountant—then nobody, not a reporter, not a congressional oversight committee, not even an inspector general, can tell what allocated funds are actually being spent on, where the money really went, whether programs are cost-effective, or even whether funds were misused or stolen. And we’re talking about the single biggest department in the US government, which accounts for more than one-half of all discretionary federal spending each year.

When I called the Pentagon’s public affairs office for a response to the IG’s report, it was a week in coming. Finally Bridget Serchak, chief of public affairs for the DOD Office of Inspector General, emailed me this:

For clarification, these numbers reflect changes made in Fiscal Year 2015…. These adjustments do not adjust the budget amount for the Army. The dollar amounts are possible because adjustments are made to the Army General Fund financial statement data throughout the compilation process for various reasons such as correcting errors, reclassifying amounts and reconciling balances between systems. The general ledger data that posts to a financial statement line can be adjusted for more than the actual reported value of the line. For example, there was a net unsupported adjustment of $99.8 billion made to the $0.2 billion balance reported for Accounts Receivable.

Remember, this is just a report on the Army’s budget. It turns out that the same kind of indecipherable, fantastical and unauditable accounting is being done by the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines.

Reuters: US Army Fudged Its Accounts by Trillions of Dollars, Auditor Finds

Reuters (8/19/16) had one of the few media reports on the Pentagon’s mammoth accounting errors.

One news outfit that did report on this scandal is Reuters. Journalist Scot J. Paltrow first reported on the DOD’s doctored ledgers and inscrutable accounting in 2013 in a series of stories that culminated in an article published on November 18, 2013, headlined “Special Report: The Pentagon’s Doctored Ledgers Conceal Epic Waste.”

Paltrow also wrote a report on the latest IG’s report, published by Reuters on August 19, headlined “US Army Fudged Its Cccounts by Trillions of Dollars, Auditor Finds.”

Where the rest of the media took no notice of the Pentagon IG’s scathing report, preferring to focus instead on the report of another IG over at the State Department who had investigated Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s improper and illegal use of a private server in her home to handle her official State Department business, Paltrow homed in on the reason this is a big story. He went to a major Defense Department critic to explain:

“Where is the money going? Nobody knows,” said Franklin Spinney, a retired military analyst for the Pentagon and critic of Defense Department planning.

The significance of the accounting problem goes beyond mere concern for balancing books, Spinney said. Both presidential candidates have called for increasing defense spending amid current global tension.

An accurate accounting could reveal deeper problems in how the Defense Department spends its money. Its 2016 budget is $573 billion, more than half of the annual budget appropriated by Congress.

The thing is, the Pentagon has been at this dodgy game for decades. In 1996, Congress passed a law requiring all federal agencies to comply with federal accounting standards, to produce budgets that are auditable and to submit an audit each year. At this point, two decades later, the Pentagon has yet to comply with that law, and therefore cannot be audited.

It is the only federal agency that is not complying or, the IG’s report suggests, even trying to comply.

One would think that would be newsworthy, but apparently for the major newsrooms of the US, not so much.

Edward Herman, noted media critic and co-author with Noam Chomsky of the book Manufacturing Consent, says the media love to report on Pentagon waste—things like the epic cost overruns on the F-35 boondoggle that still can’t fly in combat or a $600 toilet seat. That kind of story, he says “is something the media and public grasp easily.” Such reporting, he argues, “shows the Pentagon makes mistakes but not that it is massively looting the public coffers.” It also “shows that the media is on the alert in protecting the public interest.”

Herman says, “Repeated failure to report on a refusal by the Pentagon to allow an audit represents a major media failure, and one that is almost surely very costly to the general public.” He adds:

The failure to take up this important story reflects, at a deeper level, the power of the Pentagon and the unwillingness of the media or politicians to challenge it. Only power and the derived conflicts of interest can explain this remarkable ability of the Pentagon to avoid a legally required audit.

Requests for comment from the New York Times and the Washington Postabout their non-coverage of this $6.5-trillion Pentagon scandal went unanswered as of press time.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time (Common Courage Press, 2003), an investigative book about the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. He is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an independent online alternative newspaper.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ignoring the Pentagon’s Multi-Trillion-Dollar “Accounting Error”

GMO supporters “have discarded rigorous science”, says the Union of Latin American Scientists Committed to Society and Nature (UCCSN-AL)

The Union of Latin American Scientists Committed to Society and Nature (UCCSN-AL) has issued a statement rejecting the letter signed by Nobel Prize laureates in favour of genetically modified crops and GMO golden rice.

About GM crop science in general, UCCSN-AL says:

[Transgenesis] cannot be considered an advanced science anymore because it is based on fallacious and anachronistic assumptions. Its defenders have oversimplified the scientific rationale behind GMOs to the point that the technology cannot be considered valid anymore: they have discarded rigorous science. The lack of scientific ground that justifies GMOs is also the reason why its promoters deny complex systems of knowledge, such as indigenous peoples’ cultures and livelihoods. Transgenic technology is the geopolitical instrument for colonial domination of our time (1).

Nobel Prize and Andres Carrasco

Feeding the world?

UCCSN-AL says it is not convinced that GM crops are needed to feed the growing population:

The four GM crops that are marketed massively are mainly intended for the production of biofuels and animal feed for poultry, pork and beef cattle industries: activities that consume more than 65% of the GM corn and soybean produced in the few countries that grow them, a very inefficient system —from an energy point of view —of agricultural production. Around these crops there is an oligopoly of transnational corporations that control the production of seeds and grains; the storage, transportation and marketing of genetically modified commodities; and the mass production of animals, which are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. In this regard, it is clear that this model does not contribute to the goal of feeding the world, but instead competes with and overpowers traditional food production…

The problem of lack of food is not caused by low production, but by the way the world food system is designed. It has undermined the traditional systems of food production, and therefore nutrition and food sovereignty of peoples.

Under the heading, “GM crops do not produce higher yields”, UCCSN-AL says:

We question the promises made by GMOs proponents that these crops would have higher yields. Each of the countries in the Southern Cone where GM soybean is grown has different performance. The highest yields are registered in Brazil and Argentina, where the national agricultural research centres have dedicated many years to conventional breeding of this crop. On the other hand, in Ecuador—, a GM free country, —soybean yields are higher than in Bolivia and Paraguay.

Another example is canola or rapeseed. In Canada (where they mainly use GM seeds), yield averages between 1986 and 2010 were 1,459 kg/ha, whereas in Western Europe, where conventional seeds are used, the average yield in the same period was 3,188 kg/ha (2).

These data indicate, the group says, that GM does not increase yields and that any yield gains seen in crops are not due to GM but to other factors: “Ecosystems are complex and dynamic, involving the interaction of multiple factors.”

Health risks of GMOs

Regarding impacts on health, UCCSN-AL states:

Scientists who defend the safety of GM crops and food argue that it has been consistently found that GMOs are as safe (or more) than the crops obtained with any other breeding methods; that they do not produce environmental impacts and that even they increase global biodiversity. Despite these statements being repeatedly invoked by GM proponents, they are not backed by serious scientific research, and, moreover, the claims are never referenced”. In contrast, in the last years, scientific evidence supported by independent researchers has grown, showing the environmental and human health problems related with cultivation and consumption of GMOs (3).

The scientists comment that the health risks of GMOs inevitably include the risks posed by the herbicides that GM herbicide-tolerant crops are grown with:

In the analysis of GM crops we must consider the technological package to which these crops are inextricably associated. The majority of GM crops are resistant to herbicides, mainly the questioned glyphosate. In Latin America (the region with the fastest increase of GM crop acreage), the negative impacts on human communities settled in the areas where these crops are grown are undoubted.

In the last decade, the health conditions of these populations has been depressed, there has been a significant increase of cancer, congenital malformations, genetic damage, autoimmune diseases and other health issues, associated with the pesticides and the practices that are part of the technological package of GM cultivation. It is clear that to evaluate the impacts of this technology it is impossible to analyse GM seeds individually when the main genetic modification is to make the plant resistant to a herbicide. In the environment it has been shown that water bodies are contaminated and that pollinators are declining, as well as other beneficial species that ensure the health of the soil and the local biodiversity.

Furthermore, there are millions of hectares planted with GM seeds containing a gene that allows them to synthesize the Bt toxin, an insecticide that is produced in the GM plant, which has been incorporated to control Lepidoptera larvae. However, it has been shown that this toxin indiscriminately affects different species of insects, reducing their biodiversity and damaging human health of those who are in contact with the toxin (4).

On GM crops in general, UCCSN-AL concludes that “Every day there is more medical, scientific and agronomic evidence showing the impacts, risks, and uncertainties of this irrational model of production, both for the health of rural workers, peasants and farmers, as well as for these rural residents and consumers of foods produced with this technology.”

On GMO golden rice

UCCSN-AL explains that “Golden rice was designed… as a generic drug for malnourished children in ‘poor countries’”, adding that “Several authors have criticised this technology (5), which, in fact, is not available due to the fact that its advocates have failed to reach a workable formulation for distribution.”

In fact the rice is not even ready for commercial production, let alone distribution, as it has failed to give sufficiently high yields in the field, as the IRRI, the body responsible for rolling out the crop, has admitted.

UCCSN-AL has further concerns over the promotion of golden rice as a solution to hunger:

The nutritional problems of a population are not related with the lack of a specific nutrient (in this case… pro-vitamin A), but with the general conditions of poverty and the loss of food sovereignty that has forced thousands of farmers communities to leave their lands or to be subordinated to agribusiness, whose only priority is to meet their voracious need to increase profits through monoculture, agroindustry and agro-export by occupying lands that used to be devoted to safe and nutritious food production. To believe that malnutrition problems will be overcome through bio-fortified genetically modified food is to ignore this reality.

In order to meet the golden rice demand, millions of hectares will need to be planted in tropical and subtropical areas, and will need to expand over territories that today are use to grow food sovereignty crops, which will face the typical problems associated with large-scale monoculture. In addition, hundreds of plant species rich in pro-vitamin A, known, gathered or cultivated for a long time by local communities in the entire world will be affected. Each community can and must choose, in a sovereign way, what to eat, according to their cultural preferences and traditions, and how to meet their nutritional needs.

Who will benefit from golden rice? As with other GM crops, golden rice will also be controlled by large agribusiness companies. The “nutritional scheme” based in golden rice will involve the control of agribusiness over the whole value chain: from seed to distribution. Given the fact that it is a global trend to forbid farmers to save their seeds, even if golden rice will be patent-free, the seed will be corporately controlled. What would happen then with traditional rice producers and with the thousands of peasant traditional varieties of rice that they hold?

Regarding trade, in many countries, rice producers do not have any influence in price fixation. Nationally, the price is set by local powerful groups that control both processing and distribution of rice. Internationally, the price is set at the Bangkok and Chicago Stock Exchange. The international trade of golden rice would be controlled by the same economic groups that control other GM commodities. Accordingly,  golden rice will not generate food sovereignty and, on the contrary, it will increase dependence for both producers and consumers.

All the funds that would be spent in the promotion and implementation of ‘golden rice’ crops around the world could be used in the promotion of diversified crops, to promote and strengthen local and regional nutrition and food sovereignty, as well as in the recovery and adoption of healthy eating habits.

Nobel Prize rewards research that encourages corporate control

UCCSN-AL questions the authority and independence of the group of Nobel laureates that signed the letter:

The science that is promoted by the Nobel Prize Laureates that signed the letter has been developed in a context dominated by a reductionist techno-science, that is being developed without social control, generating environmental problems and health impacts, often with catastrophic and irreversible effects.

Although formally the Nobel Prize aims to recognize and reward people who have done outstanding research, invented revolutionary techniques, or have made notable contributions to society in the areas of Medicine and Physiology (and in other fields), it has supported scientific research that encourages corporate control on productive processes, and has facilitated the privatization of knowledge and life. In the field of biotechnology, the Nobel Prize has recognised waves of scientific innovations that led to the development of genetic engineering, at the expense of technologies with wider application which are not controlled by oligopolies of transnational corporations. Several of them are signatories of the letter. Their activities have been the key to developing the biotechnology industry. Several still hold commercial interest in this area, or are involving in research funding by the industry. For example, one of the promoters of the letter, Phillip A. Sharp, is co-founder of Biogen (now Biogen Idec) Inc. and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a pharmaceutical company that develops drugs based on RNAi) – which UCCSN-AL says represents a clear conflict of interest, given that the letter was submitted under the guise of ““altruistic interests”.”

Not the first Nobel laureates’ letter defending GMOs

UCCSN-AL points out that this is not the first statement defending GMOs issued by Nobel laureates:

Some years ago, a similar declaration was promoted by Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution (1970 Nobel Prize), who saw a second Green Revolution in agrobiotechnology, without making any critical analysis of the impacts caused by the first one.

Previously, Paul Hermann Müller was awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for the discovery of DDT as a contact poison of high efficiency against many arthropods. Ironically, due to the dramatic effects of DDT on the environment and on human health, the scientific work and citizen mobilization against pesticides began, a struggle that still continues.

Now the signatories of this letter in defence of GMOs and golden rice privilege the paradigm of corporations that genetic uniformity is needed to raise production. This is particularly serious because we know that the genetic diversity is essential to deal with hunger and is the only alternative to climate change.

With this background we wonder if the opinion of Nobel Prize laureate scientists necessarily is an irrefutable, neutral and objective opinion. The background presented here, and the lack of robust and well-founded arguments of the letter, show that this is not the case.

A[t] UCCSN-AL we believe that decision-making process on the adoption of new technologies, such as those that make possible GM crops, and others that are emerging (e.g. nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geo-engineering), should not only involve the so-called “hard scientists”, but it must incorporate the opinion of other fields of knowledge, as well as the opinion of social movements, civil society organizations, and of legitimate representatives of different social groups. Because scientific and technological knowledge is always part of a social process, it is crossed by tensions, conflicts and contradictory interests. Science is never neutral, absolute or definitive; it is always susceptible to changes and revisions, and must be subjectws to permanent debate.

“Genocidal” role of industrial farming based on GM crops denounced

UCCSN-AL concludes, “Scientific work must be developed with ethical responsibility and it must be committed to nature and society, and because of that, we reject the concepts stated in the letter and denounce the genocidal role of industrial farming based on GM crops, and we stress the need to defend, promote, and multiply the modes of food production that were culturally developed by the peoples of our region, and therefore are vital to ensure autonomy, environmental sustainability, safety and food sovereignty.”

Notes:

(1) http://uccsnal.org/documento-constitutivo-de-la-union-de-cientificos-comprometidos-con-la-sociedad-y-la-naturaleza-de-america-latina/
(2) IICA. Indicadores 2012
(3) There are for example the studies done by research teams from Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina and Fiocruz in Brazil; GenØk in Norway, the faculties of Medical Sciences in Rosario and the Universidad de La Plata in Argentina; the University of Milan in Italy; and the University of Caen in France, to name just a few.
(4) See for example Vazquez et al. (2000). Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33: 147–155.  Finamore,  et al. (2008). “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (23): 11533–11539.
(5) See Stone and Glover (2016). Agric Hum Values. DOI 10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1

Source (Spanish): UCCSN-AL – http://uccsnal.org/la-uccsn-al-frente-a-la-carta-de-un-grupo-de-premios-nobel-en-apoyo-a-los-cultivos-transgenicos/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latin American Scientists Reject Nobel Laureates’ Letter Supporting Genetically Modified Crops

Significant financial benefits, which Western governments are ready to pay to refugees from North Korea, have attracted the attention of fraudsters in China.

As reported by the South Korean newspaper “Chosun Ilbo”, in Beijing there is now a special “Academy”, which teaches ethnic Koreans of China how to impersonate “a defector from repressive North Korea” and eventually to get the refugee status, benefits, and citizenship in the West.

Experts confirmed to “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” that the problem of bogus defectors does exist, and has also acquired noticeable dimensions.

As reported by “Choson Ilbo”, citing sources in Beijing area of Wangjng, where a large number of ethnic Koreans live, there are special courses or “Academy” where they promise to turn you into a refugee from North Korea.

Main customers are naturally Chinese Koreans who are Chinese citizens, but are fluent in Korean, having the  accent, similar to the Northern areas of the DPRK. In these “educational institutions” they help customers to make up stories about their “life and escape from North Korea”, and at the same time to provide documents confirming imaginary stories.

Ethnic Koreans  living in northeast China generally speak Korean as a native tongue, and their dialect is similar to that used in some regions of the DPRK. In addition, they know what is happening “across the border” that allows them to pretend to be defectors.

“This problem really occurs. I haven’t heard about the special Academy previously, but that is true that the citizens of China often take the guise of defectors. This is especially prevalent in third countries, where there are more benefits for defectors, and the low level of training of immigration officers on the DPRK  facilitates this deception. As far as I know, according to the assumptions of some public organizations, about half of the “defectors from the DPRK”, which arrived in Australia and received the status of refugees, are really simple ethnic Koreans from China,” – said to “Rossiyskaya Gazeta”, one Western expert.

He added that even South Korean intelligence services, which are much better able to separate North Koreans from all the others, often get it wrong. “According to one of employees of the South Korean counter-intelligence, they admit that one or two percent of defectors who to get to South Korea are not North Koreans. If you live across the river from a North Korean village, then you know very well the details of the life of the neighbours, and some cheaters use that,” said the expert.

The problem is not just that under the guise of refugees ordinary Chinese come to the West in the pursuit of benefits, but also a more suspicious attitude to the real escapees from North Korea. “Often, many run from the DPRK, not having any documents. And then there are “graduates of the academies” of China, where teachers provided them with documents confirming their story. The result is that you believe the second, while the real defectors are waiting for their fate for a long time and are constantly under suspicion,” said one of the employees of South Korean media, which deals with the coverage of the topic of the DPRK

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In China, Fraudsters Prepare Fake Defectors from North Korea

The Dismal Reality of Having No Real Electoral Choices

Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves. ― Herbert Marcuse

The FBI is worried: foreign hackers have broken into two state election databases.

The Department of Homeland Security is worried: the nation’s voting system needs greater protection against cyberattacks.

I, on the other hand, am not overly worried: after all, the voting booths have already been hacked by a political elite comprised of Republicans and Democrats who are determined to retain power at all costs.

The outcome is a foregone conclusion: the police state will win and “we the people” will lose.

The damage has already been done.

The DHS, which has offered to help “secure” the nation’s elections, has already helped to lock down the nation.

Remember, the DHS is the agency that ushered in the domestic use of surveillance drones, expanded the reach of fusion centers, stockpiled an alarming amount of ammunition, urged Americans to become snitches through a “see something, say something” campaign, oversaw the fumbling antics of TSA agents everywhere, militarized the nation’s police, spied on activists and veterans, distributed license plate readers and cell phone trackers to law enforcement agencies, contracted to build detention camps, carried out military drills and lockdowns in American cities, conducted virtual strip searches of airline passengers, established Constitution-free border zones, funded city-wide surveillance cameras, and generally turned our republic into a police state.

So, no, I’m not falling for the government’s scare tactics about Russian hackers.

I’m not losing a night’s sleep over the thought that this election might by any more rigged than it already is.

And I’m not holding my breath in the hopes that the winner of this year’s particular popularity contest will save us from government surveillance, weaponized drones, militarized police, endless wars, SWAT team raids, red light cameras, asset forfeiture schemes, overcriminalization, profit-driven private prisons, graft and corruption, or any of the other evils that masquerade as official government business these days.

What I’ve come to realize is that Americans want to engage in the reassurance ritual of voting.

They want to believe that politics matter.

They want to be persuaded that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).

They will swear that Barack Obama has been an improvement on George W. Bush (he has not).

They are convinced that Hillary Clinton’s values are different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks).

Most of all, they want to buy into the fantasy that when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).

The sad truth is that it doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. Understanding this, many corporations hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.

Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion. It is a political illusion aimed at persuading the citizenry that we are free, that our vote counts, and that we actually have some control over the government when in fact, we are prisoners of a police state.

In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same so that we don’t join forces and do what the Declaration of Independence suggests, which is to throw the whole lot out and start over.

It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty. Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country.

Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight. Moreover, despite Congress’ so-called political gridlock, our elected officials seem to have no trouble finding common ground when it’s time to collectively kowtow to the megacorporations, lobbyists, defense contractors and other special interest groups to whom they have pledged their true allegiance.

So don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling or drawn into their politics of hate. They’re just useful tactics that have been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping the citizenry at each other’s throats.

We’re in trouble, folks.

We are living in a fantasy world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy.

It used to be that the cogs, wheels and gear shifts in our government machinery worked to keep our republic running smoothly. However, without our fully realizing it, the mechanism has changed. Its purpose is no longer to keep our republic running smoothly. To the contrary, this particular contraption’s purpose is to keep the corporate police state in power. Its various parts are already a corrupt part of the whole.

Just consider how insidious, incestuous and beholden to the corporate elite the various “parts” of the mechanism have become.

Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents’ fundamental rights. Long before they’re elected, Congressmen are trained to dance to the tune of their wealthy benefactors, so much so that they spend two-thirds of their time in office raising money. As Reuters reports, “For many lawmakers, the daily routine in Washington involves fundraising as much as legislating. The culture of nonstop political campaigning shapes the rhythms of daily life in Congress, as well as the landscape around the Capitol. It also means thatlawmakers often spend more time listening to the concerns of the wealthy than anyone else.”

The President. What Americans want in a president and what they need are two very different things. The making of a popular president is an exercise in branding, marketing and creating alternate realities for the consumer—a.k.a., the citizenry—that allows them to buy into a fantasy about life in America that is utterly divorced from our increasingly grim reality. Take President Obama, for instance, who now enjoys greater popularity than any previous president, including the beloved Ronald Reagan. This is a president who got elected by campaigning against war, torture, surveillance only to make them hallmarks of his presidency, and yet somehow these “indiscretions” are overlooked and forgiven as long as he presents a jocular, hip façade: slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon, reading mean tweets with Jimmy Kimmel, singing, dancing and being cool. In other words, to be a successful president, it doesn’t matter whether you keep your campaign promises, sell access to the Lincoln Bedroom, or march in lockstep with the Corporate State as long as you keep the feel-good vibes flowing.

The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court—once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America—has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Like the rest of the government, the Court has routinely prioritized profit, security, and convenience over the basic rights of the citizenry. Indeed, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky makes a compelling case that the Supreme Court, whose “justices have overwhelmingly come from positions of privilege,” almost unerringly throughout its history sides with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful.

The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world’s largest corporations. Besides shoveling drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. The pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government. When you have internet and media giants such as Google, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting, Thomson Reuters, Comcast, Time Warner, Viacom, Public Radio International and The Washington Post Company donating to the Clinton Foundation, you no longer have an independent media—what we used to refer to as the “fourth estate”—that can be trusted to hold the government accountable.

The American People. “We the people” now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn’t matter what you call us—chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it’s all the same—what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private. Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society.

We’re playing against a stacked deck.

The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. The people dealing the cards—the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.—have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.

It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.

As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives, and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.

Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans are acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change. As if the new boss will be different from the old boss.

When in doubt, just remember what the astute commentator George Carlin had to say about the matter:

The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.

They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork…. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club. …The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice…. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on…. It’s called the American Dream, ’cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People(SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at[email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Presidential Election Has Been Hacked. “Money Talks”. The Outcome is a Foregone Conclusion

Dedicated to My Friend and Comrade Marland X aka @CharlieMBrownX

Huey P. Newton was a visionary, a poet, a thinker, a writer, a gangster, but above all a revolutionary. Without his brilliance and daring the Black Panther party would never have been created. 50 Years after it’s creation the Black Panther Party for Self Defense is as relevant as ever because shockingly little has changed except for the worse.

Black life is as cheap as ever, police gun down people at an alarming rate. Much of the country lives in poverty while the ultra-rich get ever richer. In Huey’s time American Imperialism was waging a genocidal war across south-east Asia spanning Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Indonesia. (and other places as well) Today American imperialism is waging an even larger war stretching from central Africa, through southwest Asia(the middle east) , and into Central Asia and even eastern Europe (Ukraine). Police brutality, poverty, war, have only grown worse. In fact the Obama administration oversaw the greatest economic looting of the country in general and the black community in particular in american history. Capitalism is in Crisis, Imperialism is out of control, and once again revolution is in the air. Thus now the year of the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Black Panther Party on October 15 1966 (Or more likely October 29th) is the perfect time to revive the heroic figure of Huey P. Newton a man who inspired millions with his courageous example.

Huey P. Newton was born in Monroe, Louisiana on February 17, 1942. He was named by his father Walter in Honor of the populist Louisiana governor Huey Long who like Newton was assassinated. Walter Newton his father was born after his black mother who was a servant was raped by her white employer. Walter Newton was a man of courage and integrity who demanded to be treated with respect which was nearly suicidal in the south or anywhere else in America at the time. He was labeled as crazy for standing up to whites which could have gotten him lynched or murdered. Eventually he moved his family west to Oakland California. Huey was the seventh member of the Newton family a powerful symbol in local folk beliefs. His mother Armelia doted on him believing him destined for greatness. His father worked two or three jobs to insure that she would stay home and take care of the kids although money was always tight. In addition Huey’s father was also a minister. Huey spent his early childhood part of this tight knit family rarely coming in contact with the neighborhood kids. Reading his autobiography “Revolutionary Suicide” one is often struck by a certain duality in Huey P. Newton one side of his personality the sweet imaginative introverted side was the product of these early years with his tight knit family.

The other side of Huey’s personality would be born on the mean streets of Oakland and the classrooms of the racist public school system. At first Huey would be bullied and mocked mercilessly by the local kids hated for his light skin and suspected of being a mommas boy. They chased him thru the streets throwing rocks at him shouting “Huey P Wee Wee Wee” until he finally learned to fight back. This is when they “crazy” Huey was born. His brothers Lee Edward who had a reputation as a tough street fighter taught him how to fight. His advice was “look them in the eye and keep advancing” advice Huey would follow throughout his life. Another brother Walter Junior known as Sonny Man who would become a low level hustler also taught him to fight. Sonny Man would be Huey’s mentor on the streets. His other brother Melvin took the opposite approach studying hard in the hopes of somehow finding a good job.

It was Melvin who instilled in Huey a love of poetry and philosophy. Ironically the brilliant Huey Newton would nearly graduate from High School as a complete illiterate. Actually “Revolutionary Suicide” should be required reading for teachers for it’s brilliant analysis of the hostile dynamic between students and teachers especially black students. Racially and class Biased IQ tests become a self fulfilling prophecy. Huey supposedly had an IQ of 74. An adversarial relationship develops between teacher and students and the students show their resistance by refusing to learn and co-operate.

The educational system in reality becomes a branch of the prison system it’s goal is not to teach but to keep the students under surveillance and under control. Thus it was that Huey in spite of his brilliance and thirst for knowledge would almost graduate from school illiterate. Instead of learning anything he would spend his time in constant battles with the teachers and his fellow students. He would bully white students into doing his homework and would use his prodigious memory to disguise the fact he couldn’t read. It was thanks to his brother that he received any book learning at all in the forms of poems which Huey would learn by heart by having his brother Melvin read and re-read them to him.

Perhaps his real education in these years was on the streets. “Crazy” Huey became one of the local tough guys getting into street fights. He also began a career of petty crime with his friends shoplifting and robbing parking meters. Huey would hang out on street corners debating the meaning of life. He learned to love philosophy from hanging around his brother Melvin and listening in on his discussions. His first political consciousness also began to emerge out of a spirit of pure rebellion. When the Cuban Revolution occurred Huey supported it instinctively because his teachers and the media were so loudly condemning it. Watching his father work three jobs but sink ever deeper into debt also raised important questions in Huey. As did the shocking conditions around him which he had once taken for granted the garbage dump that made the only playground uninhabitable because of swarms of rats, hunger and misery everywhere. Slowly he would become more and more concerned with the plight of black people in America.

Thankfully just as Huey had refused to learn to read out of a spirit of rebellion when he decided to follow his brother Melvin’s footsteps by going to college and was told he couldn’t in 10th Grade that same spirit of rebellion made him decide to learn to read to prove he could go to college. Huey claimed he learned to read by going thru Plato’s republic with a dictionary. Which I find a little hard to believe but regardless he would read and reread the book. Falling in love with the “allegory of the cave.” In this story prisoners are kept their whole lives chained inside a cave all they see is a shadowplay projected onto the wall in front of them the shadows are the only reality they see. One day a prisoners chains come loose he wanders out of the cave and after being momentarily blinded by the sun his vision returns and he sees that there is a whole world outside the cave, but when he returns to tell his fellow captives no one believes him. For Huey the story symbolized the ignorance the black community was kept in. He was determined to break their chains and show them that another world was possible. Today one would be tempted to compare the prisoners to those foolish enough to believe the mainstream news on TV or in the paper.

Huey eventually made it to college but he remained divided between the paths taken by his brother Sonny Man the Gangster and his brother Melvin the overachieving student. He was scared of loosing his connection with the “street brothers.” He continued his life of petty crime and decided to study law and criminology so as to be a better criminal. This obsession with the law would later prove extremely useful when Huey founded the black panthers. At the same time once he learned to read he became a lover of books and would hole up somewhere reading the classics. He also became a bit of a ladies man. His friend converted him to the concept of “free love” before it had become popular and Huey had multiple girlfriends who he often lived off of supplementing his income with burglaries and fraud.

At the same time his college years were when Huey began to truly become political. He joined a black student reading group the Afro-American Association founded by Donald Warden that studied classics of black history like W. E. B. Dubois’s “Souls of Black Folk” and Black Literature like James Baldwin “The Fire Next Time” Then they would talk late into the night. Amazingly some of Huey’s fellow association members included future Cointelpro tool Ron Karenga then known as Ronald Everett who would found the United Slaves or US that would later wage war on the Panthers on behalf of the FBI and Richard Thorne who had converted Huey to “Free Love” went on to found the sexual freedom league and then changed his name to OM and became a cult leader. The groups founder and leader Donald Warden would attempt to join the political establishment. It was during this period when Huey met future Black Panther Party Co-Founder Bobby Seal. Huey had already known another important future Black Panther Party leader David Hilliard since childhood. The moral of the story is get your friends together and try to start a revolution. It would be a couple years before the party would actually be founded but it would be born out of Huey bouncing Ideas off of Bobby. A major inspiration for both men was the fiery Malcolm X.

Here at last was a fearless voice for black liberation. Huey of course loved the fact that Malcolm X could speak in the language of the “brothers on the block”, being a former gangster and ex con himself. At the same time Malcolm X had so thoroughly self educated himself that he could make a college professor look like an ignorant fool. Above all Malcolm X had a program a plan. Unfortunately he was assassinated before he could truly begin putting his ideas into action.

Another inspiration was Robert F. Williams who like Malcolm X advocated armed self defense. Williams was forced to flee the country to escape the american injustice system. This was also the period when Huey became a socialist. Whenever he explained his vision for the world people accused him of being a socialist. He became curious and began to read up on the topic. Finally when he discovered a four volume version of the works of Mao Tse Tong he became a convert. Mao was the major influence on the ideology of the Black Panthers. He was also a supporter of the Cuban Revolution and almost traveled there himself. Another Major influence was Frantz Fanon.

Anyways you’ll have to read “Revolutionary Suicide” for yourselves if you want to get the full scope of Huey’s activities in this period. He had become thru necessity an expert amateur lawyer at defending himself. Of course this only made the local police and prosecutors even more eager to lock him up. But in the meantime Huey managed to successfully defend himself in a string of court room victories. Eventually however he was convicted after a fight in which he stabbed a man who he believed was reaching for a knife. In the book Huey uses the case as another example of the american injustice system at work since the middle class white jurors were incapable of understanding that he was merely acting in self defense. Odell Lee intended him harm and so Huey Struck first. Huey’s description of prison life and the legal system are invaluable to anyone seeking to understand the american injustice system and the mass incarceration state which have only expanded in size, brutality and racism since Huey’s time. Back then the prison population was majority white for instance today the majority of prisoners are blacks and latinos. Just as with the abolition of slavery the forces of reaction came up with “black codes” to reverse those gains and return to the profitability of unpaid labor, so too following the passage of the civil rights act the war on Drugs followed seeking to reverse those gains. Today America has the largest prison population in the world and conditions in those prisons are far worse then during the Sixties when Huey was imprisoned.

Huey served his time in the Alameda county jail. The guards attempted to break his spirit because of his defiant attitude. They sentenced him to the Soul Breaker a cell with no light and no toilet only a hole in the center of the room. Usually a prisoner would break down and beg to be released after a a day or two. Huey refused to surrender he discovered hidden reserves of strength and discipline. In the sensory deprivation of the prison cell he had a sort of mystical experience. He emerged stronger and more defiant then ever. He felt as if he had been reborn. After 16 days it was the jail that was forced to give up and he was released for the sake of his health. After founding the BPP and then being framed for murder Huey’s discussion of the Soul Breaker during his trial lead to it being abolished another victory.

Huey’s experience in prison only further radicalized him. He was eventually released met up with Bobby Seal again and the two determined to come up with some plan to help the black community. They sent months reading Mao, Lenin, Che, Fidel studying various revolutions. Debating and drinking and arguing. Eventually they decided that while studying these revolutions could give them ideas they couldn’t merely copy them they had to come up with a strategy that fit the Oakland Ghetto of 1966 a very different situation from the Island of Cuba or the huge land of China. This lead to more plans and discussions how best to capture the imagination of the street brothers, how to win the support of the black community. They seized on the idea of armed self defense. Actually initially instead of planning to form their own party they tried to convince the pre-existing groups SSAC a front for RAM the Revolutionary Action Movement to which they belonged to adopt their idea of forming armed patrols to protect the community but everyone thought the idea was crazy and suicidal. In the long run perhaps they would prove correct as the Black Panthers would end up dead or imprisoned. That is Why Huey Titled his Book “Revolutionary Suicide” for to become a revolutionary is to become a doomed man. Finally worried that like so many would be revolutionaries they would get no further then talk they decided to come up with a ten point program and to found their own party. Supposedly they brainstormed the entire ten point program in a single evening. It consisted of ten demands followed by their analysis of the situation behind it. Since they remain as relevant as ever I’ll list all ten demands.

We want freedom. We Want Power to determine the destiny of our Black Community.

We want full employment for our people.

We want an end to the robbery by the CAPITALIST of our Black Community.

We want decent housing fit for shelter of human beings.

We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present day society.

We want all Black men to be exempt from military service.

We want an immediate end to POLICE BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People.

We want freedom for all Black men held in federal, state, county, and city prisons and jails.

We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in court by a jury of their peer group, or people from their Black Communities as defined by the constitution of the United States.

We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, and peace.

Well I discovered that in reality the ten point program was actually formulated the next year but this is the legend of the founding of the Black Panther party. They also were inspired by the ten point program of Malcolm X. This version is also a revised version of the ten point program which changed somewhat over time. However this is the way the Panthers tell the story Huey and Bobby Come up with the ten point program in a single night. The name and symbol of the Black Panther Party had been floating around before they seized on it. It started with the Lowndes County Freedom Organization in Mississippi. In Watts where there had been a famous uprising in 1965 inspired by Police Brutality Mark Comfort and Curtis Lee Baker had later founded the Community Alert Patrol or CAP as a means of discouraging police brutality by keeping watch over them. They adopted the Black Panther as their symbol putting it on the side of their patrol car. They were thus a sort of Proto-Panther group. Finally Huey and Bobby’s former comrades in RAM also formed a Black Panther Party. In other words in founding the Black Panther Party for Self Defense they were drawing on ideas that were already floating around at the time.

What Separated Huey and Bobby from the others was the intensity with which they would carry it out. CAP patrolled the police but were unarmed. They were also in Southern California so while they inspired the Panthers they were not rivals. The rival RAM branch of the Black Panthers carried weapons but purely for show they were always unloaded. Huey and Bobby’s Panthers were armed and prepared to use force to defend themselves. Their first recruit was 15 year old Little Bobby Hutton. Bobby Seale who had served in the air force provided the weapons along with Richard Aoki a Japanese american anti-imperialist who also donated some weapons to the cause. This was another thing that separated the Black Panthers from other black nationalist groups they wanted to work with anyone who wanted to change the system regardless of race and would inspire or work with groups of Latinos (The Brown Berets The young Lords), Asians (The Red Guard), whites (SDS, White Panthers) and Native Americans (AIM). Actually in his youth Bobby Seale was inspired by the example of indigenous resistance to genocidal american imperialism. The Panthers were also inspired by a spirit of revolutionary solidarity with the Vietnamese, the Chinese, The Cubans, and Algerians in their struggles against imperialism. Thus while the Black Panthers sought to mobilize the black community they saw the revolution as only possible with the support of allies both at home and abroad. They were from the start internationalists contrary to popular belief which sees them as a sort of black hate group. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In any case armed and with only a single recruit Huey and Bobby decided to put their plan into action. Huey carried a shot gun in one hand and a lawbook in the other. He had carefully researched California Gun Laws and also discovered that citizens were allowed to monitor police as long as they stayed far enough away not to “interfere” with their carrying out their duties. They drove around until they found a cop and decided to follow him on patrol. The cop got a glimpse of their guns and freaked out. Now he was following the Panthers and Huey managed to lead him to his old college Merrit so their would be an audience for their first confrontation. The cop tried to disarm them but Huey loudly cited the law on private property and knocked the cop down. He chambered his shotgun as the cop cowered in terror in front of the crowd and eventually fled.

The crowd was in awe. This was the first of many patrols. Whenever they found the police arresting someone Huey would read out the law to educate the suspect on their rights then follow the cops to jail and bail the suspect out. Often they would join out of gratitude. In the beginning many were impressed but few dared to join and initially the group received no press coverage. The group first made a name for themselves when they were recruited to guard Malcolm X’s widow Betty Shabazz on her visit to Oakland.

The group had already grown to a dozen or so members and they arrived at the airport fully armed which was actually legal at the time. Huey later got in a major confrontation with the police which impressed author Eldridge Cleaver who decided to join. Cleaver and Newton would later have a major falling out that would split and Cleaver would later join the CIA’s favorite cult the moonies and become an arch conservative raising questions as to wether he had been part of COINTELPRO or even the CIA’s CHAOS program all along. In reality the true history of the sixties needs to be completely re-evaluated in order to discover what was genuine and what was psychological warfare. Whatever the truth Cleaver was a fearless orator and had a lot of connections with white radicals that would help the Panthers expand. By guarding Betty Shabazz the Panthers gained the attention of the underground press.

Another major early episode that helped the group grow was it’s attempt to get justice for the death of Denzil Dowell in Richmond California. The Police claimed he had been shot after robbing a store and leading the police on a foot chase where he jumped fences. In reality Dowell had a bad hip and had trouble walking let alone hopping fences. In fact he had been murdered with his hands up by a cop who had been threatening him for months. There was no evidence that anyone had even broken into the store that night. Dowell had been murdered in cold blood by a cop and the whole thing had been ruled a justifiable homicide as the Panthers discovered after doing their own investigation. First they had arrived to offer their support for the family then they began interviewing the neighborhood learning more about the brutal police and the terrible conditions of the ghetto. They chased off some cops who had come to harass the Dowell family. They gave the family an armed escort into the station sending the police into a panic before finally relenting so the family could get in and talk to the prosecutor. Of course then as today he refused to do anything. A badge is a license to kill especially to kill blacks. Instead the panthers decided to hold an armed demonstration in support of justice for Denzil Dowell. It was a huge success and for the first time a whole community began to embrace the Panthers. in fact at the second Rally the local people decided to emulate the panthers and they arrived armed as well.

Incidentally the Black Panther paper was created to fight for justice for Denzil Dowell. It would eventually grow to a circulation of 100,000 and was read all over the world. Sales of the paper would later fund the Panthers survival programs like the free breakfast for children program which would feed 10,000 children a day by 1969. But that is skipping a bit ahead. The Panthers had taken advantage of knowing the law to found their party. Thus it wasn’t long before the State of California decided to simply change the law making it illegal to bear arms in public. Huey sent Bobby to the state capitol in Sacramento with a bunch of Panthers where they tried to enter fully armed as a protest against Mulford’s “Anti-Panther” Bill. The press accused them of an “invasion” which I found amusing the hypocrisy of american imperialism never ends the panthers merely read a statement they dropped no bombs, fired no artillery, and did not kill anyone. They merely read a statement. But I’ll deal further with Sacramento in my next article.

The Summer of 1967 was known as the summer of rage their were 160 urban rebellions the biggest being Newark and Detroit. Detroit was the biggest urban rebellion of the 20th century with black snipers and arsonists battling police and firemen for days. The country seemed poised on the brink of revolution and Huey’s vision of the world published through the BPP paper in articles like “The Correct Handling of the Revolution” had proven prophetic. That fall in October around a year after the parties foundation an Oakland policeman John Frey decided the only solution was to kill Newton. Huey Newton and Gene Mckinney were pulled over. What actually happened next may never be known. Huey claimed that Frey shot him and then as Huey lost consciousness someone else mysteriously saved his life by gunning down the police. The legend was that Huey himself killed Frey. Perhaps another panther shot the cops after Huey was shot. It could even have been some intelligence agency hoping to frame Newton. If Huey later learned the truth he kept it secret to protect the identity of whoever saved him or alternately to protect himself. Regardless when the smoke cleared Frey was dead his partner was wounded. Huey arrived later that night badly wounded at his friend David Hilliard’s house and was dropped off at the hospital. There the police beat him mercilessly and handcuffed him to the bed in a position that was pure torture for a gunshot victim. Whenever he regained consciousness he was beaten and taunted that he would receive the death penalty.

The authorities hoped to use the incident to destroy the Black Panthers by sentencing it’s brilliant leader to death. Instead the campaign to free Huey went nationwide and the massive publicity it generated saw the Black Panthers go nationwide as well. Huey became a legendary figure thanks in part to the famous photo of him sitting on a wicker throne with a spear in one hand and a rifle in the other. Some joined because they believed Huey had shot it out with the police. Others joined because they believed he was being framed and were horrified by the image of him chained to a hospital bed. His cause was adopted not just by blacks but by every group in the country especially the huge student antiwar movement. Luckily for Huey a brilliant crusading communist lawyer Charles Garry took on his case. Huey would spend years in prison but amazingly would finally be freed thanks to Garry’s skillful defense.

In Jail Huey would continue his resistance. He saw clearly the way that prison labor was a new form of slavery and refused to work unless he was paid a fair wage. As a result he spent years in solitary confinement although he was allowed to meet with his family and legal team through which he passed messages to the Panthers. It was while in jail that little Bobby Hutton the first to join the panthers when only 15 became the first to die at only 17 when he and Cleaver got into a shootout with police. It was a major blow to Huey who dedicated his Autobiography “Revolutionary Suicide” to Little Bobby. You’ll have to read the book to discover more about the trial of Huey Newton and his time in Jail. Garry managed to destroy the credibility of the governments witnesses first Huey escaped the death penalty and was convicted of manslaughter as a compromise. Eventually after two more trials that conviction was overturned. Huey was free and was greeted by an adoring crowd of thousands. At a press conference he offered to spend Black Panthers to Vietnam to aid the National Liberation Front or what the americans mistakenly called the Viet Cong.

While he had been away the Party had evolved and grown expanding nationwide. The most important development had been the creation of survival programs. David Hilliard and Bobby Seale had overseen their creation while Huey had prepared their ideological justification. The needs of the poor could not be put off until after the revolution or they would perish. The survival programs were meant to save their lives in the meantime. Huey also realized that by serving the people the party would win the loyalty of the people. In addition many Panthers had already been killed or arrested and Huey wanted to take a less confrontational approach. Eldridge Cleaver saw this as a sellout of the revolution at the very least encouraged by letters he received from COINTELPRO if he wasn’t actually an agent as many suspect. Cleaver and his supporters were thrown out of the party. And the two sides were goaded into open warfare with each other through Cointelpro.

Another development while in prison was Huey’s brilliant new theoretical advance called intercommunalism. A fellow prisoner slipped Huey a magazine one day and as he flipped through it he came across a Ford motor company ad. It said something like “You fly Your Flag We’ll fly ours.” amazingly Huey seized on this seemingly meaningless ad and his mind seemingly leapt decades into the future as he envisioned both the collapse of the Soviet Union and the age of globalization. In other words he saw our world today in which every country has lost it’s independence instead serving the tyranny of the multinational corporations and at the mercy of the free market. What is today called globalization Huey called Reactionary Intercommunalism. The only solution was a revolutionary intercommunalism a global internationalist struggle against imperialism, globalization, and Capitalism. For more on this topic check out a book of Newton’s essays called “To Die For The People.”

Huey put his internationalist vision into practice traveling to China in an effort to beat Nixon there. Year earlier Robert F. Williams had personally explained the plight of blacks in America to Mao and Mao had issued a statement calling for all the peoples of the world to support the struggle for black liberation. Huey timed his visit to beat Nixon to China, and while he didn’t get to meet Mao he did meet Chou-En Lai. Mao was one of Newton’s major inspirations and in China he felt free for the first time. The Chinese offered him political asylum since he had snuck over between his second and third trials but Newton decided he had to face the american injustice system so he could continue the struggle for revolution back in the states. Huey would also live in Cuba after being forced to flee into exile in 1974 when the police tried to frame him for the murder of a prostitute.

Newton ends his Auto-Biography after discussing the split with Cleaver and Reaffirming his commitment to the survival programs. Thus I won’t be able to go much into his final years. Newton began using increasing amounts of cocaine and the fame, the paranoia, the COINTELPRO in the end proved too much for him. He focused his attention on seizing control of Oakland both the political overworld and the criminal underworld. By a miracle he had survived the assassination attempts and the frame ups unlike so many other Black Panthers. 28 Panthers gave their lives and as of 2006 over 40 Panthers were still in Prison. Unfortunately he outlived his time as the revolutionary spirit of the sixties and 70’s began to fade. One of his final achievements was earn a PHD from UC Santa Cruz. He was gunned down by a drug dealer in 1989. When I was growing all my generation heard about him was the occasional phrase “free Huey” from the eternally nostalgic baby boomers. However in the wake of the Rodney king beating the LA uprising, the brief Malcolm X revival they made a movie about him called Panther which is mysteriously unavailable on Netflix. Recently PBS played a documentary called vanguard of the revolution which seemed aimed at erasing the panthers socialist ideology and vilifying their founder Huey P. Newton. Luckily another documentary is in the works aiming to show the true legacy of this complex and inspiring figure.

Reading “Revolutionary Suicide” one could almost be reading about today Poverty, Police Brutality, Mass Incarceration, Poor Education, Capitalism and Imperialism have only grown as problems since Newton’s times. Since 2014 a wave of urban rebellions have swept the country first in Ferguson, then Baltimore, and most recently in Milwaukee. The Young are once again organizing to oppose police brutality and so would do well to study the heroic example of Huey Newton. Nearly thirty years after his death the system is still terrified of Huey which is while they are still trying to poison his memory. At the same time 30 years later he still provides inspiration to all those who dream that a better world is possible.

Sources

My main Source was “Revolutionary Suicide” By Huey P. Newton which I highly recommend and is also an extremely entertaining and exciting read. I also read his collection of Essays “To Die For the People” and His doctoral thesis on the Black Panthers “War against the Panthers” both of which I also Highly recommend. I also read “A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story” By Elaine Brown although I was warned by trusted comrades that she is suspected of being a Cointelpro or a Chaos agent. It is an exciting read although it may have been written to vilify the party and create divisions. Brown of course denies these Accusations. As noted an in depth study of cointelpro and CHAOS are long overdue. I’m Currently reading “Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party” which is highly recommended as the definitive scholarly account. I also recommend you check out some of the many Huey P. Newton interviews and press conferences that have been uploaded to Youtube. I’ve also watched great discussions of David Hilliard’s book “Huey: Spirit of the Panther” on You Tube and I look forward to reading it.

Huey Newton’s War Against the Panthers is available online

http://libcom.org.libcom.org/files/WATP.pdf

I found a PDF copy of The Huey P. Newton Reader which I haven’t had a chance to read yet

https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/books/hueypnewtonreader.pdf

Mumia Abu Jamal on the genius of Huey P. Newton

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-genius-of-huey-p-newton/

Huey’s Brother Melvin Newton on the Early Years of Huey Newton

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/huey-p-newtons-brother-melvin-speaks-on-their-panther-histories/

Carlos Martinez wrote an article mostly made up of excerpts from “Revolutionary Suicide”

http://www.invent-the-future.org/2015/02/huey-newton-revolutionary-suicide/

Danny Haiphong on Huey P. Newton His articles last year helped guide my research this year

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/huey-newton-a-revolutionary-hero/

Danny Haiphong on the PBS Documentary

http://www.blackagendareport.com/in_defense_of_panthers

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “War against the Panthers”: The Life and Works of Huey P. Newton, Founder of the Black Panther Party

The Case for the Breakup of the Ukraine

September 4th, 2016 by The Saker

Just as the corporate media is not reporting that the USA and Russia are on a collision course which can end up in nuclear war, the corporate media is not reporting that the Ukraine is falling apart. That does not mean, however, that this is not happening. It is. In fact, it has been for a long while already, but since that collapse is smoothed out by a lack of military action and by the political support of the Empire, it does not appear to be catastrophic (in the sense of causing a sudden dramatic change).

But the signs are all over the place, ranging from the outright bizarre attack by Ukronazi saboteurs on Crimea (which, besides the group which was caught also involved at least two other groups conducting a diversionary reconnaissance by fire against the northeast of the Peninsula) to the quasi daily reports of an “imminent”, but apparently never coming, Ukronazi attack against the Donbass.

On the political front, the Ukrainian Jeanne d’Arc, Nadezhda Savchenko, is now accused of being a Putin agent because she advocates for negotiations with the DNR/LNR, while the regime in Kiev is trying to maintain its relevance to NATO hawks by offering to teach them “how to fight against the Russians”.

The reality, of course, is that financial support from the Empire to the Ukraine has now almost completely dried up due to, among other things, the realization that the Ukies will steal almost all the money they get, and that nobody buys the “the Russkies are coming!” canard anymore. Frankly, the Ukronazi project has outlived its utility and nobody gives a damn what will happen to the Ukrainian people.

And that is a huge mistake.

It is impossible to estimate how many people are still living in the Ukraine today, but most experts believe that the figure is somewhere between 35-40 million people. The vast majority of them are struggling to make a living and their future looks very, very bleak. Remember Dmitri Orlov’s five stages of collapse? They are:

Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in “business as usual” is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that “the market shall provide” is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that “the government will take care of you” is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that “your people will take care of you” is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in “the goodness of humanity” is lost.

“Somalia in the Ukraine”

Even a cursory look at what is happening in the Ukraine clearly shows that Stage 5 has already been reached, quite a while ago, really.

What comes next is basically Somalia. But a big, really big, Somalia, with millions of assault rifles circulating in the population, with major industrial sites capable of triggering another Chernobyl-like disaster, with various death-squads (private or semi-official) freely roaming around the country and imposing their rule with armored vehicles and heavy machine guns. So if the always Euro-centric West could afford to ignore a Somalia in Somalia there is no way it can ignore a Somalia on the EU and NATO border. To put it simply: there is absolutely nothing standing between the Somalia in the Ukraine and the EU. Nothing. Once the inevitable, and this time catastrophic, final collapse happens the resulting explosion will simple take the path of least resistance.

shutterstock_154680077

To the east we have Russia, with her superbly capable state security agencies, the newly created National Guard, large military formations deployed along the borders and, most importantly, an excellent understanding of what is taking place in the Ukraine.

To the west we have basically Conchita Wurst’s Europe, unable to formulate any policy at all (since all orders come from Uncle Sam), with parade-type military forces mostly hallucinating about the “Russian threat”, with security services that can’t even cope with the current flow of immigrants and, most importantly, with a ruling class and population that has no clue or understanding whatsoever of what is happening in the Ukraine.

Russia has another huge advantage: she already controls Crimea and Novorossia and she has already developed the skillset needed to deal with millions of refugees. Yup, while western leaders were busy blaming Russia for everything and making absolutely crazy promises to the Ukrainians, Russia has already had to absorb about 1.5 million refugees who did not only have to be carefully vetted for Nazi saboteurs and terrorists, but then also intelligently relocated. The immigration service did a pretty good job here too by, for example, relocating medical doctors to regions where they were needed (including Chechnia).

All this is to say that when the inevitable explosion happens the Europeans will be the ones to get hit the hardest and will have to scramble to cope with the situation. Seeing how utterly incompetent and clueless the EU comprador elites are, we can fully expect them to make a total mess of the situation, as they always do, and end up worrying mostly about the political fallout resulting from the disaster.

The Americans, protected by the Atlantic Ocean, will do the usual: provide “leadership” and “support” but not offer a single dollar to address the actual measures needed to deal with the situation. Politically, they will do in the Ukraine what they have always done in such situations: declare victory and leave.

At this point the situation will become so undeniably bad that even western politicians will have to get out of their delusional comfort zone: they will then fly to Moscow to get the Russians to fix this mess.

The Russians ain’t coming (yet again)

I will never cease to mantrically repeat that Russia is much weaker than what most people think. Her landmass is immense and her military arguably the best on the planet, but population is relatively small, and her economy is a struggling one. Yes, the future does look bright for Russia, but presently she simply does not have the means to single handedly rescue (resurrect, really) the Ukraine. Not even close.

The reality is that even Crimea has presented Russia with major challenges. After 25 years of total neglect, Crimea basically needs to completely rebuilt most of its infrastructure. The Kremlin has poured billions of Rubles into numerous and large modernization programs, including an immensely expensive but vitally neededbridge over the Kerch strait, and she will continue to rebuilt Crimea in spite of the immense costs involved. Down the road, of course, Crimea will end up being very wealthy, courtesy of an immense tourist potential, the presence of a much expanded Black Sea fleet and because of its strategic location. But for the foreseeable future, Crimea will remain a major burden which Russia will struggle to deal with.

The situation in the Donbass is even bleaker. If Crimean was neglected, the Donbass has been almost totally destroyed. Right now the Russians are paying the pensions of the local population because the Ukronazis have stolen them, in direct violation of the Minsk Agreements. Russia is also alone in supporting the Novorussian republics with humanitarian, medical, technical, administrative and military programs. And while the Novorussians have done an amazing job rebuilding much of Donetsk and a few other cities, most of what lies within artillery range of the Ukronazi forces still lies in ruins and the economy is more or less at a standstill. This will not change until peace truly returns to the region.

What is already quite evident that regardless of who will be in the Kremlin and regardless of how much good will and self-sacrifice the Russians will have, Russia simply does not have the means to salvage the Ukraine. It just ain’t happening. Furthermore, polls show that most Russians are categorically opposed to a full reintegration of the entire Ukraine into Russia. Who could blame them? They are not only acutely aware that the Ukraine has turned into one bloody hell of a mess, but that an entire generation of Ukrainians has now been terminally brainwashed with russophobic hatred. And, frankly, Russia has no use for Nazis of any kind, even if they are fellow Slavs or even if they are basically the very same nation as the Russian one.

So even if tomorrow Petro Poroshenko and his gang decided to invite the Russians to come in an fix this bloody mess, the Russians would decline (so much for the warnings about a Russian invasion!). Oh sure, there are a lot of Ukrainians who kid themselves and think that “the Russians will come and fix this”, but this is a pipe-dream: the Russians ain’t coming. At most, Russia will let the DNR/LNR get back the territories which belonged to their regions and Mariupol might be liberated. But that’s about it. And even if by some miracle the Novorussian tanks end up in Kiev, I don’t see them staying there for very long because the Kremlin fully understands that if they grab it, they own it and they have to fix it. Eventually Russia will, of course, simply be forced absorb the Donbass and make it a part of Russia, mostly because there is no way the Donbass will ever go back to the Ukraine again, but even this process will take time. By then, with both Crimea and the Donbass under her responsibility, Russia will simply be maxed out, economically unable to absorb any further territories (sorry, Balts, no Russian invasion for you either!).

The main problem

So the Russians can’t afford it, the Europeans can’t do anything and the Americans have left. What happens next?

What happens next is that the worse the situation becomes the stronger the obvious need for an international effort will become. Once the Russians tell the Europeans in no equivocal terms “forget about our invasion, we are not doing it” (by then the Europeans will *beg* the Russians to invade!), the Europeans will have to turn to their American masters and tell them that the EU will be regime-changed unless something is urgently done. At which point, Uncle Sam will have to open his purse and offer some real money (assuming the Dollar is still a viable currency when that happens). But even if that happens, I don’t see the main donors agreeing on a Ukrainian project.

In purely political terms, the most likely solution would be to have a neutral Ukrainian (Con-)Federation of some kind. You know – nobody wins, nobody losses and we all remain friends. Sounds nice, of course, but it does not address the main problem of the Ukraine: it is a completely artificial country and it is simply way too big. Add to this a level of corruption and an expertise in misappropriating funds which Somalis can’t even begin to imagine, and you have a country which can probably “absorb” even a major donor’s help effort and remain in ruins. Finally, there is the reality that the folks living in the western Ukraine are completely different from those in the south or east and that even if we remove the Nazi Banderites from the equation there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian nation” with a common project.

Small is beautiful

But imagine if the unitary Ukraine was allowed to break-up, under international supervision and, if needed, even under international military protection, into several smaller states. For one thing this would immediately take care of the neutrality issue: even if western Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would not care much. That would also solve the language problem: not only could each region chose one, or several, official languages, but since these newly independent states would be far more homogeneous they would have much less concerns about accepting a second official language of a relatively small minority (big minorities are usually seen as threat, not small ones). A break-up of the Ukraine into several independent states could also make it much easier for each newly created state to sign bilateral agreements with its neighbors without having to get the agreement of folks living hundred of kilometers away and interested in a totally different set of agreements with their own neighbors. Finally, small states are much easier to integrate into larger unions (EU or EEU) than huge ones.

Breaking up the Ukraine also presents a number of advantages to any peacekeeping/peace-enforcement efforts. For example, while I don’t believe that the Russians would be willing to invade or annex most of the Ukraine, even east of the Dniepr river, I do believe that the Russians would be willing send in a peacekeeping/peace-enforcement force to provide security during a stabilization and transition phase provided that this operation is sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and has the support of all the major players. Likewise, NATO might *finally* find a useful role for itself doing something similar west of the Dniepr river (and since NATO countries are the ones who armed the Nazis, it would be only fair to ask them to now disarm them).

Problems, caveats and risks

Of course, just as any other break-up of a country, this plan does have major flaws and creates as many risks as it offers opportunities. First and foremost, breaking-up any country no matter how artificial that country is, just creates more artificial borders, at least temporarily. That, in turns, sharply increases the risks of violence. But let’s be honest here: the Ukraine has already been broken up into at least three parts (occupied Banderastan, Novorussia and Crimea), and a civil war has already broken out. What is left of the Ukraine today is already extremely violent and it is pretty darn clear that things ain’t gonna get better anytime soon. So we have to compare the comparable and not compare an admittedly bad situation to an invented ideal one. Those who will now object to the break-up of the Ukraine should have taken action before 2014 and not supported a coup which was bound to result in a civil war: Humpty Dumpty is broken now, and all that can still be salvaged are his various pieces.

Besides, we have to keep in mind that the Ukraine is a completely artificial country whose current borders are the creation of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin (something the Ukronazis assiduously avoid remembering). So it’s not like we are discussing the break-up of, say, Japan or France. Finally, I don’t see why some countries are considered prime candidates for break-up (Yugoslavia for example) while other WWII borders would be sacrosanct.

Some will, no doubt, accusing me of being a “Putin agent” for suggesting that the Ukraine ought to be broken up. Others will accusing me of being a CIA/Mossad agent for suggesting that NATO might actually have a legitimate mission west of the Dniepr river. That kind of ad hominems come with the territory and I have long learned to ignore them. All I will reply to those accusations is that while I lay 100% of the blame for the disaster in the Ukraine on the AngloZionist Empire, I also see that now this has become a common problem which will soon turn into a common threat which will require a common solution. I just don’t see anybody capable of bringing back law and order east of the Dniepr besides Russia. Likewise, since Russia will not agree to carry the full Ukrainian burden by herself, I simply don’t see any military forces besides NATO capable of bringing back law and order west of the Dniepr (btw – I use the Dniepr as a convenient conceptual border, but in reality that separation will have to be agreed upon by all parties).

So is the idea of a controlled break-up of the Ukraine a bad one?

Yes, absolutely. It is a terrible one.

But I don’t see a better one.

Do you?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Case for the Breakup of the Ukraine

A treaty facilitating relationships between Vatican and Palestine – referred to as a “state” in the text – has entered full force, sealing de-facto recognition of Palestinian statehood by the Holy See.

The Vatican announced Saturday that its “Comprehensive Agreement” with the “State of Palestine” signed in June 2015 has come into full force, in which the Holy See bolstered support for the two-state solution of the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Referring to Palestine as “state” means Vatican has recognized it as an equal partner, thus sealing support for 2012 UN General Assembly resolution granting Palestine a non-member observer status.

“The Holy See and the State of Palestine have notified each other that the procedural requirements for its [the agreement’s] entry into force have been fulfilled, under the terms of Article 30 of the same Agreement, Israel will disappear from the “landscape of geography,” the Holy See’s said in a statement on Saturday.

The historic 2015 treaty is to secure rights and privileges of the Catholic Church on Palestinian territories in exchange for brokering two-state solution as well as giving more weight to Palestine’s political stance in the world.

It also said to include safeguarding the holy sites in Palestine, equally important for all three Abrahamic religions. In April 2014, a Catholic monastery was vandalized not far from Jerusalem in a hate crime carried out by Israelis. Slogans condemning peace talks with Palestine as well as graffiti disparaging Jesus and Mary were also frequent there recently.

While the entire text is unavailable, the treaty may recognize the 1967 borders as those constituting the Palestinian state, as the two-state solution implies creation of the Palestinian state on territories occupied by Israel during the Six Days War.

Pope Francis is known for calling the Israeli-Palestinian talks to be resumed, though Vatican has provided no detailed political roadmap for reconciliation. In May 2014, Francis visited Bethlehem where he gave a public speech outlining both Israel’s and Palestine’s right to exist. He praised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as a “man of peace,” laying the groundwork for the bilateral treaty.

In the same speech, Francis proposed a common prayer of Christians, Muslims and Jews, which took place in June 2014 and was attended by Palestinian President Abbas, Israel’s former prime minister Shimon Peres as well as the pope himself, asking “for peace for the Holy Land and for all who dwell there.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vatican Fully Recognizes Palestine State. Pope Francis: Israel Will Disappear from The “Landscape of Geography”, Landmark Treaty Enters into Force

Since some time now, Kagame’s Rwandan regime is actively recycling old tactics to create chaos in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and prepare for its nth invasion of the country with the tacit approval of its american and european sponsors.

The ultimate aimed objective is that one day, the two Kivu provinces of Eastern Congo with their immense mineral reserves will become a separate and independent entity from the central government in Kinshasa. And that way, they would fall easily under the guardianship of Kagame on behalf of his western masters.

This would look like the picture we presently have in South Sudan, where the splitting of Sudan appears to have worsened the situation. We’ve learnt that imperialists target primarily African countries of a certain size (DRC has nine neighbouring countries) to break them up with the boomerang effect doing the rest on smaller ones. Divide and rule is here part of their masterplan.

The context

2016 is another year for US elections. Come December, DRC will definitely miss its general elections, because all the necessary requirements to hold them haven’t been initiated yet. Only a few months separate us from the supposed dates that the Congolese constitution stipulates for such occurrence of the political calendar of the country.

In 2017, Rwanda will officially hold as well its presidential elections. President Kagame has already changed the constitution in order to remain in power until 2034. And the incumbent needs a persuasive strategy to win them with a high score. How about a full scale war in the region where his small country would be perceived as an island of peace!

The mentioned different political milestones are critical to the stability of the Great Lakes region. For decades, we’ve seen that American and regional elections’ periods had generally and almost coincided with increased politically motivated crimes or external military interventions by Rwanda and Uganda, in the Congolese internal affairs.

Such interferences were directly or indirectly operated through affiliated and funded rebel groups like AFDL/ RCD-GOMA/ CNDP/ M23. Humanitarian consequences of these interventions have been extremely catastrophic in terms of civilians who lost their lives, or remained destitute or traumatised for life as a consequence.

The hatred campaign

In the making of these cyclical tragic and man-made catastrophes, how does RPF strategists’ ongoing anti-Hutu campaign in DRC fit into the picture of past tragedies created by Kigali to instill chaos and by extension remain in power in Rwanda?

By manipulating the Congolese public opinion about who is the real responsible of the ongoing massacres in Eastern Congo (lighters with pictures of many Rwandan hutu that Kigali accuses of being genocidaires have been circulating in many Congolese cities), Kagame wants the blame of his killings in places like Beni to be on any “hutu” in DRC. Just the same way he blames hutus for the Rwandan genocide he prepared the ground for, then triggered by killing Habyarimana.

He is fuelling hatred of the rest of the Congolese communities against “hutus”, and that way he can commit massive and despicable crimes that will be blamed on the latter. He successfully used similar tactics in Rwanda when he was killing tutsi communities – Abagogwe and in Bugesera -, and hutu political leaders to get them all blamed on the Habyarimana government at the time.

Certainly he must be working hard with his western strategists and sponsors to find a trigger that might ignite the entire Eastern Congo, so he can have a free hand on the massive reserves of minerals that will be needed for his new refinery for coltan to be built in Rwanda.

Plundering resources

Since October 1st 1990, plundering mainly Congolese resources and those of other countries of the Great Lakes region on behalf of his western commissioners has been the ultimate goal. And because of that pursuit, millions of Rwandans, Congolese and Burundians have died and others made dangerously to live under sub-human conditions.

For the non-informed general public, Kagame with his strategists of his Department of Military Intelligence (DMI) and western friends are always busy finding reasons that could justify his interventions in DRC. The World Economic Summit held in May in Rwanda, where Tony Blair and Howard Buffet participated, must’ve come up with the most recent strategy.

Back in 1996, it was the fabricated story of “Banyamulenge” threatened by “genocidaires,” then came the chase to the latter across the entire DRC, after it was the label of “tutsi Congolese” under the banner of M23, and we are back to the hutu “genocidaires”’ focus with the ongoing massacres of Congolese populations in the region of Beni.

The saddest part of all this is that Kagame’s criminal system doesn’t stop from doing anything including initiating criminal activities to make nationals hate hutu refugees wherever they have settled, so they can be chased from those countries.

Devilish ingenuity

Yesterday it was in Zambia. Presently it is in DRC. Next it will be in the Republic of Congo. Apparently, Kagame cannot feel politically safe, as long as there are hutus living peacefully in any part of the world. He fears their would-be-justified revenge for what he did to them since October 1990 and continues doing to their survivors inside and outside Rwanda.

Very resourceful in devilish ingenuity, Kigali is obsessed with the concept of genocide, that since 1990 it has become its trademark. Starting from recent years when Burundi disassociated itself from Rwanda in the latter’s M23 adventure, Kagame has been vocal in accusing his Burundian counterpart of committing genocide against his citizens while at the same time fuelling the fire on the ground.

He is turning all his effort again on DRC, because from what everyone can see, he hasn’t managed to get what he wanted from Burundi. The latter needs however to remain vigilant. He has to return to DRC with the most inconsequent claim but if unchecked, or not denounced, could ignite the whole region.

Sowing hatred against hutus in DRC is a criminal political distraction that Kagame and his colleague dictators Kaguta and Kabila have unleashed. Congolese people don’t gain anything positive out of it. Instead of focusing on the other serious and existential problems they face, they might end up losing a country and their lives by accepting being fed with that animosity from the real responsible of their misery for decades now.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Political Fracturing of The Congo (DRC)? Kagame’s Intensive Anti-Hutu Campaign in DRC

A confidential, 120-page catalogue of spy equipment, originating from British defense firm Cobham and circulated to U.S. law enforcement, touts gear that can intercept wireless calls and text messages, locate people via their mobile phones, and jam cellular communications in a particular area.

The catalogue was obtained by The Intercept as part of a large trove of documents originating within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, where spokesperson Molly Best confirmed Cobham wares have been purchased but did not provide further information. The document provides a rare look at the wide range of electronic surveillance tactics used by police and militaries in the U.S. and abroad, offering equipment ranging from black boxes that can monitor an entire town’s cellular signals to microphones hidden in lighters and cameras hidden in trashcans. Markings date it to 2014.

Cobham, recently cited among several major British firms exporting surveillance technology to oppressive regimes, has counted police in the United States among its clients, Cobham spokesperson Greg Caires confirmed. The company spun off its “Tactical Communications and Surveillance” business into “Domo Tactical Communications” earlier this year, selling the entity to another company and presumably shifting many of those clients into it. Caires declined to comment further on the catalogue obtained by The Intercept or confirm its authenticity, but said it “looked authentic” to him.

“By design, these devices are indiscriminate and operate across a wide area where many people may be present,” said Richard Tynan, a technologist at Privacy International, of the gear in the Cobham catalogue. Such “indiscriminate surveillance systems that are not targeted in any way based on prior suspicion” are “the essence of mass surveillance,” he added.

2014-Cobham-TCS-Catalog120 pages

The national controversy over military-grade spy gear trickling down to local police has largely focused on the “Stingray,” a single type of cellular spy box manufactured by a single company, Harris Corp. But the menu of options available to domestic law enforcement is enormous and poorly understood, mostly because of efforts by both manufacturers and their police clientele to suppress information about their functionality and use. What little we know about Stingrays has often been the result of hard-fought FOIA lawsuits or courtroom disclosures by the government. Whenthe Wall Street Journal began reporting on the use of the Stingray in 2011, the FBI declined to comment on the grounds that even discussing the device’s existence could jeopardize its usefulness. The effort to pry out details about the tool is ongoing; just this past April, the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation prevailed in a federal court case, getting the government to admit it used a Stingray in Wisconsin.

Unsurprisingly, the Cobham catalogue describes itself as “proprietary and confidential” and demands that it “must be returned upon request.” Information about Cobham’s own suite of Stingray-style boxes is almost nonexistent on the web. But starting far down on Page 105 of the catalogue is a section titled “Cellular Surveillance,” wherein the U.K.-based manufacturer of defense and intelligence-oriented hardware lays out all the small wonders it sells for spying on people’s private conversations, whether they’re in Baghdad or Baltimore:

The above page immediately stood out to ACLU attorney Nathan Wessler, who has made Stingray-like devices a major focus of his work for the civil liberties group. Wessler said “the note at the top of the page about the ability to intercept calls and text messages (in addition to the ability to geo-locate phones)” is of particular interest, because “domestic law enforcement agencies generally say they don’t use that capability.” Also remarkable to Wessler is the claim that cellphone users can be “tracked to less than 1 [meter] of accuracy.”Tynan said Cobham’s cellular surveillance devices are, like the Stingray, standard “IMSI catchers,” deeply controversial equipment that can be used to create fake cellular networks and swallow up International Mobile Subscriber Identity fingerprints, calls, and texts. But he noted that such devices can operate on a vast scale:

The Cobham devices in this catalogue are standard interception devices with the ability to masquerade as 1-4 base stations simultaneously. This would allow it to pretend to be 4 different operators or 4 base stations from the same operator or any combination. These specifications allow for the interception of up to 4 calls at a time. The operational distance of these devices would be around 1-2 KM for 3G and significantly greater for 2G devices. Devices of this type can typically acquire the unique identifiers of handsets at a rate of 200 per minute.

Cobham also offers equipment capable of causing immense cellular blackouts and bulk data collection, including the “3G-N” — operated via laptop:

The mammoth “GSM-XPZ PV,” meanwhile, has a maximum output power of 50W, which would make it comparable to cellular antennae constructed by the likes of AT&T or Verizon. Anyone inside its radius (potentially miles from the box itself) could be subject to invisible surveillance.

The slimmer “GSM-XPZ HP Plus,” which appears to be operated via a handheld device, can “take control of target phones” and “create [an] exclusion zone to deny GSM network coverage,” the catalogue states.

 

Also noteworthy are two “direction finding units” — trackers used for following the location of someone’s smartphone (and presumably its user). One, named the “Evolve4-Hand Held Direction Finder,” actually allows a soldier or neighborhood police officer to carry a hidden antenna inside his clothing that he can use to track someone’s whereabouts:

Another, similar device uses a larger antenna that can be mounted onto any car — a design that raises an eyebrow for Wessler: “The low profile means that it is difficult to identify police use of the technology.”

This low-profile technology not only allows agents in a vehicle to track someone’s location via their mobile phone, but it is also “designed to work with any GSM manipulation,” presumably meaning cellular jamming and interception.

Tools for covert spying make up a large part of the catalogue, particularly in the audio and video surveillance sections, where sensors are hidden in everything from pocket knives and birdhouses to suspenders:

 

Elsewhere in the catalogue, Cobham boasts of a corporate history going back more than 70 years, brags about tripling in size since 1997, and talks about “clients and partners in over 100 countries.” Among the company’s stated goals are “to keep people safe and to improve communications.”

But the proliferation of spy tools like those sold by Cobham is actually eroding safety, according to Tynan. “As we move to a more connected world where cars, toys, fridges, and even implantable devices contain miniature cellphone technology, the capability to cause harm using one of these devices becomes ever greater,” he said. “It is unacceptable for our modern critical infrastructure to be so vulnerable to such interception,” and therefore “it is vital that the international standards that underpin our communications are built to the highest security standard possible.”

Correction, Sept. 2: The original version of this story misstated the relationship between Cobham and Domo Tactical Communications.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Leaked Catalogue: Vast Array of British Military Spy Gear Offered to U.S. Police

With much of the recent discussion focusing on Hillary Clinton’s general health condition, and mental acuity in particular, we wonder if the FBI just threw her under the bus with the following statement which links Hillary’s “inability” to remember her transition instructions with her 2012 concussion and blood clot:

CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in early 2013. However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received.

CLINTON did not have any discussions with aides about turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her work-related emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email address of her staff. CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time. Her physical records were boxed up and handled by aides.

The original, on page 9 of 11:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Smoking Gun? FBI Reveals Hillary Could Not Recall Briefings Due To Concussion, Clot

Turkey has flatly rejected US demands that it halt its attacks on Syrian Kurdish militia serving as Washington’s proxies in the fight to dislodge the Islamic State from northern Syrian regions along the Turkish border.

Since Turkey launched its invasion of Syria on August 24, mobilizing Syrian Sunni militia funded, armed and trained by the CIA, it has increasingly directed its firepower not against ISIS, but rather against the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Pentagon-backed formation dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

As a result, two groups of US proxy forces in Washington’s five-year-long effort to topple the pro-Russian and pro-Iranian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad are at war against one another within Syria. The explosive contradictions of US policy are underscored by the fact that US Special Operations forces are embedded within the SDF, which is an American creation in the first place, and could come under attack from Sunni militia organized by the CIA under the rubric of the Free Syrian Army.

Less than two weeks ago, the US was scrambling jets against Syrian government war planes and threatening to attack if Syria did not halt the bombing of YPG forces involved in an offensive against Syrian government troops in the northern Syrian town of Hasakeh. The US at the time warned that its Special Operations troops deployed with the YPG were endangered by the bombing.

Washington characterizes its CIA-backed Sunni proxy forces as “moderate” and “democratic.” It is, however, indicative of their real character that they include the group Noureddine al-Zinki, which has received covert aid from the United States and its allies despite having ties to Al Qaeda-linked groups. A group of its fighters achieved notoriety by videotaping themselves beheading a young prisoner.

The Turkish invasion was launched with the full and public support of the United States, including air cover for Turkish tanks and troops and allied Sunni militia provided by US warplanes. US Vice President Joseph Biden, visiting Ankara for talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the day of the incursion, hailed the attack and ordered the YPG to immediately accede to Turkey’s demand that it pull its forces back to the eastern side of the Euphrates River.

However, once the Turkish-led invasion force had expelled ISIS from the Syrian border town of Jarabulus, Turkey began to attack Kurdish militia and towns to the south, with the near-term aim of dislodging the YPG from the city of Manbij. Earlier this month, after weeks of fighting against ISIS forces in Manbij, the YPG, backed by constant US bombing that claimed hundreds of civilian lives, took control of the strategic town.

Over the weekend, Turkish-led forces reportedly killed some 40 Kurdish civilians in air and artillery attacks on villages near Manbij controlled by the YPG.

Now the US is demanding of the Kurds that they cede control of the town, which they deem central to their goal of establishing a Kurdish enclave in northeastern Syria, while simultaneously denouncing the Turkish government for attacking its Kurdish proxies.

The government of President Erdogan on Wednesday responded to a series of demands from US officials the previous day that it halt its attacks on Kurdish forces in Syria by reiterating its intention to continue its invasion until all “terrorist” forces, Kurdish as well as ISIS fighters, had been eliminated. Ankara considers the YPG and its political arm, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), to be extensions of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey, which it brands a terrorist organization and against which it has been fighting for decades.

Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said that military operations “will continue until all terrorist elements have been neutralized, until all threats to our borders, our lands and our citizens are completely over.”

This followed a speech Sunday by President Erdogan in the southeastern town of Gaziantep, where 54 people were killed the previous week in a suicide attack on a Kurdish wedding. Erdogan declared, “We cannot tolerate any terror organization within or close to our borders. That’s why we are in Jarabulus. And, if necessary, we will not flinch from taking on similar responsibilities in other areas.” He added that “operations against terrorist organizations will continue until the end.”

Turkey dismissed reports of a temporary cease-fire between Turkish-led forces and Kurdish militia in Syria issued Tuesday by the US military and the Kurdish-backed Jarabulus Military Council.

To underscore Ankara’s defiance, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic called US criticism of the scale and goals of the Turkish offensive “unacceptable” and announced that US Ambassador John Bass had been summoned to the ministry to discuss the matter.

Of immediate concern to Washington are the implications of the Turkish attack on the Syrian Kurds for the planned assault on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa. In a Washington Post column published Tuesday, headlined “The US’s Syria policy rests on a treacherous fault line,” David Ignatius cites his own visit to a “secret US training camp in northern Syria” to vouch for the Pentagon’s view of the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces as the “backbone of the coming campaign to take Raqqa.” He frets that the “nasty fight between Turkey and the Syrian Kurdish militia” might delay the Raqqa operation.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Spurning Washington’s Appeals, Turkey Vows to Expand Assault on US-Backed Kurdish Forces in Syria

With the presidential election less than three months away, how are our nominees doing on climate change? Donald Trump rarely mentions climate. When he does, he mocks it. Hillary Clinton? She’s excited to say that she believes in climate change, while condoning fracking and lauding the deeply flawed Paris agreement. Still, we know that we need Hillary, and we must do everything we can to elect her. Most importantly—our movement must be more powerful than ever to push Hillary into the climate leadership that the earth demands.

How can the climate movement develop the political power to fight effectively?

To glean a few answers, I looked to what I regard as one of the most successful examples of social change in the modern era: the neoliberal coup. Between 1975 and 2008, an ideological movement called “neoliberalism” evolved from fringe theory into the dominant economic paradigm of our age, with great help from the Republican Party, and then, the Democrats as well.

Although the GOP is currently a global symbol of cynicism and desperation, it was not always so. The party apparatus facilitated a massive historical transformation over the course of several decades. The climate movement has no shortage of profound ideas, so my question is: What can the climate movement learn from the Republicans’ neoliberal coup?

First, Some Background

Neoliberalism’s rise is well documented in books like Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To Waste, by Philip Mirowski, and A Brief History of Neoliberalism, by David Harvey. What I share here is merely the surface of an incredible story of social change.

Economist Friedrich Hayek convened the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) in 1947 to develop an economic and social vision that would inoculate society from totalitarianism and collectivism. The idea was to make a decisive break from the state-centric regimes and ideologies of the first half of the 20th century. Hayek’s view held that individual freedom depended on replacing the state with the market as the means of economic coordination. The “invisible hand” of the market, he believed, produced more efficient and effective solutions along with more motivated, competitive, and autonomous people. The new body of theory that elaborated these ideas came to be called neoliberalism.

For decades, neoliberal economists were considered fringe theorists and excluded from Washington’s policy elite. The successes of the New Deal, and later the war effort, persuaded Americans that public institutions could meet shared societal challenges. In 1958, 73 percent of Americans trusted their government.

All that changed in the 1970’s. Stagflation—high unemployment, high inflation, and stagnant growth—gripped the US economy. Keynesian policies did little to alleviate the crisis. Many began to criticize government interventions for compounding the problem. Hayek and his American protégé Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974 and 1976 respectively, raising the profile and legitimacy of the neoliberal doctrine that had been developing in the shadows for 30 years. Friedman was accepted into the inner circle of policy-oriented economic advisers, and Washington began to turn to his neoliberal frameworks. As Friedman explained, “when the time came that you had to change…there was an alternative ready there to be picked up.”

The advice was to embrace free markets and deregulation as the solution to stagflation. In 1976, President Jimmy Carter became an aggressive advocate for deregulation. Then came neoliberalism’s true champion, Ronald Reagan, in 1981. He mesmerized the country (and the world) with free market idealism expressed in anti-big government rhetoric, policies, and practices. Reagan’s focus not only produced decades of neoliberal policies in the White House but also birthed a massive ground game to infuse local politics and American culture with neoliberal values.

Something extraordinary happened in the decades that followed. Republicans recruited popular support with what Reagan called an “unswerving commitment to freedom” even as new neoliberal policies actually aimed to protect wealthy individuals and corporations. Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 74 percent to 38 percent. Deregulation freed companies to ship jobs to low-wage countries. These practices set the stage for the rapid growth of income inequality that now marks our society. Historian David Harvey notes that “the median compensation of workers to the salaries of CEOs increased from just over 30 to 1…to nearly 500 to 1” between 1970 and 2000.

Despite the growing evidence of rising inequality and political manipulation, millions continued to support the neoliberal vision of deregulation and free markets. In 2002, 80 percent of Americans believedthat the free market was the best economic system. The Pew Research Center reported in 2014 that “majorities across the globe are willing to accept some inequality to have a free market system.”

Meanwhile, the climate movement marches forward, noble in cause, fighting for the people, committed to protecting everything that we love from chaos. Despite its righteousness, the movement struggles to influence the bones of politics and society. According to Gallup, Americans’ concern for climate change is relatively unchanged since 1989—moving only from 35 percent to 37 percent. Although 63 percent think that global warming is happening, only 48 percent think that humans cause it. We have no political champion in the highest offices. Our leaders avoid bold climate action, settling for weak compromises that allow crisis to grow unchecked.

Neoliberal thinking is now the status quo among Republicans, many Democrats, and most major institutions—it’s called “The Washington Consensus.” It was the Republican Party, though, that adopted neoliberalism as its guiding framework and propelled it to a level of political and cultural commitment to which most social movements can only dream. Despite the very different values and strategies at play, there are practical components of social change in the neoliberal triumph that have relevance to the climate cause. If a movement that produces so much suffering and corruption can overtake society, then a righteous movement of the people should be able to do that and more.

The Theory: Shared Vision for a Long Game

The Republican’s neoliberal movement rests on a shared vision and a long-range understanding of how to translate that vision from theory to practice. From the very beginning, neoliberals were committed to a disciplined long game. MPS began articulating its vision in 1947, but it wasn’t until the 1970s that its ideology burst onto the public stage. During the intervening years, an extensive global effort prepared for the moment when neoliberalism would emerge victorious. As Daniel Stedman Jones writes in Masters of the Universe, this gestation period “helped turned neoliberal thought into a neoliberal political program.” The movement sustained a long term vision in order to build the power, insight, and agenda for political and cultural domination.

Neoliberals also insisted on a unified vision. For example, Jones writes that the 30-year neoliberal incubation from the 1940s until the 1970s “was held together by the Mont Pelerin Society.” Philip Mirowski writes that it was “a relatively shared ontology…with a more-or-less shared set of propositions about markets and political economy.” United by an explicit theory of change, the movement could operate in many different fields while furthering the same goals. This coordinated front made it possible to drive a new political, economic, and social agenda.

These principles of shared vision and a long-game perspective translated into the GOP’s conceptual and policy apparatus. As Jones writes, the 1980s witnessed “a fundamental move to a new political culture dominated by the free market…. Neoliberal thinkers and activists helped shape the changed economic approach epitomized by Thatcher and Reagan’s governments.” Every president that followed—both Bush presidencies, Clinton, and Obama—was thrust into an agenda already shaped by neoliberal politics. The durability of this transformation is reflected in the 2016 Republican Platform. The section on “government” reads: “Much of what the federal government does can be improved, much should be replaced, and much needs to be done away with or returned to the states.” This is the very vision that Reagan inculcated into the Republican Party in 1981, when he said “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

The climate movement has developed as a social force since the 1980s, but it does not yet have the shared vision or long game capable of changing the core of American society. Our work tends to be defined by months or years, not decades. For example, the movement developed a multi-month plan around COP21, the international climate negotiations last December. Organizers prepared for COP21, rallied during COP21, and coordinated actions during the spring of 2016 to continue momentum. But where is our long game? Where is the intellectual framework that unites us, propels our work forward, coordinated and cohesive? As Robert Brulle, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science at Drexel University, told me: “I don’t think that we have a long game at all…. Greens have really ceded the long-term intellectual arguments…to the conservative movement…. If you want to have long lasting staying power, you have to carry it out into the long term.” We need to know what we’re about, where we are going, and how we will get there.

The neoliberal movement’s vision was forged among an exclusive group of thinkers and then fed to a political party that champions elites. The climate movement will need to produce a shared vision in ways that are consistent with our democratic values. It’s been done before. In 1991, 300 delegates to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit crafted the “Principles for Environmental Justice,” a vision that still guides the environmental justice movement today. What if 300 climate activists convened to develop our movement’s framework?

The Practice: Wading into the Mainstrain

An important step in the neoliberal ascent was clean, clear, compelling messaging that exemplified neoliberal values, garnered support, and could flow through the Republican Party. One word did most of the work: freedom. People should be able to do what they want, Republicans urged. The government shouldn’t interfere. The market knows best. These messages appealed to the economic frustrations of millions of people. They also allowed elected officials to pursue almost any agenda for the sake of freedom. Just look at George W. Bush’s rationale for the Iraq War. As he said at the beginning of the war: “The greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence.”

Another key component of the mainstream infusion was think tanks—institutions that incubated ideas and policies. Neoliberalism’s converts developed a “transatlantic network,” as Jones calls it, that established think tanks to further the cause. As Jones comments, these “nodes” absorbed ideas from neoliberalism’s Founding Fathers and turned them into innovative policy formulations. It was these think tanks that then nurtured neoliberal thinking for three decades, maintained close relationships with Republican politicians, and ultimately fed innovative policies to Washington’s elite for mainstream diffusion. The Heritage Foundation was ground zero for the GOP’s original position on individual mandates for health insurance. (In 1983, Ronald Reagan told a Heritage gathering that they were leading an “intellectual revolution.”)

The American Enterprise Institute, another conservative policy incubator, worked closely with George W. Bush, who said: “I admire AEI a lot—I’m sure you know that. After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people.” Republicans’ attacks on environmental regulations and climate science stems from outfits like the Cato Institute. As historian Phillip Mirowski told me, “The real action is in the think tanks these days.” Mirowski adds that the left has “no conception of the amount of regimentation it takes to achieve something like this.”

The lack of a shared intellectual platform, clear mainstream messaging, and methodical implementation leaves the climate movement playing defense. The most prominent example is our endless battle against climate denial, a campaign that has been incubated in think tanks and propagated by many Republicans. A quick glimpse into the pervasiveness of climate denial: A recent study found that “oil industry ads outpaced climate-related coverage by almost 5-to-1” on CNN after 2015 was declared the hottest year on record. In the classroom, climate education is riddled with climate denial and misinformation. How can we make a new world when we’re constantly fighting the old one?

The best defense is a good offense. Brulle agrees that we need to “start taking examples from how effective the conservative movement has been and try to apply some of the strategies…. we need to expand our tactics to encompass some of this.” We focus on local specific campaigns to defend ourselves against the ever-present threats to home, family, and life. This work is crucial, but we also need to take the time to develop a vision, incubate our thinking, develop policies, disseminate new intellectual frameworks, and implement new action strategies. Some will say that the climate movement doesn’t have time to develop this kind of intellectual and political apparatus. My response: We don’t have the time not to. (A quick note: I am aware that the Republican neoliberal offensive was well funded by elite interests. I think that funding the climate movement’s growth is possible… but that’s an article for another time.)

The Politics: From the West Wing to West Virginia

The next lesson to learn from the Republican neoliberal coup is the impressive top-down and bottom-up political apparatus. As Mirowski told me, true success stems from having a “central intellectual guide and a set of projects at the local, individual, parochial level.”

Neoliberalism found its most effective political champion in Ronald Reagan. He was the first successful politician in the postwar era to orient the American political system around a pro-business, pro–free market, anti-regulation framework. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush advanced the cause after Reagan. Clinton and Obama pushed it hard too. But the Republicans also developed a genuine grassroots strategy. They intentionally activated new constituencies to solidify bottom-up support for the neoliberal vision. In the 1970’s, the GOP allied with evangelical Christians, the white working class, and later the white middle class under the banner of “freedom” and “free markets.” These voters reliably elected candidates who championed the neoliberal cause.

The climate movement simply does not have this kind of electoral or political power. We don’t have a top-down champion. Bernie Sanders was the only climate leader among the 2016 Presidential candidates. His climate leadership was not enough to win him the nomination. Hillary Clinton supports fracking and has set weak climate goals. Donald Trump has already checked out to another planet.

We’re outnumbered on the grassroots front too. According to Gallup, climate change is of “below average” importance this election. Only 58 percent of “consistently liberal” citizens vote all the time, compared to 78 percent of “consistently conservative” voters. Clinton is reluctant to lead boldly on climate for fear that she will lose moderate voters and wealthy supporters. Her vice-presidential nominee supports fracking and offshore drilling. The “climate vote” isn’t yet powerful enough to win political leaders’ attention or commitment.

Harnessing political power is the next challenge for our movement. It means finding new ways to influence politics while holding elected officials accountable for their actions. As a Nation Fellow this year, I am writing a book that explores concrete solutions to this challenge: How does the climate movement become a more effective grassroots political force?

The bad news is that the Republican neoliberal coup—united behind a cohesive ideology and a thoughtful political, policy, and PR long game—successfully infiltrated the very marrow of American culture and politics. Here’s the good news: The climate movement can do this, and do it better. We know that nothing can compare with a movement that fights for the many, not the few. Bernie Sanders’s political revolution demonstrates that many Americans are already in rebellion against a political class that protects only elites. The climate movements offers our society truth instead of denial, survival instead of chaos, justice instead of injustice, equality instead of inequality, and democracy instead of oligarchy. Our own unified vision, methodical long game, mainstream communication strategies, innovative policies, and political power can be forged by, for, and of the people.

Yes, reorienting our politics and society around climate justice is a monumental challenge, but it’s a challenge that we must face if we are to avoid the worst of climate change. Our movement can accept this challenge because we march in the name of love. What can stop us?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What the Climate Movement Can Learn from the “Neoliberal Coup”

On August 30, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it would utilize Congress’ blessing, given to it in the form of passed legislation, to proceed with online bidding for oil and gas located on U.S.public lands. 

The industry push to make online bidding the norm — as opposed to standard in-person, oral bidding — began with afervorous pitch in 2009 in reaction to the “Bidder 70” civil disobedience action of activist Tim DeChristopher at an auction in Utah. It has culminated seven years later in reaction to another movement, this one involving the U.S. environmental movement at-large and not just a single person, otherwise known as the Keep It The Ground campaign.

Back in 2009, citing DeChristopher indirectly in a U.S. Department of Interior Office of Inspector General report, the BLMoversaw an online bidding pilot project to test out the internet bidding technology of a company named EnergyNet. EnergyNet, which holds online bids for oil and gas in multiple state jurisdictions, has lobbied the federal government for over a decade to move toward online bidding.

Protestors hold sign that says "Keep it in the ground."

Photo Credit: Flickr | Wildearth Guardians

PR, Lobbying Campaign

As of late, another industry-funded group — the Western Energy Alliance (WEA), of which EnergyNet sits as a member — has launched an aggressive public relations campaign to “end the circus” of protests outside of BLM oil and gas bids and move toward online bidding. EnergyNet will conduct an online-based bid for oil and gas on U.S. public lands on September 20.

“If protesters disrupt a lease sale, we suggest BLM hold additional auctions online within that same quarter,” WEA proclaimson its website. “Online auctions also have added cost-savings benefits as venues and security personnel do not have to be enlisted to handle potentially unruly crowds.”

WEA and EnergyNet share the same federal-level lobbyist, Tim Stewart, whose brother Chris is a Republican U.S.Representative for Utah. Their nephew Cody Stewart is an energy aide for Utah’s Republican Governor Gary Herbert, who recently served as Chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

Furthermore, Spencer Kimball — a staff member on the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee — formerly worked for WEA as a Manager of Government Affairs. Tim Stewart formerly served as Chief of Staff for the House Natural Resources Committee.

In a press release, WEA lobbyist Kathleen Sgamma praised the BLM’s online bidding decision.

“We’re pleased BLM is moving forward with online oil and natural gas lease auctions to take advantage of well-established technology,” she said. “Transitioning auctions from in-person to online will enable BLM to meet its obligations under existing law, reduce administrative costs, and eliminate disruptions from Keep-It-in-the-Ground protesters.”

Offshore Bill, Dueling Lawsuits

Congressional legislation is also moving along which would push Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to transition to online bidding for offshore oil and gas in federal waters, again in reaction to Keep It In The Ground. In August,BOEM held its auction of 23.8 million acres of oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico online.

“They are trying to hide from our movement,” Blake Kopcho of the Center for Biological Diversity recently told Earth Island Journal. “We have shown up at every BLM and BOEM fossil fuel auction over the last year since we launched this campaign. And I think the [Obama] administration really dislikes the attention that we are bringing to the fact that, in the emerging climate crisis, the federal government continues to offer up our public lands and waters for pennies on the acre to the most profitable industry in the history of the world to continue to burn fossil fuels.”

Physicians for Social Responsibility and WildEarth Guardians filed a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lawsuit on August 25 against the BLM for not “properly analyzing, at the programmatic or project level, the ensuing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to our climate” the leasing of over 379,950 acres of U.S. public lands located in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Meanwhile, despite winning its push for online bidding for onshore oil and gas, WEA filed its own lawsuit two weeks earlier on August 11 against the BLM for not leasing off enough oil and gas on U.S. public lands at a rapid enough pace.

“Through protests and petitions, the Keep-It-in-the-Ground movement is trying to coerce BLM into violating the law by stopping all leasing on federal lands,” Sgamma said in a press release. “Yet without doing anything, activists could achieve the same goal just by leaving BLM to its own devices.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Administration Moves Onshore Oil and Gas Lease Auctions Online To Stymie ‘Keep It In The Ground’ Protests

On August 9 we reported here on a U.S. spy, Lindsey Snell, who worked with Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria and was arrested when crossing the border from Syria into Turkey:

The Turkish military recently “rescued” a CIA spy who was wounded in the north Latakia region of Syria. The U.S. send helicopters to help its asset. The spy turned out to be journalist Lindsey Snell working on a report with Nusra for the intelligence outfit Vocativ. She was put into Turkish jail for illegally crossing the border.

There is no doubt from the available information that Snell was a spy. The Turkish media call her such. She was with Nusra, not for the first time, had some trouble and needed to get out. The U.S. military launched a huge operation to help her. That is not the treatment a real journalist would get.

Three weeks after our report some professional journalist finally picked up on the story and asked during the U.S. State Department briefing:

QUESTION: Do you have any information about a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Who was arrested in Turkey? Yes. I can confirm that U.S. citizen Lindsey Snell was detained in Turkey on the 7th of August, 2016. She is currently being held in a prison facility in Hatay Province. I believe that’s how you say it. Consular officers from the consulate in Adana visited Ms. Snell most recently on the 26th of this month and are providing all possible consular assistance. The embassy and the department are following this case closely. State Department officials have been in contact with Turkish Government officials regarding this case.

QUESTION: […] was the arrest at all related to her profession as a journalist or in any case – any way associated with that?

MR KIRBY: What I – what we understand is that she has been charged with violating a military zone, but I can’t speak to her reasons for being in Syria, for traveling there. I can’t speak to that. What I can tell you is that we’ve been informed she was charged with violating a military zone.

The State Department “can’t speak of” what Snell did in Syria – twice. Why? Is that secret? Note that Kirby does not even call that “U.S. citizen” a “journalist”, even while his keyword provider calls her such.

Despite the reluctance of the State Department to call Snell a journalist the main stream “western” media, picking up from the State briefing, now calls her such and does not mention that Snell is obviously a spy. The BBCCBS and NBC have reports of the issue. But none of those reports touches on the very weird circumstance of Lindsey Snell’s “rescue” and “arrest”. None of them will tell you you that she was a spy.

NBC goes the furthest by digging up another State source and quoting the Hatay regional governor:

A State Department official said the U.S. government was aware of Snell’s presence in Syria and that helping her to get to a safe location was the agency’s consistent and overriding goal.U.S. personnel were dispatched to the Turkey-Syria border to support Snell’s safe exit from the war-ravaged country but Snell was subsequently detained by Turkish authorities, the official said.

Hatay’s governor, Ercan Topaca, told the state-run Anadolu Agency: “A U.S. journalist was captured while she was trying to cross the border illegally; she was taken to court and remanded. The trial phase is ongoing. For now, we do not know if she is a spy or not.”

NBC  just mentions that “U.S. personnel were dispatched”. That sounds like a bureaucrat drove to the border to help the “journalist” to enter Turkey. But that “U.S. personnel” consisted of two armed drones and several military helicopters which flew in the area over several days while the exfiltration of Snell was ongoing. Has anyone ever heard of any journalist for whom the U.S. military would launch such an extensive operation? The Turkish media had made no secret of what happened.  As Hurriyet reported on August 7:

A female intelligence agent from the United States has been saved by Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) soldiers after a two-day operation on the Syrian border, according to a report. Drones and helicopters participated in the operation to save the agent, who had been wounded in Syria.Two U.S. helicopters landed in a village in the Yayladağı district of the southern province of Hatay on Aug. 5, prompting locals to call officials and report the landing.

Is there any real freelance “journalist” who embeds with Jabhat ql-Nusra and for whom the U.S. would “dispatch U.S. personnel” in the form of helicopters and Hellfire armed drones? No. It is obvious that there was some very “special interest” for Snell and unlike the usual “western” media Hurriyet has no problem reporting that:

[T]he U.S. agent, whose name was not revealed as she was on a confidential operation, wasassigned to a task in Syria and wounded on Aug. 3, after which she called for evacuation. She reportedly sent her coordinates to U.S. officials, allowing them to determine her exact location.

Two U.S. drones scanned the area for two days, as two U.S. helicopters were on standby on the Turkish side of the border.

Snell was picked up by Turkish agents and arrested for crossing the border unauthorized. The Turkish intelligence service MIT will dislike any U.S. spy who tries to get involved with one of its bests assets in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra aka al-Qaeda.

The Turks want to keep Nusra under their own control. Even after making nice with RussiaTurkey continues its nefarious relations with the UN designated terrorists. According to the Russian military Turkey is up to today supplying Nusra in Idleb and Aleppo:

“We see that the opposition in general and Jabhat Fatah Al-Sham in particular keep receiving enforcements through the Syrian-Turkish border […]” Rogachev told RIA Novosti.

The mainstream “western” media must be intentionally holding back on the case of agent Lindsey Snell. None of them mentions the use of U.S. helicopters and drones with regards to the “journalist”. The governor of Hatay had confirmed their extensive use. Isn’t such a use of military assets extraordinary? The facts about the “rescue” are openly available and have been reported by serious Turkish media.Why leave them out? Why let the cover-up stand?

I would have expected more inquisitiveness and concern from CBS, NBC and from the BBC about the “journalist” cover the CIA uses for this agent.

There is an official ban on the CIA use of “journalist” cover for foreign operations since 1977. There are of course exceptions and whoever expects the CIA to stick to regulations or laws needs some lessons in reality perception. Still, any such use by the CIA makes the life of real journalist more difficult and more dangerous.

One would expect of serious media and real journalists to point that out, to raise some public hell with the CIA and to generally show more concern about the issue.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CIA Abuses “Journalist” Cover to Spy on Al-Qaeda in Syria – Media Acquiesce – Endanger Real Journos

The Pledge of Allegiance is not an expression of patriotism. It is a loyalty oath that one normally associates with totalitarian regimes. People who love freedom, should be appalled by the idea our children are being coerced to stand and declare their support for the state. This is the worst form of indoctrination and it is completely anathema to the principals articulated in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I cannot imagine outspoken libertarians like Thomas Jefferson or Tom Paine ever proclaiming their loyalty to the state when they correctly saw the state as the greatest threat to individual freedom. Which it is.

Now I know that many people think the Pledge is simply an affirmation of their respect for the flag, their love for the country, and their gratitude to the men and women who fought in America’s wars. But that’s not what it is. The Pledge is an attempt to impose conformity on the masses and compel them to click their heels and proclaim their devotion to the Fatherland. That’s not how it’s supposed to work in a democracy. In a democracy, the representatives of the state are supposed to pledge their loyalty to the people and to the laws that protect them. That’s the correct relationship between the state and the people. The Pledge turns that whole concept on its head.

shutterstock_360951227

Now I’d have no problem if our schoolchildren recited the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence before class every day:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

That’s great stuff, unfortunately, the people who run this country would never allow it. They’d never allow our kids to recite an incendiary, revolutionary document like that every day for fear it would incite violence against the state. What they want is “good Germans”, not revolutionaries, not freedom-loving populists, and not well-informed, critical thinking individuals who can see through the sham of their jingoistic propaganda. They want people who are going to follow the rules, do what they’re told, fight the wars, and perform their worktime drudgery for 30 or 40 years until they’re carted off to the glue factory. That’s what they want. Reciting the Pledge fits perfectly with this dumbed-down version of permanent indentured servitude. It provides the ideological foundation for bovine acquiescence to the demands of the state and the crooks who run it behind the tri-color banner.

The fact that institutions like the Pledge are never challenged in a public format, points to deeper problems with the media and the way our kids are being educated. And while I don’t have time to talk about that now, it makes me wonder where are the people to question these silly recitations that undermine democracy and personal liberty? Why are their voices never heard?

I can’t answer that, but when I see the state deliberately eviscerating habeas corpus and locking away terror suspects for life with no evidence, no witnesses, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no way to defend themselves or claim their innocence in a court of law or before a jury of their peers–when I see the US state assuming the same unchecked, tyrannical powers as all of the dictatorships that went before them– I grow increasingly concerned that this lack of critical thinking is costing the country quite dearly. We are on the verge of losing what-little democracy we have left because people are incapable of looking around and asking ‘what the hell is going on?’

Pulling your head out of the sand and asking questions is not a sign of disloyalty. It’s a sign of intelligence, the kind of intelligence this country needs to stop the bloody wars and get back on track.

So next time you’re in a situation where you’re asked to stand up and recite the pledge, just pause for a minute and ask yourself what it really means. Is it really an expression of “love of country” or a is it a vacuous and demeaning exercise in nationalism that should be done away with ASAP?

I’d say, it’s the latter.

MikeWhitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Wars: Can We Please Get Rid of the “Pledge of Allegiance”?

Clashes between terrorist factions and pro-government forces continued across Hama.

On September 1, during an attack on Iskandariyah and Ma’ardis in the northern countryside of Hama, terrorists claimed Syrian Arab Army casualties ranging from 10-23 soldiers, along with ‘several’ vehicles.

The FSA and terrorist factions reportedly captured a Russian missile battalion position northeast of Ma’ardis. Both rebels and government sources confirmed that the village of Ma’an remains under government control. The SAA and National Defense Forces stationed in Ma’an repelled multiple attempts by Jund al-Aqsa to occupy the village, briefly losing control of an outer barrier checkpoint.

Elsewhere in northern Hama, Jaish al-Nasr and its allies launched an attack on the town of Souran. The Islamist rebels reported the destruction of a BMP infantry fighting vehicle attempting to enter the town via the highway north of Souran.

Officers were not immune from the combat in northern Hama, with the SAA losing Major General Ali Sharaf Makhlouf, Commander of the Mechanized Brigade 87, while terrorist faction, Ansar al-Deen, lost its commander, Abo Ahmad Nayef.

Terrorist factions also took aim at the city of Hama itself. Indiscriminate artillery barrages on Mount Zayn al-Abdeen rocked the fortifications protecting an important local shrine.

By September 2, some 1,000 Syrian army soldiers, led by Gen. Fadl Al Din Myka’il, have arrived in northern Hama to combat the terrorist incursions.  The joint pro-government forces have pushed terrorists from the villages of Ma’ardis and Iskandariyah and continued counter-attacks in the area.

After liberation of the Ramouseh Technical School in Aleppo, the SAA and their allies are preparing for further advances in the area. Russian and Syrian warplanes and the Syrian army’s artillery and battle tanks have been shelling the central part of the Ramouseh Artillery Base in order to neutralize defenses of Jaish al-Fatah militants. Experts suggest that the final storm of the central part of artillery base can be expected in 1-2 days. These attacks are synchronized with the ongoing advance on the Ramouseh-Khan Tuman road from the Tal Al Sanoubrat hill in southern Aleppo. Success of any of these advances will lead to restoration of physical encirclement of the militants in eastern Aleppo.

Separately, the Syrian army and Hezbollah launched an advance on the al-Shurfah quarries from their positions at the hills of Um al-Qara’ and Mahrouqat. If the loyalists are able to set control of al-Shurfah and intrench there, they will strengthen significantly their positions along the Khan Tuman-Ramouseh road.

The terrorist faction Ahrar al-Sham also claimed to have destroyed a BMP climbing al-Jameiat hill in Southern Aleppo.

Near the Turkish border, the so-called Free Syrian Army claimed dramatic advances against the Islamic State, capturing Zughrah, al-Kulliyah and Tal Aghbar. However, PR statements were alloyed with significant loses to ISIS west of Jarabulus. Meanwhile, a large armored brigade of the Turkish Armed Forces were reported to have deployed 11 kilometers away from Manbij, where Kurdish forces are set to evacuate.

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

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

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian War Report: Heavy Clashes in Northern Hama. Islamist Rebels Counterattack, Targeting Russia Missile Battalion. Report

Turkey’s New Role: From NATO Lapdog to Emerging Empire?

September 3rd, 2016 by Gearóid Ó Colmáin

The recent Turkish coup attempt marks a turning point in NATO’s war on Syria. An emerging empire and portal to the orient, Turkey has always played a key role in NATO’s ‘Drang Nach Osten’- the drive to encircle Russia, destroy its client-states Syria and Ukraine, and serve as a bulwark against other emerging powers such as Iran. But now it seems Turkey may no longer be carrying out its designated role.

That the United States was behind the coup attempt there is little doubt, though some prominent analysts such as Thierry Meyssan disagree that the coup was orchestrated by Gülenists. Fethullah Gülen is known to be close to the CIA and the U.S. obmutescence during the coup was typical of standard procedure during U.S. covert regime change operations. While Erdoğan is unquestionably a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Syria and Libya and heavy repression at home, nonetheless, as in the case of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, the Turkish leader seems to have fallen out of favour in the West.

The media have already begun the predictable, clichéd demonisation process –  publishing pictures of the Turkish incumbent’s opulent palaces etc. Turkey desperately needs a new, progressive regime, which would contribute to peace in the Middle East. But if the choice is between a monster the CIA wants out and a monster the CIA wants in, the latter is the best option as it weakens U.S. imperialism.

Thanks to Ming-yen Hsu - https://www.flickr.com/photos/myhsu/. Used under Creative Commons. No modifications have been made.

Turkey’s strategic imperatives

Stratfor director George Friedman claims Turkey is now a world power whose military is more powerful than the French or British. The U.S. strategy for Europe was to force Turkish entry into the EU – most recently through weapons of mass migration. The policy worked in Turkey’s favour. But the British decision to exit the European Union changed the balance of power. Moscow took the opportunity to extend the hand of friendship once more to Ankara. Just before the July 19th  coup attempt, there were reports of a possible détente between Turkey and Syria.

U.S./Turkish relations have soured considerably since 2013 when U.S.-based billionaire Fethullah Gülen fomented the Gezi Park protest movement against the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan regime. Though there was certainly popular discontent in the country with Erdoğan’s Islamisation policies and his support for terrorism in Syria, the Gezi Park protests were really about pushing Gülen’s attempt to destabilise the regime and take over. Fethullah Gülen is the founder of a vast empire of private prep schools throughout the world. He promotes an extremist form of Islam.

Though originally close to Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), Gülen’s movement Hizmat (service) is less nationalist and therefore more amenable to U.S./Zionist interests. The Gülenist network operates as a fifth column in Turkey, a para-state operating at the highest levels of the military, intelligence and judicial apparatuses. I was asked by Russian state media RT to comment on the Turkish shooting down of a Russian jet in November 2015. I said then that the Turkish government was acting against the national interest. It has since transpired that the attack was carried out by Gülenist military personnel who have been prosecuted for the crime. President Erdoğan recently apologised to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the attack. In fact, Turkey had indicated on July 13ththat it intended to normalise relations with Syria, thus ending the war against Assad.  Contacts between Ankara and Damascus have been growing in recent months and it now looks like Russia and Turkey may have begun to mend relations. Southstream, Russia’s plan to pipe oil to Europe through Turkey, had to be abandoned last year due to U.S. pressure on Ankara. There is now a possibility of renegotiation recommencing between Moscow and Ankara. Recent Turkish/Iranian contacts also indicate that the Kurdish question is forcing Ankara to re-calibrate its foreign policy.

Although secret talks have reportedly been taking place between Ankara and Damascus, the two countries remain at war in Syria and there is no change yet in the official position of either state.

The geopolitical theories of Greek turkologist Dmitiry Kitsikis have had a major influence on Turkish foreign policy. Kitsikis is famous for promoting the notion of Turkey as a civilisation-state which naturally encompasses the region stretching from North Africa, through the Balkans and Eastern Europe; Kitsikis refers to this as the ‘Intermediate Region’. Turkey’s previous ‘good neighbourly’ policy seemed to be in accordance with  Kitsikian geopolitics but was sabotaged by Ankara’s treacherous collaboration with U.S. chaos strategy in the Middle East since the U.S.- fomented ‘Arab Spring’ in 2011.

U.S. policy towards Turkey has always been to support the regime as a strong regional power to wield against Russia while at the same time supporting the Kurdish YPG (people’s defense units) in Syria. U.S. support for the Kurds is part of the long-term geopolitical remodeling of the region – the creation of what former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice at the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings in 2011 referred to as the “New Middle East”. The U.S. and Israel want to carve out a Kurdistan in the region, which would become a client-state of Israel; thus providing the Zionist regime with an effective proxy army against its Arab enemies –  once the Da’esh-fomented genocide has created the requisite Lebensraum.

Erdoğan’s ambitions of reviving the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East ultimately threaten U.S. hegemony. The United States Navy rules the waves. The U.S. will not allow another major maritime power to threaten its global control. Rapid economic growth and the paying off of its IMF debt in 2013 have seen Turkey emerge more and more as a strategic regional power with increasing independence and political assertiveness. Turkish investment in Africa has increased more than ten-fold since 2000. The Turks  have opened embassies all over Africa. Ankara is selling the notion of ‘virtuous power’ in Africa with infrastructural development projects and investments designed to compete with China and the United States. Turkish involvement in Somalia has turned the East African nation into a veritable client-state of the emerging Turkish Empire. In 2015 Turkey opened a military base in Somalia. Turkey will henceforth have a strategic reach in the Gulf of Aden, one of the most important oil choke-points in the world. Ankara also has plans to establish military bases in Azerbaijan, Qatar and Georgia.

The Turkish regime has been attempting to oust the presence of the Gülenist movement in many African countries by offering to supply  state funds for education programmes. A recent statement by a Turkish government spokesman alluded to Ankara’s desire to counter Western ‘neo-colonial’ interests in Africa. The statement clearly shows that Turkey intends to join the new ‘scramble for Africa’ as part of neo-ottoman imperialism.

Turkey in Central Asia and China

Turkey has considerable power and influence in Central Asia where many Turkic-speaking people reside. In 2009, Turkey helped found the Cooperation Council of Turkic Speaking States.  Turkish investment has been increasing in Central Asia. Ankara has also been training military personnel in Central Asian states.  The oil-rich Turkmenistan is one nation which has received visits in recent years from the ‘Sublime Porte’. During its spat with Moscow, Ankara sought to deepen ties with Turkmenistan in hopes of enticing that state to participate in the Trans-Caspian Pipeline – a project to pipe gas from the Caspian Sea through Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey to Europe, thereby bypassing Russia. Turkey also has considerable influence in Turkic speaking regions of the Russian Federation such as Tartarstan. Though relations with Moscow have now improved, Ankara’s links in Central Asia remain key strategic levers in the renaissance of Turkish imperialism.

Turkey’s links with Uighur terrorists in China’s troubled Xinjiang (East Turkestan) province has led to diplomatic rows with Beijing. Many of the Uighur terrorists operating against China have been trained and facilitated by Turkey in Syria. Although Turkey’s support for Uighur terrorists in Xinjiang complies with NATO policy towards China, it shows once again the potential reach of Turkish power.

Turkey’s drive for world power status, together with the decline of Europe as a political entity, means that Ankara will continue to flex its muscles in the international arena. The French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has said that Turkey is no longer a reliable partner in NATO’s fight against the Islamic State. Of course, Ankara was never a partner in the war against the Islamic State as the Turkish regime has been arming and training the Islamic State terrorists along with its NATO partners and has been caught in flagrante delicto on several occasions. But what the French Foreign Minister’s remarks mean is that Turkey may no longer be as sanguine in its support for terrorism in Syria, due to the West’s support for the Kurds; rapprochement with Moscow and Damascus, and now more than ever after the failed U.S.-backed coup attempt.

Israel’s double game

The situation is further complicated by Israel’s stance towards the Turkish coup attempt and its aftermath. The Turkish regime thanked Israel for its help quashing the coup. Relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara have improved, in spite of the current dispute with Washington. One should not overlook the fact that, although the Israeli Lobby exerts considerable control over U.S. foreign policy, Israel often adopts a friendlier attitude to many of America’s so-called enemies. Israel’s relationship with Belarus has always been generally good, in spite of repeated U.S. aggression. Israel’s relationship with Azerbaijan  has been good, in spite of major diplomatic rows with the U.S..

Israeli/Russian relations are far better than Moscow’s relationship with Washington. Israel has always had a more nuanced oriental policy than the U.S. The Israelis are masters at playing both sides off each other in international conflicts. During the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s regime while Israel eventually provided Israel covert supplies of weapons to  Iran with on U.S. approval. The Israelis had established ties with Iranian fifth columnists Mir-Hossein Moussavi and Hachemi Rafsanjani. The aforementioned Stratfor director George Friedman has said that the Iran/Iraq war would be a template for dealing with the rise of Turkey as a world power.

A rising maritime power in trouble?

Turkey will pay dearly for the folly of abandoning its ‘good neighbourly’ regional policy, which showed some promise until 2011. It had a glorious opportunity then to exercise ‘virtuous power’. Now the country could be facing civil war. The purge of Gülenists in the Turkish regime has already led to hundreds of arrests of top military and government personnel. If Turkey is to emerge as a regional empire, it will have to leave the Zionist axis and find a solution to the Kurdish question in conjunction with Syria and Russia. It is currently beginning to appear that  previous secret plans agreed upon by Ankara and Paris to carve out a Kurdish state in Northern Syria may have to be abandoned. As the French escalate bombing of Raqqa in Syria in the wake of the Nice terrorist psyops, Turkey could be facing an acute state of emergency.

The United States cannot tolerate the emergence of a major maritime power like Turkey which, since the Cold War, has been used as a tool against Russia. Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase holds up to 80 percent of Washington’s nuclear arsenal in Europe. A significant oriental shift in Ankara’s  foreign policy would signal the end of America’s prospects of ‘full spectrum dominance’, creating the conditions for a new imperial division of the world- a geopolitical reconfiguration some might imagine as falling in with conjectures of a Moscow/Constantinople axis or, in mytho-historical terms, a ‘Third Rome’.

It is possible that the U.S. already sees that a reconfiguration of imperialist alliances is necessary with the influential former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski advocating a détente in U.S. relations with Russia and China. What is clear from recent events in Turkey is that the world imperialist system is going through seismic changes, with old military alliances breaking down and new configurations of imperial power emerging.  What prospect exist for global,working-class liberation in a period of deepening capitalist crisis and war remain to be seen.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey’s New Role: From NATO Lapdog to Emerging Empire?

During the past year, I’ve had the pleasure of receiving visits from Ayman Odeh, Ahmad Tibi, and most recently Basel Ghattas—as they passed through Washington. All are Palestinian citizens of Israel. And all are Members of the Israeli Knesset, part of the Joint Arab List that won a record 13 seats in the last Israeli election. It was a delight to sit with them and learn from them not only about the difficulties they face, but the progress they have made.

I have written about how I first became attached to the Arab community in Israel. It was the insightful Palestinian novelist, Ghassan Kanafani who caused me to divert my doctoral dissertation research from the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon to the Palestinian Arabs who remained in their homes after Israel was created in 1948. He gave me two reasons. While much had already been written about the refugees, there was an absence of good literature about the Palestinians “inside” and, he said, they are the most promising component group of the Palestinian people since they have been forged like steel in the hearth of Israel. Facing enormous difficulties, they have developed a uniquely progressive identity and, he believed, the day would come when they would be in a position to provide real visionary leadership for the entire Palestinian people.

My meetings with Odeh, Tibi, and Ghattas have given me the sense that Ghassan may have been right. These are remarkable individuals, part of a larger movement that has faced down the increasingly repressive, ultra-nationalist Israeli government while defending their rights and securing their political role.

For the first three decades, the Arabs in Israel couldn’t form political parties or join unions (these were reserved for Zionists or Jews). They lived under a draconian and discriminatory legal system. They lost their lands to widespread confiscation. The Israeli educational system forced them to study Hebrew and Jewish history instead of their own language and history. And those who resisted, were imprisoned or forcibly expelled from the country.

Like other civil rights movements, these Palestinian citizens of Israel used every available opening to win their rights, facing down arrests, expulsions, and lethal violence. While tremendous problems remain, Palestinian citizens in Israel now form political parties, join unions, and teach their language and history. They still face systemic racism in housing, employment, education, allocation of the state’s budget, and many other areas—and yet they have built and sustained a fighting force that continues to press their demands for justice and equality.

In creating their Joint List, the Palestinian citizens of Israel have forged a remarkable national unity bringing together diverse political currents: nationalists, traditionalists, and progressives—Muslims and Christians, alike. Netanyahu’s far-right governing coalition has stepped up its assault on the Arab community in an effort to divide them and break their resolve. Israel has created a fake new identity for Christians—in an effort to divide the Arabs on the basis of religion. They have charged some Arab Knesset Members with “incitement” for advocating on behalf of their Palestinian brethren living under the suffocating economic embargo imposed on Gaza. Israel has passed laws prohibiting Arabs and progressive Jews from supporting the non-violent boycott movement protesting Israel’s settlement policy and making it more difficult for them to receive grants from the EU to promote democracy and human rights. None of these repressive measures have broken their resolve or unity.

In addition to my earlier studies, I have, in recent years, polled the Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel, as well as the Palestinians living under occupation and those in exile. Of all of the component parts of the Palestinian people, the Arabs in Israel are the most forward looking and the most committed to achieving justice for the entire Palestinian people. And as I have watched Odeh, Tibi, and Ghattas in action, I have been impressed by their political savvy. Unlike the divided and visionless leadership of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, the members of the Joint list have vision, a sound political sense of tactics and strategy, and a demonstrated ability to connect with the people they serve. While it is correct to acknowledge that Israel has done everything it could to weaken, punish, discredit, divide, and tie-in-knots the Palestinian leadership under occupation, the Israelis have been no less harsh in the treatment meted out to their own Palestinian citizenry. In this context, it is significant to note that while the efforts of several Arab states have failed, it is fallen on the shoulders of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel (the collective leadership of the Arab community in Israel) to launch an initiative to bring about reconciliation between the Palestinian factions of Fateh and Hamas.

I have just finished reading a compelling Haaretz article “Stop with the Nonsense that Palestinians Are a Minority In Israel”. The writer Gideon Levy argues that since Israel has refused to separate from the occupied territories and continues to entrench its settler colonies deeper into the heart of the West Bank and the Arab areas of what they call “Greater Jerusalem”, the “era of the two state solution [is drawing] to a close” and has been replaced by a de facto “bi-national state” in which the numbers of Jews and Arabs are roughly equal. In this new reality, Arabs are not a minority, they are half of the population.

If this is to remain the case, and I see no evidence that the Netanyahu government will change direction or that any outside power will compel them to do so, then the Palestinian struggle will inevitably be transformed from one demanding independence into a movement demanding equal rights. This will merely be an extension of the fight that the “inside” Palestinians have been waging for seven decades. If this is to be the case, we may well see the day when the Palestinian citizens of Israel will emerge, as Kanafani predicted, as the new leadership of a unified Palestinian community fighting for justice and equality.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the position of the Arab American Institute. The Arab American Institute is a non-profit, nonpartisan national leadership organization that does not endorse candidates. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ghassan’s Prediction and the Emerging New Palestinian Reality

The Empire Wants Ms. Clinton, The Conqueror!

September 2nd, 2016 by Andre Vltchek

What a fine race it has become! Both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are competing in it as a who is the ‘tougher guy/gal’ in what could be easily described as a 21st Century Tarantino-style (or Scorsese-style) political pulp fiction gore.

What they both utter, may often sound like some staged bluff: “Are you talking to me? Hey, there’s nobody else here… Are you talking to me?”

But just think for a moment what would really happen if one of them sticks to his or her ‘promises’ and ‘principles’, after getting elected! (The bullets would be flying, the nukes exploding, and millions of immigrants pushed off some cliff).

Let’s face it: unless there is any intervention from outer space, one of them will actually ascend to the throne very soon! And they both may actually mean, at least partially, what they say!

Donald Trump is promising to deport some 11 million illegal immigrants from the United States. Now, that is quite a number of people, isn’t it! Can you imagine the mess: the US regime would have to snitch on foreigners, to round them up, pull them out of bed (children and wives screaming, dogs barking, windows and doors being kick-opened, like in some movie about the WWII era), to handcuff them, throw them into vans and buses, and eventually dump them across the border (but ‘across the border’ where, in Mexico? They wouldn’t be taken to Canada, right? Or to some fatal frontier cliff, as was done by the Thai military, when it decided to ‘deport’ illegal Cambodian migrants). That would be quite a sight, no? Would some also be shot, or at least bayoneted? You know, certain exemplary actions here and there could stir patriotic feelings in at least certain sectors of the American society…

Of course, there is one simple and great way of how to stop immigration, at least from Latin America (but Mr. Trump still has not discovered it, so let’s tell him): if the US and Europe would stop terrorizing people “South of the border”, overthrowing their legitimate and progressive governments (as recently happened in Honduras, Paraguay and Brazil), if they’d stop plundering and stealing from Latin Americans, then, of course, there would be no need to emigrate from ‘down there’ to the North! Or, as happened in Chile (after it actually managed to get rid of the US-backed fascist dictatorship of General Pinochet) – after it became a socially-oriented and extremely attractive country, there has actually been more Westerners trying to settle there in the last decade than the other way around.

But I am aware how difficult it would be to stop stealing from the South, as the entire Western culture has been based, for centuries, on plunder and theft. The renaissance of a McCarthy-style approach mixed with the lowest grade Hollywood gore action and ‘gambits’: that is much easier, and also that’s what the politicians think ‘the public expects them to deliver’.

Now let’s move onto the camp of Ms. Clinton.

She is not as ‘petty’ as Mr. Trump; she is ready to go global. She would not be bothered much by some ‘tiny local issues’! Her mission is clear and huge, let’s even say monumental: to save, to even expand the Empire.

She served well under the Obama administration, which was actually much more ‘successful’ in subjugating the colonies than any other administration in modern history. Just look at the Middle East, but especially at Latin America! Just several years ago, almost the entire south of the Western Hemisphere seemed to be crossing the point of no return, marching proudly and confidently away from servitude and towards socialism. And look at it now, after those joint Obama/Clinton efforts! Honduras and Paraguay are in ashes, Brazil’s elites are raping their country’s democracy, Argentina had been manipulated into the anti-progressive camp, Bolivia has been struggling against violent coup attempts, and Venezuela is forced to fight (heroically) for its bare survival. Bravo, Mr. Obama! Bravo Ms. Clinton! You achieved the impossible – you are now ‘successfully’ re-conquering, re-colonizing the entire Latin America!

And were she to be elected (as she definitely will be elected, because the regime decided that she and no one else but she should be soon leading the Empire), Ms. Clinton would definitely not be satisfied with a few ‘minor’ trophies like the Middle East and Latin America. After all, to control these two parts of the world (as control of Africa) are undeniable and inherited rights of the Western Empire!

She is apparently ready to go ‘all the way’. It is Russia and China that she is ready to confront! It is the entire world that she wants to place under her medium-height heel!

That’s not Tarantino or Scorsese, anymore! Those guys look bantam, lightweights, suddenly, compared to that reincarnated and slightly altered Lady Macbeth. That’s Shakespeare and Chaplin (we all know which film I am talking about) meet the Godfather! “Now you all shut up and listen to me fratelli: The entire world does as I say, or we break your legs, and cut off your balls, capisce?”

Oh, just think about that iconic statement of hers, regarding the pan-African leader and (murdered) President Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, “We came, we saw, and he died!” Now you see what I mean: Scorsese would have managed to come close to this, when at his best, but never, never really would he define the acts and language of mafia with such brilliant perfection! It really takes an insider…

Now Ms. Clinton is in an excellent company!

She is supported; she is actually admired by so many great personalities of the leg-breaking culture.

Behind her and around her, there are big names – the leaders who have spilled the blood of millions of (to borrow from Orwell’s terminology) ‘un-people’. Among those leaders are Paul Wolfowitz and Henry Kissinger.

And let’s not forget about her husband, Bill, a close chum and supporter of Paul Kagame (Rwanda’s dictator and the ‘Butcher of Congo’). Bill Clinton, the destroyer of socialist Yugoslavia. Bill Clinton… oh, the list of his heroic deeds is endless…

Mr. Wolfowitz is a phenomenal mind, a real and unapologetic imperialist warrior, the author of the so-called “Wolfowitz Doctrine”, a pamphlet leaked to the New York Times several years ago (It is all about the interventions of the United States in the internal affairs of other countries; all about exceptionalism).

Support from people such as Wolfowitz or Kissinger would be extremely embarrassing to any semi-decent (even mainstream) politician, even in the not so distant past. Not anymore. And perhaps, Ms. Clinton is not just an ordinary politician. According to some analysts, she has risen above belonging to any political party, her own (abstract) party now being “Party of War”.

Therefore, both Wolfowitz and especially Kissinger are her natural allies.

As reported on August the 9th, 2016, by The Slate:

“When it comes to Kissinger, however, Clinton should know better. Yet rather than distance herself, Clinton has wooed him with unrestrained enthusiasm. She has often spoken of his wisdom and the value of his “insight” and “expertise.” She reviewed one in the seemingly endless supply of his books with fulsome words of praise. (A taste: “Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as Secretary of State. He checked in with me regularly, sharing astute observations about foreign leaders and sending me written reports on his travels.”) She defended him in a debate with Bernie Sanders during which the latter attacked Kissinger’s record on foreign policy. She has even chosen to spend holidays with him.”

Several months earlier, on February 5th, 2016, Salon commented:

“Hillary Clinton boasted in the fifth Democratic presidential debate Thursday night that she is supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, an accused war criminal who oversaw policies that led to the deaths of millions of people.

“I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said.”

She did; she really did! If seen from the moral perspective of Henry Kissinger, who, during his Machiavellian career made sure that several millions of human beings were slaughtered in the name of the Western ‘democracy’ (for which he was, very logically, knighted and awarded Nobel Peace Price).

But it is not just about Henry Kissinger and those like him – people who had already committed numerous crimes against humanity. There are also others who would actually like to do more, to bathe the Planet in even more extreme gore: people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland, and Bill Kristol. In brief, the Neo-Cons!

And many of them are now lining-up behind their new heroine, Ms. Clinton! Oh Ms. Clinton, there is something in your eyes, in your smile, in your laughter that makes them trust you, lean towards you, even embrace you, as George W. Bush recently did, literally, and in public.

Oh yes, that restlessness which illustrates how much she cares, how much more she is still willing to do! There is a clearly detectable longing on her face: so many lands that still have to be conquered; so many ideals and thoughts dangerous to the Empire that have to be discredited and censored.

Like the captain of a ship heading towards the lands to be colonized and civilized by the white Christian culture, Ms. Clinton is at the forefront, standing proudly on the captain’s bridge, with a cross, cannons and several basic instruments of torture hidden under the deck. That image is so precious; it warms the many hearts of both the neo-cons, and old-fashioned conservatives.

Mr. Trump cannot compete. He has already lost! A Republican or not, he is lacking that grand ‘global vision’. The regime does not care about some “America first” concept (“America first” is something that is already taken for granted).

The regime is not interested in one country only (or how are the ordinary people faring in that country), or in one only Hemisphere.

It needs the world, the entire Planet. And that is why it has already decided. It has elected Ms. Clinton. Ms. Clinton the Conqueror!

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and  “Fighting Against Western Imperialism Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western TerrorismPoint of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Empire Wants Ms. Clinton, The Conqueror!

• Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) could lock in privatisation and increase ability of big business to call the shots on health, education and basic utilities
• Rights of some migrant workers could regress to system similar to Saudi Arabia and Qatar
• UK likely to emulate Norway signing up as individual nation post-Brexit

A global trade deal currently being negotiated in secret and involving 50 different countries could prove to be a serious threat to public services according to a briefing published today by campaign group Global Justice Now.

The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) is a proposed international trade treaty between 23 parties, including the European Union and the United States. Unlike most trade deals, TISA is about services, not goods. The briefing argues that this means it will affect areas like labour rights, banking regulation and whether public services like electricity and water are run for public good or private benefit.

Nick Dearden the director of Global Justice Now said:

“This deal is a threat to the very concept of public services. It is a turbo-charged privatisation pact, based on the idea that, rather than serving the public interest, governments must step out of the way and allow corporations to ‘get on with it’. Of particular concern, we fear TiSA will include clauses that will prevent governments taking public control of strategic services, and inhibit regulation of the very banks that created the financial crash. TISA will also affect countries that haven’t even had the opportunity to develop decent public services like Pakistan. No wonder Uruguay has already walked away from the talks. We urge MEPs to tell the European Union to do the same.

“Millions of people across the EU voiced their opposition to toxic trade deals like TTIP and TISA. A broad coalition of trade unions, civil society groups and progressive politicians are coming together to make sure that we put a stop to TISA as well as TTIP – both of them enormous corporate power grabs at the expense of democracy.”

The briefing, A blueprint for global privatisation argues that:

  • TISA would lock in privatisation of public services. TISA contains mechanisms, such as ‘ratchet’and ‘standstill’ clauses, that make it much harder to reverse privatisations and will allow greater market access for foreign companies;
  • TISA would be terrible for the climate. TISA entrenches the idea of technological neutrality on energy policy. This could stop countries favouring renewables over coal, oil and gas;
  • TISA will mean more casino capitalism. TISA will undermine efforts to regulate the financial sector and avoid another crisis;
  • TISA threatens online privacy. TISA promises to hand much more power to the likes of Google and Microsoft to move personal data across borders to countries with lax data protection laws;
  • TISA will be especially damaging to countries in the global south. TISA includes countries like Pakistan that could be hindered in developing public services. It also poses a threat to countries outside TISA, because, once approved, rich countries will seek to impose TISA-style measures globally through the WTO;
  • TISA could mean a rollback on the rights of migrant workers. Proposals being negotiated under TISA mean that some migrant workers may end up being categorised as ‘independent service suppliers’ and will consequently not have rights to things like the minimum wage or be allowed to join a union.  Workers’ presence in a country could also be tied to their employer. This form of indentured labour is in effect in countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and has resulted in horrific working conditions under unscrupulous employers.

Nick Dearden added:

“Many people were persuaded to leave the EU on the grounds they would be ‘taking back control’ of our economic policy. But if we sign up to TISA, our ability to control our economy – to regulate, to protect public services, to fight climate change – are all massively reduced. In effect, we would be handing large swathes of policy making to big business.

“Two of the biggest challenges facing society right now are dealing with the climate crisis and trying to tame the unruly banks and financial markets that have caused so much damage to the global economy. What’s being proposed under TISA would massively restrict the ability of governments to take action on either front, at a time when flexible and effective policy intervention is so badly needed.”

Download the briefing.

Global Justice Now is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on TISA: New Trade Deal Could Be Even Greater Threat to Public Services Than TTIP

Hillary Clinton’s speech to the American Legion convention Wednesday was a full-throated declaration of the right and responsibility of the United States to control the world by military force. Clinton pledged to keep the US the dominant global military power, to uphold the military alliances through which US imperialism controls Europe and the Far East, and to wage war unilaterally if deemed necessary, regardless of world opinion.

Clinton repeatedly singled out Russia and China as potential targets for US military action, although such a conflict would pose the danger of nuclear war. After listing out the various unsubstantiated allegations of Russian hacking and cyberattacks, including against the Democratic National Committee, Clinton declared, “As president, I will make clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.”

Ominously, she said one of her first actions upon taking office would be to conduct a full review of the US nuclear forces “to make sure America’s arsenal is prepared to meet future threats,” i.e., to wage nuclear war.

Throughout the speech, Clinton targeted her Republican opponent Donald Trump, invariably attacking him from the right, accusing him of abandoning the longstanding bipartisan commitment of both Democrats and Republicans to keeping the United States the world’s leading power, and being unwilling to take military action when it was required to defend US interests.

Clinton set a tone of American messianism at the beginning, declaring that during her political career, “If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this: The United States is an exceptional nation. I believe we are still Lincoln’s last, best hope of Earth. We’re still Reagan’s shining city on a hill. We’re still Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country.”

Lincoln and Robert Kennedy are just window-dressing. The real message was conveyed in the invoking of “American exceptionalism” and Ronald Reagan, and her repeated declarations that “America must lead.” Clinton was making an argument to the Republican Party establishment, including the neo-conservatives who instigated the US war on Iraq, that she is closer to them on foreign policy than Trump, whom she described as erratic, inexperienced and tied politically to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Clinton did not deal in any foreign policy specifics in the speech. There was no mention of Syria, Libya, Ukraine, the Baltic States or the South China Sea—all areas where the Obama administration has come into conflict with Russia or China, and where a Clinton administration would take an even more aggressive stance. She referred to Iraq and Afghanistan only as countries where the US role was winding down—a brazen lie.

The purpose of the speech was to present Clinton’s general approach to military policy in the most aggressive terms. She called for increased military readiness, modernization of weapons systems and advanced preparations for all types of conflict. “We cannot lose our military edge, and that means giving the Pentagon the stable, predictable funding it needs to make smart investments,” she said, denouncing the “sequester” caps on military spending imposed as part of a bipartisan budget-cutting deal. The US military had to be able to “operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace.”

Referring to Obama’s drawdown of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, Clinton said, “We have redeployed well over 100,000 troops from Iraq and Afghanistan so they can go home, rest, and train for future contingencies.” Those “contingencies” she listed later: “We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea…” In other words, far from marking an end to 25 years of nearly nonstop American wars, the Obama administration has prepared the ground for wars of even greater consequence, including confrontations with China and Russia, both nuclear-armed powers.

Clinton ended her speech with an open appeal for Republican support, noting that 50 Republican national security experts had recently declared they would not support Trump. “This election shouldn’t be about ideology,” she argued. “It’s not just about differences over policy. It truly is about who has the experience and the temperament to serve as president and Commander-in-Chief.”

Inadvertently, Clinton is admitting a basic truth of American politics. The two-party system deprives the voters, i.e., the great majority of American working people, of any choice on the issue of war and peace, just as it does on all fundamental political questions. The Democrats and the Republicans are united when it comes to defending the profit interests of American banks and corporations, and the global domination of American imperialism.

Wednesday’s speech in Cincinnati was a carefully prepared declaration of policy, one of only two public appearances that Clinton has made in the second half of August, which has been largely devoted to private fundraising meetings with well-heeled financial backers.

The audience itself was carefully chosen. The American Legion has long been the most reactionary of the veterans’ organizations. It organized anti-communist violence during the McCarthyite witchhunts, making it most receptive to Clinton’s neo-McCarthyite attacks on Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.

Clinton’s speech was accompanied by a continuing rollout of support from the military-intelligence apparatus. Two retired four-star Army generals, Robert Sennewald and David Maddox, issued a joint statement Thursday endorsing Clinton. This followed a statement Wednesday by James Clad, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia under President George W. Bush, who praised Clinton for “helping other Asian countries counter Chinese bullying in the western Pacific.”

The corporate media recognized the significance of Clinton’s address. The Washington Post wrote in its news account: “The speech, while repeating Clinton’s frequent criticisms that Trump’s populist foreign policy ideas are dangerous and unworkable, went further in establishing her own position as an internationalist who is to his political right on the issue of overseas engagement.”

The newspaper added that during the primary contest with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton had sought to downplay her foreign policy record, including her 2002 vote for the Iraq war and her hawkish positions on US intervention in Libya and Syria. This changed in the general election, however, where Clinton was using “support for traditional national security tenets … [to] attract Republican support.”

Sanders played a politically criminal role in excluding questions of war and foreign policy from the 2016 campaign. The self-described “democratic socialist” attracted support from millions of youth and working people through his denunciations of economic inequality and the control of US politics by “millionaires and billionaires.” But he was totally uncritical of the foreign policy of the Obama administration, and, by extension, of Clinton as Obama’s first secretary of state.

Clinton’s speech underscores the immense dangers facing the working class of the United States and around the world. Regardless of what happens in November, American imperialism is preparing a vast escalation of military violence. Untold millions, even billions, of lives are at stake.

In the 2016 election campaign, the Socialist Equality Party and its candidates for president and vice president, Jerry White and Niles Niemuth, are building a socialist leadership to prepare for the struggles to come. At the very center of campaign is the fight against war, which is inextricably tied to the fight of the international working class against the capitalist system. Everything depends upon this.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Clinton’s “American Exceptionalism” Speech: A Bipartisan Policy of Militarism and War

The entire political establishment colluded with Apple in an act of “economic treason” to rob the public of billions desperately needed cash for public housing and other cash starved public services. 

Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fail and some independents turned off the cameras and voted down a PBP motion in the Finance committee calling for Apple to be brought in and questioned about its tax affairs. 

Forensic examination of the tax affairs of all companies that benefitted from the “double-Irish” needed

In a statement, Richard Boyd Barrett TD, and Finance spokesperson for the People Before Profit Alliance, reacting to the EU ruling on Ireland’s tax treatment of Apple, has said the ruling confirms what People Before Profit have been saying for a number of years, that “the entire political establishment have colluded over many years with Apple in an act of economic treason with to rob the Irish public of €13 billion or more in desperately needed cash for public housing, the health service and other vital public services.”

Deputy Boyd Barrett pointed out that in the last Dail he put down a motion to a special sub-committee of the Finance committee, calling for Apple to be brought into the committee to answer questions about its tax affairs in Ireland, and that Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fail banded together, voting to turn offthe camera’s during the discussion of the motion and then voted down the motion.

Deputy Boyd Barrett said, “The closing of rank f the entire political establishment to protect Apple’s tax avoidance strategies and to aid them was effectively “economic treason” against the citizens of the country.”

Deputy Boyd Barrett said that “to appeal the EU ruling rather than collect the €13 billion in owed taxes from Apple would be to continue the economic treason committed by the political establishment against the citizens of this country – particularly those who are homeless and poor, those suffering the dire crisis in our health service or young people suffering from the chronic lack of funding and investment in our education system.”

Deputy Boyd Barrett said the government should “abandon their disgraceful plans to waste more public money appealing the EU ruling and instead collect the taxes from Apple that they owe the people of this country.”

Deputy Boyd Barrett concluded saying, that in his opinion “Apple were not the only company that benefited from a systematic policy pursued by successive Fine Gael and Fianna Fail led government’s to facilitate aggressive tax avoidance and outright tax evasion by some of the biggest and most profitable corporations in the world.”

Deputy Boyd Barrett called for a “forensic investigation of the tax affairs of all the companies based in Ireland, who benefitted from the so-called “double-Irish” tax scam.”

Please Note: Motion submitted Thursday 27th June 10.34am

Motion to Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform

From Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

“That the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform sub-committee on Global Corporate/Multi-national Taxation Architecture, shall as part of its terms of reference, invite into the committee to give testimony and answer questions, representatives of multinational corporations based here in Ireland, including representatives of Apple, Google, Facebook and other such corporations as the sub committee may deem appropriate”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ireland and the Apple Tax Scandal: The Entire Political Establishment Colluded with Apple in an Act of “Economic Treason”

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump delivered a major policy address on immigration Wednesday in which he laid out a ten-point plan to forcibly deport millions of undocumented immigrant workers currently living in the US. Trump spoke in Phoenix, Arizona hours after returning from a visit with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City.

“For those here illegally today, who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and one route only. To return home and apply for reentry,” Trump said, adding: “All energies of the federal government and the legislative process must now be focused on immigration security. That is the only conversation we should be having at this time, immigration security. Cut it off.”

Following the speech in Arizona and press reports from Trump’s visit to Mexico, the New York Times wrote that Trump’s positions on immigration are “muddled” and are “left unclear.” According to the Times, Trump “said that the fate of most illegal immigrants would be handled humanely, and not right away,” and that Trump is moving “away from his original deportation-focused policy on immigration…”

In reality, Trump’s speech elaborated a fascistic ten-point plan involving mass deportation and martial law.

He repeated his calls for building a border wall stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico: “We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors that’s the tunnels [sic]…Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall…”

He called for an absolute bar on granting entry to any immigrant with a criminal record, including those convicted of the “crime” of entering the US without inspection and those with minor crimes like driving under the influence. All those with criminal records would be immediately rounded up on “day one” of a Trump administration, and this would be done “in joint operation with local, state, and federal law enforcement.” Trump then said that immigrants arrestedfor any crime—not convicted—would be immediately placed into removal proceedings. Further, Trump called for “strong” mandatory minimum sentences for those migrants who attempt to reenter the country without papers after a prior deportation.

To enforce the mass round-up of millions of undocumented workers, Trump called for a drastic expansion of police and immigration agencies. He called for the creation of “a new special deportation task force” within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) aimed at speeding up deportations, and called for granting local police the power to hand over arrestees to immigration authorities: “Finally we will turn the tables and law enforcement and our police will be allowed to clear up this dangerous and threatening mess,” he said.

Trump also called for immediately canceling the DACA program which has allowed several million young undocumented people who were raised in the United States to remain in the US on a temporary basis. He also proposed suspending visa issuance from “any place where adequate screening cannot occur,” and called for “screening tests” with “an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.” Finally, Trump called for preventing undocumented workers from receiving food stamps, subsidized medical care, public education or any other social services.

Trump combines his proposal with a fascistic demagogic appeal to American “workers” in an attempt to pit them against their class brothers and sisters who have immigrated from Latin America and elsewhere on the planet. Trump claimed that the purpose of his program is “to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people. Workers. We’re going to take care of our workers.” He added: “Under a Trump administration it’s called America first. Remember that.”

But Trump’s speech is a dire warning to the working class of all national backgrounds.

The imposition of Trump’s plan would require a mass mobilization of hundreds of thousands of police, FBI, ICE, and military personnel in every major American city. Working class neighborhoods would be placed on lockdown and militarized detachments would forcibly take immigrants from their homes and places of work. Entire cities like Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego, Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix, Miami, and Tucson would be placed under martial law. If such efforts are met with any resistance, violent government crackdowns would follow.

Due to insufficient space in existing immigrant detention facilities, immigrants would have to be held en masse in impromptu concentration camps before being deported. Though immigrants are legally entitled to a short trial before removal, the government would likely do away with this right or undercut it substantially. After those with criminal records are removed in this way, those remaining 10 million immigrants who refuse to leave the country voluntarily would be rounded up next. Those caught attempting to bypass the newly constructed wall would be arrested or possibly shot by drone or sentry.

Trump’s proposal represents a further escalation of anti-immigrant policies already put in place by the Obama administration, which have resulted in over 2.5 million deportations. Trump himself said in mid-August that he is “going to do the same thing” as Obama, but “with a lot more energy.” Applicants for US citizenship must already swear they are not communists and that they do not advocate the overthrow of the US government. The Obama administration has deported tens of thousands of immigrant children, added thousands of border patrol agents and spent billions building sections of border wall with advanced surveillance and weapons technology.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton feigned opposition to Trump’s speech, but she has no fundamental differences with the Republican candidate’s proposals. In 2006, then-Senator Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which called for the building of 700 miles of border wall across parts of California, New Mexico, and Texas, at a cost of $7 billion. In 2003, she told WABC radio in New York that “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Speaking on the same radio program, Clinton said: “People have to stop employing illegal immigrants. I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work.”

In 2005, Clinton said: “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants…let’s have a system that keeps track of them.” During the 2008 presidential primaries, Clinton opposed letting undocumented workers possess driver’s licenses, saying “As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people.” In 2007, she said: “I do favor much more border patrolling and much more technology on both of our borders, even a physical barrier because I think we’ve got to secure our borders.”

In 2015, Clinton boasted: “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, and I do think that you have to control your borders.”

Clinton’s anti-immigrant record is so long-established that right-wing xenophobe Pat Buchanan once praised Clinton for her “forthrightness” on immigration, noting that she “makes [George W.] Bush sound like a talking head for La Raza.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Outlines Ten-Point Plan for Mass Deportations and Martial Law

Transcript of Interview with Sputnik

Sputnik

What is your view on the parliamentary impeachment of Dilma Rousseff?

PK

What happened in Brazil is just the most horrifying and flagrant illegal foreign-led parliamentary coup that has happened in Latin America since a similar coup, also foreign-led, deposed José Mujica of Uruguay in June 2009.

Why foreign-led?

Washington was behind it then – and Washington is behind the coup in Brazil today.

What amazes me most though is that the so-called ‘progressive’ media do hardly mention the long and bloody hand of Washington in this coup. This reality is conveniently left out.

Just a year ago, international legal authorities were clear about the unlawfulness and baselessness of impeachment. They all saw the illegitimacy of launching an impeachment procedure.

Nevertheless – the local ultra-corrupt and ultra-neo-Nazi oligarchy succeeded – with the help of the US. What the so-called ‘progressive media’ tell us today, is that a group of corrupt right-wing parliamentarians, led by Eduardo Cunha, former speaker of Brazil’s lower house, who is himself prosecuted for corruption in the so-called “Car-Wash” scandal, drove the move to impeachment. Cunha was – maybe still is – a client of Washington. Not only the mainstream but also the ‘progressive media’ shun this fact. Cunha is accused of perjury, money laundering and receipt of at least $5m in bribes.

The former Vice-President and now President, Michel Temer, who has alleged crimes of high corruption on his shoulders -in excess of US$ 40million – is likely to escape criminal prosecution, and so is his pal Cunha – under Temer’s new leadership.

Dilma was never accused of corruption. They would have liked to, but couldn’t find anything. All they could find is that she may have ‘embellished’ government accounts, a common habit, done throughout the world, no criminal offense and especially no impeachable offense. However, some media still say she was found guilty of corruption. What a lie! – She wasn’t even accused of corruption.

So the real criminals are escaping justice and stay in power. That’s precisely what Washington wants; free access to all the countries riches, hydrocarbons, tropical forests – and not least, almost endless resources of fresh surface water in the Amazon Basin and huge underground water reserves. Let’s not even talk about the countless quantities of Brazil’s mineral resources.

Privatization on a massive scale is what will take place in the coming two years – perhaps comparable to Greece, or what Macri is proposing for Argentina, or worse. Temer has already said so. This may include privatization of all kinds of public assets, the Amazon waters, as the US has already once attempted to put them under UN auspices – so that Washington could control them, as they do with whatever is linked to the UN system. Lula at that time has said firmly NO WAY.

Privatization will be accompanied by equally massive austerity programs, cutting of health and education benefits, of pensions and other social safety nets – leaving behind masses of unemployed people, abject misery – one just has to look at IMF-ECB-EU/EC devastated Greece; and at what Washington-directed Macri has already done to Argentina, i.e. increased the countries poverty level from about 12% in November 2015, before his ‘election’, to close to 40% in July 2016, with soaring unemployment. Temer has two years to complete his neonazi manifesto. And he will get all the help he needs from Washington and the financial institutions that will soon call the shots in Brazil – IMF, World Bank, Wall Street, all of them the extended fist of the FED, US Treasury and the secretive Rothschild controlled BIS (Bank for International Settlement) in Basel, Switzerland – also called the central bank of central banks.

Why is Washington and its financial institutions behind the coup? – Already more than a year ago secret talks between the IMF, WB and the current coup-makers have taken place. Brazil is going to be handed over first to the IMF, which makes sure that the austerity programs are implemented – à la Greece – then to Wall Street which will make sure that the debt level is so that privatization of public assets is “justified and unavoidable”. The newly Temer appointed head of Brazil’s Central Bank, ‎Ilan Goldfajn, who also has a history with the IMF, will make sure that Brazil follows the financial oligarchy’s prescribed line.

By controlling Brazil, Washington has its claws again firmly on Latin America, almost as if the renowned Latin America democratic revolutions towards independence never took place.

And thirdly, also a key for sub-doing Brazil is that Brazil is an important member of the BRICS – crucial for its economic strength and potential as well as for its geographic equilibrium it will bring to the BRICS. The BRICS are led by Russia and China – countries which have already largely detached their economies from the western dollar-based system, and are developing their own, linked to economic output and to gold – yes, gold. Both Russia’s and China’s currencies are gold backed. While the western fiat money is made of thin air.

In the western world, it’s the fake dollar-euro based monetary system that makes the economy, it’s not the economy that makes the monetary system, as it should be, since the economy should serve as the base for any monetary system that is supposed to reflect a healthy, honest, and fair economy within and between countries. That is what the BRICS would promote. Therefore, the BRICS have to be eliminated – one by one. They are a danger for the US-led western financial hegemony over the world.

With foreign intervention proven in the coup, the case could even be taken to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague – perhaps as a test case to see how independent the ICC still is.

Sputnik

Brazil’s Senate decided that former President Dilma Rousseff, who was removed from office earlier on Wednesday, should not be barred from holding public office. What will be her next steps?

PK

Yes, after Dilma was remorselessly removed from the Presidency, most everybody believed that she would also be barred from holding public office for the next 8 years. This was not the case. The Senate had ‘mercy’, so to speak. As if it recognized the blunder it produced – I repeat – on orders from abroad, they spared her this humiliation.

What Ms. Rousseff will do next – I have no idea. In any case she has already declared that she will take the case to Brazil’s Supreme Court. How successful this will be, is questionable. Especially since Mr. Temer now is clearly a US puppet, at the command of Washington. He will direct Brazil’s Supreme Court to follows orders from above.

Where I see a better chance is taking the case to The Hague. Even though it is well known how dependent on the White House’s wishes the ICC is, it would be interesting to see the arguments the Court uses to uphold Brazil’s Senate verdict. – In any case the world at large might learn something about (in)justice imposed on the ‘unaligned’ by the empire and their masters, the masters of globalized finance.

Whatever Dilma decides to do, however she decides to proceed, I hope she will not give in, that she stays the course, her course of integrity for which she is known and that she stays in politics. Brazil needs her. My guess is that she would have massive, but I mean massive, like in tens of millions of people’s support throughout Brazil, perhaps enough to bring about a revolution; to send a firm message to her Latin American neighbors – and to the rest of the world.

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 Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff: Brazil’s Parliamentary Coup and the “Progressive Media”

Their sons ignore you; a fire warms them and sheds light around them, and you have not lit it. – Jean-Paul Sartre

Heather Ann Thompson’s Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy, Pantheon(1) was released August 23rd. Dr. Thompson is a Professor of History in the Department of Afro-American Studies at the University of Michigan and remains on the Faculty of Temple University. Noted by The New York Times as a “superb work of history”(2) the book makes clear that 33 Attica prisoners and 9 hostages were killed by bullets from the security personnel who took over the prison by force September 13, 1971. The order was given by Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Despite the State’s efforts to hide its responsibility for massacring unarmed prisoners, Dr. Thompson presents evidence of the specific murders by law enforcement which began weeks of brutalization of prisoners, torture and terrorization.

Killing of prisoners by law enforcement is extra-judicial killing and the massacre of prisoners, a crime against humanity. Yet there were no challenges to the crime at international law.

Wikipedia notes that Nelson Rockefeller was instrumental in bringing the United Nations to New York City and his family donated the land where the United Nations buildings were constructed. By the end of WWII 75% of the news that reached South America originated in Washington D.C., thanks to the Rockefeller offices.(3) As early as the 1950’s Nelson Rockefeller was president of the Board at Creole Oil of Venezuela, a subsidiary of Standard Oil (founded by his grandfather).

His 1971 solution to a crisis that rose from substandard and oppressive prison conditions in New York provided a model for response to prison protests during the 1980’s and 90’s in South America. On June 18, 1986 Peru’s Alan Garcia sent in armed forces to put down an uprising by the Shining Path in three prisons, and slaughtered at least 244 prisoners. In Lima’s Lurigancho prison 124 rebel prisoners died, at least 90 by extra-judicial execution. From May 6th to 9th, 1992, the war criminal Alberto Fujimori initiated a slaughter of prisoners at Lima’s Castro Castro prison,(4) by targeting the women – many of whom were pregnant.(5) In the Americas the basic technique of executing prisoners as retribution was also used in Venezuela in 1992, 1994, 1996, and Brazil 1992.(6)

Extrajudicial execution of prisoners in the state’s care can be distinguished from the activities of entire prison centres dedicated to the torture and deaths of prisoners, such as the South American way stations of the disappeared where they were brought, tortured , then murdered. The purpose of these prisons which served Chile under Pinochet, Argentina’s Dirty War, and all the Cooperative governments of Operation Condor covertly managed and supported by the U.S., is in fact murder and they are rarely called “Correctional Institutes” since there is nothing of the inmates left to correct. Within the U.S. the overt parallel is Guantanamo, where victims have been kept this side of death for purposes of recruitment and scientific experimentation.

Murder of prisoners by authorities is always a crime against humanity. The prisoners have no choice but to be in the prison. The State’s impunity in covering up evidence at Attica Correctional Facility provided a template for racial injustice with impunity. While surviving prisoners from Peru were able to testify at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights(7) damages to Attica prisoners, when they reach the level of court action, are kept within the State of New York. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Peru responsible for “violating the right to life enshrined in Article 4.1 of the Convention” ie, murder.

It’s widely understood that prisoners in some U.S. prisons are subjected to abuse specifically outlawed by international human rights conventions and treaties. American prisoners are denied human rights protections afforded, if only by law, globally. Through heroic non-violent mass prison actions against solitary confinement in the California prison system, and a class action federal case by the New York Center for Constitutional Rights(8), extreme applications of solitary confinement are now outlawed in California. In the past, American legal experts have been unwilling to press prisoners’ cases at international law, or to apply for relief from U.N. organizations or the Inter-American Human Rights Court. Was it somehow “un-American” to seek help from other legal systems just because the government was murdering its own people?

If the political ethic of the two leading U.S. Presidential candidates bears any parallel to Alberto Fujimori’s, what defenses do U.S. prisoners have who choose to protest prison conditions, violations of human rights law, forced labour for corporations at pitiful wages, and slave labour? After the massive strikes in California and particularly in Georgia some suspected strike leaders were met with violent retribution from prison officials. How often are crimes against prisoners brought to justice? Amidst New York State’s vast wealth why are the rare reparations to families of Attica’s prisoners and hostage guards all murdered by the authorities, so paltry? How often are U.N. and international law representatives, the International Red Cross, or North American human rights organizations, allowed into American prisons?

In commemoration of the Attica prison uprising of 1971, a coalition of groups concerned with prisoner rights and justice has called for a U.S. wide work stoppage and hunger strike on September 9th.(9) The prisoners’ “Call to Action Against Slavery in America”(10) makes no call for violence. It asks prisoners to stop working as slaves. It calls for convict solidarity between races, ethnic groups and genders. It makes no threat of violence against guards or prison administration. Very mild, deeply American and deeply oriented to people it asks for outside support.

According to the American Friends Service Committee there are currently 2.4 million people in U.S. prisons.(11) The U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics cites fewer prisoners because it chooses to define “prisoners” as only the “inmates confined in long-term facilities run by the state departments of prisons (BOP)…”(12) It notes that including jailed inmates, and those on parole and probation the total number of adult “offenders” in 2014 was between six and seven million people, not including young people.

The prisoners involved in a strike against slavery are brave people. They’re rejecting slave labour, a crime they are subjected to, when it isn’t even a crime under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Bill of Rights specifically permits slavery and involuntary servitude for those convicted of a crime,(13) while slavery was outlawed for others at the end of the Civil War. It can be argued, slavery was made covert, the slavery of poverty, the threat of prison or prison labour. The slavery of forced military conscription has not required a guilty verdict.

The Bill of Rights leaves up to the government exactly what crimes merit making a human being a slave (13th amendment). This is so counter any understanding of human rights that the protections of the 13th Amendment should be extended to everyone without exception.

Without adequate legal protection under American law American prisoners may find better recourse to further American expectations of human rights, under international law. The non-violence of work stoppages and hunger strikes doesn’t preclude criminal violent action by the State. To deal with Rockefeller / Fujimori models of prison control, the extra-judicial reprisals and retribution (ie. the use of torture at Attica), it’s important to keep records as eventual evidence in a just court.

The suggested guide for this is the Istanbul Protocol, from the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Addressed to human rights workers, journalists, legal and medical evidence gatherers, as well as family members of those who have been imprisoned or tortured, it provides a guide for assessing and documenting what international norms consider “torture,” and provides to workers in both the legal and medical professions including military personnel, ethical norms which if transgressed risk eventual prosecution.

The strong influence of American experts among the 1999 document’s authors moderates the work’s understanding of horror, the psychological abyss of persecution and powerlessness. With academic detachment and salaried middle class empowerment, technical notes on terrifying means of torture seem to happen in some other world. White middle class horror at what torture means in America is further limited by prison statistics of predominantly Black, Hispanic, First Peoples, and immigrant prison population groups of poor people.

The reader may want to read as well Frantz Fanon’s 1961 Les Damnés de la Terre (The Wretched of the Earth), where as a French psychiatrist Fanon recognizes symptoms of having been tortured amid patients much like himself.

Endnotes

(1) “Dr. Heather Ann Thompson : About,” current, [access:<http://heatherannthompson.com/ >].

(2) “’Blood in the Water,’ a Gripping Account of the Attica Prison Uprising,” by Mark Oppenheimer, Aug. 18, 2016, The New York Times; “Prying Loose the Long-Kept Secrets of Attica,” Jennifer Schuessler, Aug. 23, 2016, The New York Times.

(3) Edward Jay Epstein, The Rockefellers, Chapter 5 , current [access:<http://edwardjayepstein.com/rockefellers/chap5.htm>].

(4) “Peru acknowledges massacre at Castro Castro Prison in 1992,” Tomas Kristiansen, 12-07-2006, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims.

(5) “Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru: Judgement of November 25, 2006, ” Inter-American Court of Human Rights. p.4 #19.

(6) “Human Rights Watch: World Prison Massacres” [access:<https://www.hrw.org/legacy/advocacy/prisons/killings.htm >].

(7) Because Peru’s law on genocide extend the UN Convention’s to include “social groups” among those specifically protected , prisoner and intervenor testimony was able to directly raise the issue of prison massacres as genocide, and it was argued that the State was responsible for genocide. IACHR, p. 92. K.

(8) Ashker v. Governor of California [access:< https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/ashker-v-brown >].

(9) “Why we’re about the see the largest prison strike in history,” Jeremy Galloway, Aug. 11, 2016, The Influence / Raw Story.

(10) [access: < https://iwoc.noblogs.org/post/2016/04/01/announcement-of-nationally-coordinated-prisoner-workstoppage-for-sept-9-2016 >]

(11) American Friends Service Committee [access:< http://www.afsc.org/key-issues/issue/addressing-prisons >].

(12) “Key Statistic: Prisoners,” Bureau of Justice Statistics [access:<http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=488 >].

(13) This was noted in Margaret Kimberley‘s “Support the Sept. 9 prison strike,” June 23, 2016, Florida Courier.

 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Arrogance, Impunity and Attica: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy

On August 31, the Syrian army and its allies, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, captured the village of Qarasi, about 60% of Al Amiriya and the strategic hill of Tal Al Sanoubrat, smashing the Jaish al-Fatah defenses along the road between Khan Tuman and the Ramouseh Neighborhood of Aleppo city. By September 1, the road has been physically cut off north of the Um Qara hill.

The Syrian army and Hezbollah have destroyed some 20 militant vehicles heading to the Ramouseh Neighborhood with supplies and ammunition. According to unconfirmed reports, the recent clashes resulted in deaths of about 50 pro-government fighters and up to 100 militants. The Russian air support played an important role in the militant casualties.

The Syrian army has also liberated Souq al-Jibs. This success allows the pro-government forces to pose an additional threat to militants in the northern part of the 1070 Apartment Project.

Meanwhile, the Syrian army and Hezbollah has taken full control of the Air Force Technical Base. Developing this success, the Syrian government forces are advancing further on militants in the Ramouseh Artillery Base.

The liberation of the Air Force Technical Base is an important victory that in addition to cutting off the road to Khan Tuman poses a threat of reestablishing of the Aleppo pocket. In general, the recent developments in Aleppo city can be described as a tactical success of the pro-government forces that could lead to a strategic victory in the area.

Russian warplanes have delivered massive air strikes on Jaish al-Fatah targets in the province of Idlib, destroying militant manpower and military equipment at the villages of Taftanaz, Binnish, Sarmeen, Ariha, Saraqib, and Jisr Al-Shughour and along the road from Saraqib to Aleppo city. Local sources report that at least 2 militant convoys have been destroyed and some 50 militants killed by the air strikes.

Meanwhile, the joint terrorist forces have continued advances in northern Hama with a fresh offensive on the town of Ma’an. Heavy clashes are ongoing in the area.

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 Terrorist Retreat? Syrian Army Overruns Militant Defenses in Aleppo

Behind the U.S. media-political clamor for a new Cold War with Russia is a massive investment by the Military-Industrial Complex in “think tanks” and other propaganda outlets, writes Jonathan Marshall.

The U.S. military has won only a single major war since the end of World War II (the Gulf War of 1990-91). But U.S. military contractors continue to win major budget wars in Congress nearly every year, proving that no force on earth can resist their lobbying prowess and political clout.

Consider the steady march to victory of the biggest single weapons program in history — the planned purchase of advanced Lockheed-Martin F-35 jets by the Air Force, Navy, and Marines at a total projected cost of more than $1 trillion.

Lockheed-Martin's F-35 war plane.

Lockheed-Martin’s F-35 war plane.

  • The Air Force and Marines have both declared the Joint Strike Fighter ready for combat, and Congress is now forking over billions of dollars a year to acquire what is slated to become a fleet of 2,400 jets.

Yet the world’s most expensive fighter bomber still doesn’t work properly and may never perform as advertised. That’s not “dezinformatsiya” from Russian “information warfare” specialists. That’s the official opinion of the Pentagon’s top weapons evaluator, Michael Gilmore.

In an Aug, 9 memo obtained by Bloomberg News, Gilmore warned senior Pentagon officials that the F-35 program “is actually not on a path toward success but instead on a path toward failing to deliver” the aircraft’s promised capabilities. He said the program “is running out of time and money to complete the planned flight testing and implement the required fixes and modifications.”

The military testing czar reported that complex software problems and testing deficiencies “continue to be discovered at a substantial rate.” As a result, the planes may fail to track moving targets on the ground, warn pilots when enemy radar systems spot them, or make use of a newly designed bomb. Even the F-35’s gun may not function properly.

Devastating Assessments

The internal Pentagon assessment was just the latest in a long list of devastating critical assessments and development setbacks for the plane. They include repeated groundings of the plane due to fires and other safety issues; the discovery of dangerous engine instability; and helmets that can cause fatal whiplash. The plane even got soundly beaten in a mock engagement with a much older (and cheaper) F-16.

Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)

Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)

Last year, an article in the conservative National Review argued that “the biggest threat the U.S. military faces over the next few decades is not the carrier-killing Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile, or the proliferation of inexpensive quiet diesel-electric attack subs, or even Chinese and Russian anti-satellite programs. The biggest threat comes from the F-35 . . . For this trillion-dollar-plus investment we get a plane far slower than a 1970s F-14 Tomcat, a plane with less than half the range of a 40-year-old A-6 Intruder . . . and a plane that had its head handed to it by an F-16 during a recent dogfight competition.”

Likening the F-35 to a previous failed fighter jet program, retired Air Force Colonel Dan Ward observed last year, “Perhaps the truly best scenario for the Joint Strike Fighter is for it to follow in the footsteps of the F-22 and provide a combat capability that is irrelevant to actual military needs. That way, when the whole fleet gets grounded because of an unsolvable flaw, the impact on our defense posture would be nil.”

Lockheed’s “Pay-to-Play Ad Agency”

Coming to the program’s defense most recently was military analyst Dan Goure, in the blog of the respected magazine, The National Interest. Goure belittled critics in the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Office as “green eyeshade people, like the goblins at Gringott’s in the Harry Potter series.”

Describing the F-35 as “a revolutionary platform,” he declared,

“Its ability to operate undetected in hostile airspace, gathering information and even targeting data on enemy air and ground targets, before launching surprise attacks demonstrates a decisive advantage over existing threat systems. . . . The Joint Strike Fighter test program is making progress at an accelerated rate. More to the point, even before it has completed the rigid performance template laid out by DOT&E, the F-35 has demonstrated capabilities that far exceed any current Western fighter.”

If that reads a bit like a Lockheed-Martin marketing brochure, consider the source. In his article, Goure identified himself only as a vice president of the Lexington Institute, which bills itself as “a nonprofit public-policy research organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.”

What Goure didn’t say — and the Lexington Institute doesn’t generally disclose — is that “it receives contributions from defense giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and others, which pay Lexington to ‘comment on defense,’” according to a 2010 profile inPolitico.

Earlier the same year, Harper’s contributor Ken Silverstein called the widely quoted think tank “the defense industry’s pay-to-play ad agency.” He added, “Outfits like Lexington produce the press conferences, position papers and op-eds that keep military money flowing to defense contractors.”

Goure’s indirect association with Lockheed gives a hint as to why programs like the F-35 continue to thrive despite performance failures, gigantic cost overruns, and schedule delays that would otherwise trigger headline-grabbing congressional investigations and produce streams of indignant rhetoric from Fox News commentators about government failure.

Promoting the New Cold War

Think tanks like the Lexington Institute are prime movers behind the domestic propaganda campaign to revive the Cold War against the diminished Russian state and justify weapons programs like the F-35.

As Lee Fang observed recently in The Intercept, “The escalating anti-Russian rhetoric in the U.S. presidential campaign comes in the midst of a major push by military contractors to position Moscow as a potent enemy that must be countered with a drastic increase in military spending by NATO countries.”

Thus the Lockheed-funded Aerospace Industries Association warns that the Obama administration is failing to spend enough on “aircraft, ship and ground combat systems” to adequately address “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.” The Lockheed- and Pentagon-fundedCenter for European Policy Analysis issues a stream of alarmist reports about Russian military threats to Eastern Europe.

And the highly influential Atlantic Council — funded by Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, the U.S. Navy, Army, Air Force, Marines, and even the Ukrainian World Congress — promotes articles like “Why Peace is Impossible with Putin” and declares that NATO must “commit to greater military spending” to deal with “a revanchist Russia.”

Origins of NATO’s Expansion

The campaign to portray Russia as a menace, led by contractor-funded pundits and analysts, began soon after the Cold War ended. In 1996, Lockheed executive Bruce Jackson founded the U.S. Committee on NATO, whose motto was “Strengthen America, Secure Europe. Defend Values. Expand NATO.”

NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Its mission ran directly contrary to promises by the George H.W. Bush administration not to expand the Western military alliance eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Joining Jackson were such neo-conservative hawks as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Robert Kagan. One neocon insider called Jackson — who went on to co-found the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq — “the nexus between the defense industry and the neoconservatives. He translates us to them, and them to us.”

The organization’s intense and highly successful lobbying efforts did not go unnoticed. In 1998, the New York Times reported that “American arms manufacturers, who stand to gain billions of dollars in sales of weapons, communication systems and other military equipment if the Senate approves NATO expansion, have made enormous investments in lobbyists and campaign contributions to promote their cause in Washington. . . .

“The four dozen companies whose main business is arms have showered candidates with $32.3 million since the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe at the beginning of the decade. By comparison, the tobacco lobby spent $26.9 million in that same period, 1991 to 1997.”

A spokesman for Lockheed said,

”We’ve taken the long-term approach to NATO expansion, establishing alliances. When the day arrives and those countries are in a position to buy combat aircraft, we certainly intend on being a competitor.”

The lobbying worked. In 1999, against Russian opposition, NATO absorbed the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. In 2004, it added Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Albania and Croatia joined next in 2009. Most provocatively, in 2008 NATO invited Ukraine to join the Western alliance, setting the stage for the dangerous conflict between NATO and Russia over that country today.

The fortunes of American arms makers soared. “By 2014, the twelve new [NATO] members had purchased close to $17 billion worth of American weapons,” according to Andrew Cockburn, “while . . . Romania celebrated the arrival of Eastern Europe’s first $134 million Lockheed Martin Aegis Ashore missile-defense system.”

Last fall, Washington Business Journal reported that

“if anyone is benefitting from the unease between Russia and the rest of the world, it would have to be Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT). The company is positioned to make large profits off what could very well be an international military spending spree by Russia’s neighbors.”

Citing a big contract to sell missiles to Poland, the newspaper added, “Officials from Lockheed aren’t explicitly declaring that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s adventurism in Ukraine is good for business, but they aren’t shying away from recognizing the opportunity that Poland is presenting them as Warsaw continues to embark on a massive military modernization project — one that has accelerated as tensions grip Eastern Europe.”

Lockheed’s Lobby Machine

Lockheed continues to pump money into the American political system to ensure that it remains the nation’s largest military contractor. From 2008 to 2015, its lobbying expenditures exceeded $13 million in all but one year. The company sprinkled business from the F-35 program into 46 states and claims that it generates tens of thousands of jobs.

Among the 18 states enjoying a claimed economic impact of more than $100 million from the fighter jet is Vermont — which is why the F-35 gets the support even of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

President Dwight Eisenhower delivering his farewell address on Jan. 17, 1961.

President Dwight Eisenhower delivering his farewell address on Jan. 17, 1961.

As he told one town hall meeting, “It employs hundreds of people. It provides a college education for hundreds of people. So for me the question is not whether we have the F-35 or not. It is here. The question for me is whether it is located in Burlington, Vermont or whether it is located in Florida.”

In 1961, President Eisenhower observed that the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” had begun to influence “every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.”

In his famous farewell address to the nation, Eisenhower warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

How right he was. But not even Ike could have imagined the extravagant costs to the nation of failing to hold that complex at bay — ranging from a trillion-dollar fighter jet program to the needless and far more dangerous resurrection of the Cold War a quarter century after the West achieved victory.

Jonathan Marshall is author or co-author of five books on international affairs, including The Lebanese Connection: Corruption, Civil War and the International Drug Traffic (Stanford University Press, 2012). Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were “Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions”; “Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran”; “Saudi Cash Wins France’s Favor”; “The Saudis’ Hurt Feelings”; “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Bluster”; “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess”; and “Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.” ]

 
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “War is Good for Business”: US Arms Makers Invest in a New Cold War

They [the Australian Defence Forces] will be able to target Daesh at its core – joining with our coalition partners to target and kill a broader range of Daesh combatants – which is consistent with international law. Malcolm Turnbull, Sep 1, 2016

The oldest political trick of a leader in domestic strife is to emphasise the unholy nature of a threat from without.  When the polls are low, nothing provides quite the necessary panacea than a military action, or promise of action, on a scale deemed exceptional.

The statement on national security delivered by Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to Parliament on Thursdaywas a recycling effort in large part. It also had its familiar distortions about a security environment that has been fluffed, sexed and altered to a point suggesting we are bracing for Dante’s Inferno.

For a leader who had miscalculated so comprehensively about an election he hoped would secure him a comfortable majority, he is battling a Parliament opposed to him in both chambers on key points on domestic policy.  The opposition Labor party is menacing on the other side of the chamber, merely a few seats away from forming government.  Important, then, to draw upon the security and terrorist card.

What is odd about the statement is that it stresses a string of successes against Islamic State by Coalition forces, of which the 400-member Australian Defence Force Air Task Group forms a part, while insisting that they pose a greater threat than ever.  “Thanks to the efforts of the Iraqi armed forces and their Coalition partners, including the ADF, Daesh has lost close to half of the territory it held in Iraq and up to 20 per cent of its territory in Syria.”

Failed paternalism also makes its cameo appearance.  Foreign forces are present to “assist Iraq take responsibility for its own security and provide security for Iraq’s citizens as they return to their cities.”  (Where has Turnbull been during his short stint as PM?) The continual nonsense here is that neither training, beefing up, nor modernising moves have had much purchase in an environment fluid to meddling and influence by a range of agents. The very existence of Islamic State attests to that fact.

Yet, the struggle continues.  “We must target Daesh at its base.  And with lethal force. No exceptions.”  Such an absolutist line proved to be a precursor to cutting corners and suspending inconvenient limitations on the rules of engagement. What, in other words, had been hampering the Australian forces?  The answer: Australia’s domestic law, which had created a “legal anomaly”.

Prior to the speech, roughly prepared notes from the defence forces were also made available to the press about what effectively amounted to a freeing up for Australian deployment on the battlefield against a broader range of targets of its own choosing.  For Chief of Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, the issue of defeating the Islamic State was a crudely military affair, a logistical effort that has been stifled by the dictates of law.

Accordingly, “over the last few months, as we’ve developed our targeting as Daesh has evolved, it’s become obvious to us that there is a difference between international law and domestic law in what we can and can’t do.” That onerous limitation being that “under domestic law, we can only target those Daesh forces that are taking a direct and active part in hostilities.” (Such inconvenience!)  Supporting networks and associates were outside that purview.

This reading suggests that Binskin finds laws of a certain sort rather problematic, a string to be cut to enable his forces to get the job done.  At best, he is seeking the law that provides greatest utility and scope to target individuals deemed, in the absence of legal or judicial assessment, associates or enemies who can be terminated.  This would also entail killing Australian citizens, a point that brings Canberra more into line with Washington’s lethal strategy.

Turnbull was keen to supply Binskin with dispensation from such legal anomalies. The government had “reviewed its policy on targeting enemy combatants”.  Curative amendments were being made to the Commonwealth Criminal Code harmonising domestic laws with international norms.

Domestically, Turnbull promised to run with his plan to bring in the maligned system of indefinite incarceration of high risk terrorist offenders, modelled on a suite of other pernicious laws in Australia that target sex offenders and mental patients.  The reason for this needless bit of bruising of citizen’s rights has been occasioned by the fiction that Australia has been witness to “three terrorist attacks” in recent years.  The flimsy ground cited by the prime minister is that “in each case the attacker claimed allegiance to or was inspired by Daesh.”

Even in school debating, this would rank as a failing point. Merely uttering religious oaths, and asserting some inspiration to a distant organisation hardly counts in making a hardened foot soldier of the cause.  The Sydney “siege”, more accurately termed a hostage crisis, involved Man Haron Monis, an ill man swimming in doubt, angst and a good deal of mental distress.  His flirtation with Islamic State barely counted – he had been flirting with virtually every other sect and doctrine imaginable.

What is dangerous in Turnbull’s suggestion is that fantasies of Islamic State haunting the land are suitable for legislative action, the result of which is to enlarge the powers of the executive while keeping the judiciary out in the cold.  The priorities of “administrative” justice, emphasising security and welfare of society, prevail over those of individual liberties.

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 Australia Targets Daesh-ISIS “With Lethal Force” at Home and Abroad

Brasil impeachment – Não há crime mas condenamos!

September 1st, 2016 by Mondialisation.ca

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Brasil impeachment – Não há crime mas condenamos!

The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba strongly rejects the parliamentary and judicial coup d’état perpetrated against President Dilma Rousseff.

The Government’s estrangement from the President, without presenting any evidence of corruption or crimes of responsibility against her, as well as from the Workers’ Party (PT) and other left-wing allied political forces, is an act of defiance against the sovereign will of the people who voted for her.The governments headed by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff implemented a socio-economic model that made it possible for Brazil to take a step forward in areas such as production growth with social inclusion, the creation of jobs, the fight against poverty, the eradication of extreme poverty among more than 35 million Brazilians who used to live in inhumane conditions and income increase for another 40 million; the expansion of opportunities in the areas of education and health for the people, including those sectors who had been previously marginalized.çDuring this period, Brazil has been an active promoter of Latin American and Caribbean integration. The defeat of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), the celebration of the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on Integration and Development (CALC) which led to the creation of CELAC and foundation of UNASUR are transcendental events in the recent history of the region which show the leading role played by that country.

Likewise, Brazil’s approach to the Third World nations, particularly Africa; its active membership in the BRICS Group (made up by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa); and its performance at the United Nations Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); and the World Trade Organization, among others, are an acknowledgement of its international leadership.

Equally praiseworthy has been Brazil’s performance under the Workers’ Party governments in crucial international issues for the defense of peace, development, the environment and the programs against hunger.

The efforts made by Lula and Dilma to reform the political system and organize the funding of parties and their campaigns as well as in support of the investigations started against corruption and the independence of the institutions responsible for such investigations are too well known.

The forces that are currently exercising power have announced the privatization of deep water oil reserves and social programs curtailments. Likewise, they are proclaiming a foreign policy focused on the relations with the big international centers of power. Quite a few among those who are impeaching the President are currently under investigation for acts of corruption.

What happened in Brazil is another expression of the offensive of imperialism and the oligarchy against the revolutionary and progressive governments of Latin America and the Caribbean which threatens peace and stability of nations and is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, signed at the Second CELAC Summit in January, 2014, in Havana by the Heads of State and Government of the region.

Cuba reiterates its solidarity with President Dilma and comrade Lula as well as with the Worker’s Party, and is confident that the Brazilian people will defend the social achievements that have been attained and will resolutely oppose the neoliberal policies that others may try to impose on them and the plundering of its natural resources.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Declaration of Cuban Government on Brazil’s Coup d’état, Perpetrated against President Dilma Rousseff

The United States has boasted responsibility for allegedly killing Islamic State spokesman and supposed senior leader Mohammad al-Adnani in northern Syria. The reports, like many of its kind, remain unconfirmed with evidence forthcoming. 

The BBC in its article, “Islamic State: Abu Muhammad al-Adnani ‘killed in Aleppo’,” would claim:

The Pentagon said an air strike had targeted Adnani in the town of al Bab and the results were being assessed.

Reports of his death come as IS is suffering a series of military reverses in both Syria and Iraq.

Such announcements appear aimed at portraying the US military as engaged in military operations to combat and defeat the Islamic State, a terrorist organisation that sprung forth from Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

However, even Western analysts question the significance of such tactics, admitting that the Islamic State’s leadership, or the leadership of any particularly large terrorist organisation for that matter, is easily replaced and has little impact on any given group’s fighting capacity or global menace.

Newsweek in a piece titled, “Does the Death of Abu Mohammad Al-Adani Spell the End for ISIS?,” would claim:

“When the leaders of terrorist groups are killed, the group tends to become more radical. A group in the immediate aftermath of leadership loss is more likely to direct its violence against civilian targets,” says Max Abrahms, professor of political science at Northeastern University and member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

What Western analysts and the Western media have not mentioned, is anything regarding the lack of concerted efforts to attack the actual source of the Islamic State’s power, influence and fighting capacity, namely its funding, supply lines and state sponsors.

Really Defeating an Enemy, Or Pretending? 

Great wars are rarely won by simply killing the leadership of any particular army or nation. During World War II, the death of Nazi Germany’s leader Adolph Hitler occurred long after Germany itself as a nation and as a military force was for all intents and purposes defeated on the battlefield. Italian leader Benito Mussolini presided over a militarily dysfunctional state even from the onset of war. In Japan, the Emperor and many senior military leaders were still alive and well upon the conclusion of fighting, but were missing anything resembling the industrial and military capacity required to continue waging war, even before the United States unleashed two atomic bombs on mainland Japan.

Victory over the Axis powers came instead through systematic, crippling attacks on national infrastructure, supply lines and economic power. Without the ability to replace ships, tanks and aircraft, the Axis powers were slowly strangled before ultimately their fighting capacity collapsed altogether.

In hindsight, considering the systematic campaigns targeting the Axis’ vulnerable economic and industrial bases coupled with the invulnerable and immense economic and industrial capacity of the United States and the Soviet Union, the Axis lost the war before it even started.

And World War II is not the first and only war where strategy and victory hinged on identifying and targeting the source of an enemy’s power. It is a central  and enduring maxim in warfare.

And because of this, the West’s strategy versus the Islamic State is particularly confounding, or perhaps, telling.

Fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, at the very furthest extent of the organisation’s logistical, political, financial and military reach, rather than identifying and striking at their sources appears to be an intentional effort to perpetuate the “war on terror” indefinitely.

It should be remembered that the United States and the coalition it leads supposedly fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has stated that its primary objective is not the defeat of the terrorist organisation, but rather “regime change” in Damascus. This is an objective that stood long before the “Islamic State” filled international headlines, but one that required a secondary pretext to justify the direct involvement of Western military forces. That pretext appears to be the “Islamic State.”

In stark contrast, Syria has struggled since 2011 to control its borders where the vast majority of the Islamic State’s men and materiel are crossing over into Syrian territory. Russia, since its involvement in the conflict, has also heavily focused on Syria’s borders, attacking convoys of trucks crossing over from Turkey, resupplying and reinforcing terrorist organisations in Syria including the Islamic State.

These efforts are, in fact,  precisely why as the BBC has pointed out that the Islamic State is facing significant “reverses” on the battlefield.

A War Meant to Last 

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, the US has admitted itself to seeking the creation of a “Salafist [Islamic] principality [State]” in eastern Syria, precisely where the Islamic State now resides.

Striking at the Islamic State’s leadership is perhaps the  very least the United States can do without doing nothing at all. Alleged “leaders” operating out in the field can be easily replaced through the same pipeline of men and materiel that has snaked through the Persian Gulf States, Turkey and Jordan and into Syria since at least as early as 2011. This pipeline includes training not only for Islamic State militants, but also for its leadership, just like any army.

The only way to truly defeat the Islamic State is to find the source of these various pipelines, expose them and eliminate them just as the Allies did to the Axis’ industrial and economic bases to win the war. The only logical conclusion one can draw from a US-led coalition that refuses to do this in regards to the Islamic State is that the coalition has no honest intention of truly fighting and defeating the terrorist organisation to begin with and is merely cynically using its presence in Iraq and Syria to justify and otherwise unjustifiable, permanent presence of Western military forces in and around the region.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Striking Islamic State “Leaders” is Sheer Propaganda, Sustains the “Global War on Terrorism”

A set of declassified documents have revealed former prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s involvement in one of Britain’s biggest and most controversial arms deals. According to the newly released files, the former prime minister met Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd to convince him to purchase fighter jets from British Aerospace rather than France.

Thatcher reportedly made a quick trip to Riyadh on 14 April 1985 to “smoke out the Saudis” and have lunch with the ruler of the country. At the time, Britain was attempting to close the Al-Yamamah deal — a £42bn ($55.3bn) contract with the oil-rich country, to sell them 30 British Hawk and 72 Tornado fighter jets.

France was simultaneously trying to pitch its own contract for the sale of the Mirage aircraft. Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud — an anglophile and the influential Saudi ambassador to Washington — told the Foreign Office that the king preferred their deal and invited Thatcher to visit Riyadh for a talk.

According to the documents released by the National Archives at Kew, the defence secretary at the time, Michael Heseltine was confident the meeting between Thatcher and the king would clinch the deal. Heseltine’s private secretary, Richard Mottram, wrote to Thatcher’s adviser Charles Powell stating: “It seems unlikely that Prince Bandar would seek to engineer such a meeting unless something positive was likely to come out of it, otherwise he runs the obvious risk of embarrassing both the Prime Minister and King Fahd.”

Following the meeting — the government decided to keep the reason for the meeting a secret — Thatcher wrote the king a letter thanking him for being “able to discuss a further matter privately”.

In a later correspondence with Sir Patrick Wright, the UK’s then ambassador to Riyadh, she wrote: “I was able to have a private word with him [the King] over lunch on the particular matter about which you know.”

By September 1985, the deal was signed and created thousands of jobs through defence giant BAE Systems and its partners. However, it was also steeped in controversy following allegations that a slush fund worth millions of pounds was paid to members of the Saudi royal family. In 2006, Tony Blair’s government stopped a corruption investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the fund stating it would result in “serious damage” to relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia.

Finally in 2010, BAE Systems reached a £286m settlement over corruption claims with the Serious Fraud Office and the US Department of Justice.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Margaret Thatcher’s Role in Controversial £42 Billion Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia. Declassified Files

Federal Judge Robert Mariani has denied the preliminary injunction motion in “Abu-Jamal vs. Kerestes” that demanded life-saving hepatitis C treatment for Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The reason Mariani gave is this: “The persons against whom injunctive relief may be granted are not parties to this lawsuit”.

He stated that because the specific members of the Department of Corrections’ (DOC’s) hepatitis C Care Committee – were not named in the lawsuit this motion will fail. The memorandum by Mariani says that “if the proper defendants had been named”, Mumia may well have prevailed in his request for immediate lifesaving treatment.

One might ask: How could the PA Department of Corrections not be the “responsible party”? They not only formed the hepatitis C Care Committee; they then approved its recommendations. The named defendants in “Abu-Jamal vs. Kerestes” are responsible for providing appropriate health care to people in prisons in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. How could the court let the PA DOC avoid its constitutional obligations to provide medically indicated care to prisoners by simply passing off the responsibility to a subcommittee?

Bob Boyle, lawyer for Abu-Jamal “In addition, at no time during the litigation has the DOC argued that the defendants who had been named could not carry out an injunction. It should be noted that currently pending before the Court is a motion to add as a defendant DOC Director of Clinical Services Paul Noel, who is a member of the Hepatitis C committee, as a defendant.” full statement below

Meanwhile, Judge Mariani did deal a fatal blow to the PA DOC’s “hepatitis C protocol”, finding that the DOC’s provision of medical care to be “deliberately indifferent” and unconstitutional. To quote: “The protocol as currently adopted and implemented presents deliberate indifference to the known risks which follow from untreated chronic hepatitis C.”

Bret Grote, Mumia’s attorney, (Abolitionist Law Center) “The DOC’s current treatment protocol for hepatitis C was ruled in violation of the Eighth Amendment in no uncertain terms: “In the wake of the advent of curative Hepatitis C medications, Defendants have charted a course that denies treatment to inmates until they are on the verge of a ‘catastrophic’ health event, a decision that appears to contain a ‘fiscal component,’ and ignores the standard of care for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.”  click for press release here

The court’s legal slight of hand on one page denies Mumia immediate care, and on the next page, paves the way for the ultimate delivery of care. But when? How long is the delay?

Note that the hepatitis C Care Committee was created in November 2015 as a direct result of our litigation. It was formed to provide the appearance that the DOC had a process to deliver hep C care. After years of denying hep C treatment to prisoners, the DOC began to treat 5 people at the time of our hearing. A couple dozen prisoners are now are receiving the cure.

Yet 6,000 people in Pennsylvania’s prisons have chronic hep C. All but a few, those with esophageal varices, are being denied treatment. They are dying in the solitary confinement called “Hep C Care Clinics”. Just imagine- no treatment and you have end-stage hep C, and you are in solitary and you are dying. This is not a pretty picture, but it is happening in every single PA prison. It is the definition of “deliberate indifference” and unconstitutional medical care.

Right now, Mumia’s health is precarious. He is stable, but he remains at great risk.

We will fight for immediate treatment- and Mumia will receive the care he needs. We will win. While this is a temporary loss, we will take action. Mumia’s lawyers will appeal, refile or amend this complaint quickly. Please look below for resources and ways to take action.

Cuando luchamos ganamos! When we fight, we win!

DONATE

Join Local Actions!

A National Day of Rage and Day of Action has been called for on September 7th.

In Philadelphia, there will be a press conference at the Department of Health with a march to the Governor’s and DA’s office.
For more information, call 215-476-2471 NationTime Judicial Research for updates.

More action alerts will be posted at freemumia.com, bringmumiahome.com, & prisonradio.org. Please let these groups know about your local actions! Please add your action here: http://www.prisonradio.org/take-action-event/add

With 8 days left to reach our goal, please pitch in to keep Mumia’s voice active.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mumia Abu Jamal’s Health is Precarious: His Motion for Immediate Care: DENIED

While the mainstream media was focused on today’s primetime Brazilian spectacle, namely Dilma Rouseff’s impeachment vote in the Senate, which passed as expected with a substantial majority permanently removing Rouseff from office and assuring that her replacement, Michel Temer rules until at least 2018 (unless the unpopular politician is also impeached in the meantime), what has gotten far less press is the ongoing devastation of the Brazilian economy which has failed to see even a token pick up in recent months despite the change in the ruling administration.

Here are the latest stunning updates.

According to the most recent economic data, the labor market continues to implode: the unemployment rate surged to 11.6% with the ranks of the unemployed topping 11.8 million (up from 8.6 mn a year ago) as the following chart from Goldman Sachs shows.

The national unemployment rate printed at 11.6% in the 3-month period ending in July, up from 11.3% in June and up from 8.6% a year ago, and 6.9% two years ago. In seasonally adjusted terms the unemployment rate climbed to 11.4% in July, from 11.1% in June and 8.4% a year ago.

Formal salaried employment in the private sector shrank 3.9% yoy, while employment in the informal sector grew 0.9% yoy. Self-employment grew 2.4% (a reflection of increasingly limited salaried employment opportunities). By sector of economic activity, industrial employment shrank by a large 10.6% yoy (-1.4mn jobs).

Employment declined 1.8% yoy in the 3-month period ending in July, while the economically active labor force grew 1.5%.

Meanwhile, as the number of working Brazilians tumbles, average real wages conttinued their unprecedented decline, sliding 3.0% yoy. The labor force participation rate rose one-tenth from a year ago: to 61.5%.

Alas, there is little hope in sight: according to Goldman, the labor market is set to deteriorate further given the forecasted weak performance of the economy, particularly of the labor-intensive services sector.

It wasn’t just the labor market that continues to flounder, however. According to today’s GDP report, in the second quarter the economy continued to contract , driven, among other things by the impact of the ongoing credit crunch and severe labor market deterioration on consumption. Specifically, real GDP dropped -0.6% qoq in Q2 sa (non-annualized) once again missing the consensus print of -0.50%.  Real GDP contracted 0.6% qoq sa in 2Q2016, adding to the large contractions averaging -1.3% qoq sa during 1Q2015-1Q2016. The 1Q2016 figure was revised to -0.43% qoq sa, down from the original -0.28% qoq sa.

In yoy terms, real GDP declined -3.8% during 1Q2016, a modest improvement from the -5.4% Q1 plunge. Private consumption declined 5.0%, and public consumption retrenched 2.2%. Finally, gross fixed capital formation declined by a large 8.8% yoy. Just like in China, which historically was a major source of Brazilian upside, aggregate investment remained low and decline again: 16.8% of GDP during 2Q2016, down from 18.4% of GDP in 2Q2015 and 20.1% of GDP in 2Q2014. The national gross savings rate was even lower (15.8% of GDP), still much lower than the 19.7% of GDP reached during 1Q2013 and 18.8% of GDP in 1Q2014.

According to an analysis by Goldman’s Alberto Ramos, the contraction of real activity during 2Q was driven by private consumption on the demand side and services on the supply side. Final domestic demand contracted again (-0.5% qoq sa); sixth consecutive decline and printed in negative territory in eight of the last nine quarters. On the supply side, the large labor intensive services sector retrenched again at the margin as noted above (-0.8% qoq sa; -3.3% yoy); sixth consecutive quarterly decline averaging -0.9% qoq sa.

As Ramos concludes, “the ongoing economic recession/depression has now lasted an extraordinarily long period of time and has been unusually deep: leading to a 9.7% cumulative decline in per-capita real GDP. By 2Q2016, real GDP was at the same level of 3Q2010. Final private sector domestic demand has declined a very large 12.4% cumulatively since 2Q2014.”

* * *

Completing the abysmal picture was the latest capital flow data, according to which Brazil’s primary fiscal deficit remained stuck at -2.5% of GDP, while gross debt now approaching a record 70% of GDP. 

More details: The consolidated public sector posted a R$12.8bn primary deficit in July significantly worse than the R$4.7bn deficit recorded a year ago. The central government posted a R$11.9bn deficit, and the states and municipalities a smaller R$334mn deficit. The performance of subnational governments is expected to deteriorate further in the months ahead given tightening budgetary pressures and the recent re-profiling of debt service payments to the treasury. Finally, state-owned enterprises recorded a larger than expected R$629mn deficit.

On a 12-month trailing basis, the consolidated public sector primary fiscal deficit remained broadly unchanged from June to July at a high 2.54% of GDP (vs. 2.51% of GDP in June), but rose visibly from 1.88% of GDP in December 2015. The overall public sector fiscal deficit (primary surplus minus interest payments) is running at an extraordinarily high 9.6% of GDP (slightly down from 10.4% of GDP in December due chiefly to gains in the outstanding stock of Dollar swaps driven by the recent BRL appreciation). The 12-month net interest bill is tracking at 7.0% of GDP, compared with 8.5% of GDP in December.

According to Goldman, given the 0.9% BRL depreciation against the USD in July, the stock of Dollar swaps issued by the central bank added R$1.8bn from the overall public sector net interest bill (the difference between the DI rate and the exchange rate variation plus the “cupom cambial”). The 12-month trailing implicit interest rate on total net public debt is tracking at a very high 22.3%.

Putting all this together means that gross general government debt is now tracking at 69.5% of GDP, up from 66.5% of GDP at end-2015. Net public debt has deteriorated 5.6 percentage points of GDP since December.

Goldman’s conclusion:

A deep, permanent, large structural fiscal adjustment remains front-and-center on the policy agenda to restore both domestic and external balance. In our assessment, fiscal consolidation in Brazil will be a multi-year endeavor. Most likely, returning to primary fiscal surpluses will take no less than 2-3 years, and returning to a primary surplus level that stabilizes the debt dynamics (around 2.5% of GDP) likely 4-5 years, or perhaps longer. At the end of the fiscal consolidation process we estimate that Brazil needs to end up with a primary surplus of 3.0% to 3.5% of GDP. This would be the level of primary surplus that would put gross public debt on a clear declining trajectory, something that is required for Brazil to rebuild fiscal buffers and regain room to use fiscal policy counter-cyclically, whenever needed and appropriate. Furthermore, we believe a deep fiscal adjustment that would elevate public sector savings is needed to facilitate a permanent structural current account adjustment (rather than just a cyclical adjustment driven by the sharp contraction of domestic demand), and also to endow the central bank with extra degrees of freedom to set monetary policy at a less restrictive level.

What is most fascinating, however, is that despite the all too clear economic depression raging in Brazil, which gets progressively worse by the month, the stock market continues to rise pricing in a Phoenix-like recovery, which even Goldman now admits will take “4-5 years, or perhaps longer.” Why this unprecedented surge in asset prices? Simple: a mountain of central bank-created liquidity which finds its way into any market that offers even a modium of incremental yield, such as Brazil’s. Alas, for those asking when the record divergence shown below closes, and the Bovespa will be painfully reacquainted with gravity, we have no answer.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Brazilian Economic Collapse Reaches Unprecedented Proportions

“ … a landmark agreement that will save lives and ease the immense human suffering caused by armed conflict around the world. It will reduce the number of illegal arms …We should be proud of the role Britain has played to secure this ambitious agreement … that will make our world safer for all.” (David Cameron on the Arms Trade Treaty, 2nd April 2013.)

The death toll in Yemen is now so high that the International Committee of the Red Cross is donating “entire morgue units” (1) to hospitals still standing, having so far escaped the illegal Saudi assault, backed, advised and armed by the US and UK.

“The hospitals were not able to cope,” said Rima Kamal, a Yemen-based spokesperson for the Red Cross. “You could have more than 20 dead people brought into one hospital on one single day. The morgue capacity at a regular hospital is not equipped to handle this influx of dead bodies.”

“It is not that common for the ICRC to donate morgues,” she observed. “The fact that we now do is telling of the size of the human tragedy in Yemen.” The ICRC has donated body bags and refrigerated storage facilities to three hospitals with: “More in the pipeline.”

Meanwhile, according the international agency, Oxfam: “The UK government has switched from being an enthusiastic backer of the international Arms Trade Treaty into one of the most significant violators.” (2) The Arms Trade Treaty entered in to force in December 2014 and has been signed by 130 nations, 87 have ratified – including the UK – 46 have signed but not yet ratified.

“UK arms and military support are fuelling a brutal war in Yemen, harming the very people the Arms Trade Treaty is designed to protect. Schools, hospitals and homes have been bombed in contravention of the rules of war.

“The UK government is in denial and disarray over its arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition bombing campaign in Yemen. It has misled its own Parliament about its oversight of arms sales and its international credibility is in jeopardy as it commits to action on paper but does the opposite in reality.

“The UK government has been supplying arms to the Saudi-led coalition for use in the war in Yemen, including export licences for £3.3bn worth of arms in 12 months from March 2015 … The UK is also providing Saudi Arabia with military advice and personnel, both Ministry of Defence personnel and private contractors.”

Ironically, the UK government was an architect of the Arms Trade Treaty, which is incorporated in to British law. The Treaty aims to regulate trade in “conventional” weapons, contributing to wider global peace, reduce human suffering and generate transparency and responsible actions “by and amongst states.” For the UK government such admirable aims seemingly count for nothing.

In April, Amnesty International sent an expert team in to Yemen (3) who discovered that British made cluster bombs had been used by the Saudi “coalition.” Cluster bombs are illegal weapons and have been banned under international law since 2008.

Amnesty’s team found a: “British-made BL-755 – a particularly nasty model, which consists of a large bomb that opens mid-air to scatter 147 smaller explosive bomblets across a wide area.

“The bomblets eject a stream of molten metal as they detonate, which is designed to pierce metal armour. After this, they explode into more than 2,000 fragments killing and maiming all in the vicinity.”

If they don’t explode on impact, they remain on the ground, scattered across the area, with “hundreds of live, lethal devices” waiting to be triggered by vibration, tripped on or picked up by curious children or uninformed adults who are either killed or terribly maimed. Interviewing survivors it was found that: “These incidents took place days, weeks or sometimes months after the bombs were dropped by coalition forces in Yemen.”

Amnesty has been pressing the British government on the Saudi’s use of these outlawed weapons, only to be told sanguinely that UK Ministers have been provided with “assurances” by Saudi “of their proper use.”

Work that one out, “proper use” of illegal weapons.

However: “On 22 July 2016, the last day of Parliament before their summer holidays, the UK government admitted that they had misled MPs six times over investigations into Saudi Arabia’s conduct in Yemen.” (Emphasis added.)

Thus, having assured Amnesty repeatedly of assessments conducted  finding no breach in international law: “ … it is now apparent no investigations has been done at all.” It seems when it comes to weapons of mass destruction of all hues, British governments of whichever party contain serial liars. Iraq was destroyed on the lies that it had weapons of mass destruction, the UK government sells them, then misleads about the consequences.

In an another Report (4) Amnesty makes the point that: “Cluster munitions are banned by over 100 countries, including the UK, and campaigners argue that the UK has a strong moral responsibility to ensure that any cluster bombs – such as the BL-755 – sold in the past are traced and that measures taken to destroy existing stockpiles. Since the 1980s and 1990s the UK is thought to have sold large numbers of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia and the UAE (which is also part of the Saudi Arabia-led military coalition) and the weapon is known to be in the current ordnance stockpiles of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE.”

No doubt the British government is more concerned about being asked to repay the purchase moneys were they to demand Saudi and the UAE destroyed the cluster bombs stock, with barely a mental glance towards the lives and limbs at stake.

In northern Yemen: “thousands of unexploded bomblets litter villages”, with a goat herder telling the researchers: “In the area next to us, there are bombs hanging off trees.”

There may be even further British involvement: “The BL-755 is designed to be dropped from the UK Tornado fighter jet, scores of which the UK has sold to Saudi Arabia. Given that the UK is known to have several hundred specialist support staff working closely with the Royal Saudi Air Force, Amnesty is warning that any involvement of UK personnel – whether in Saudi Arabia or in a liaison or political role in the UK – would constitute a clear breach of the UK’s legal responsibility under the Convention on Cluster Munitions.” (Emphasis added.)

In December last year Amnesty and Saferworld commissioned a legal opinion from eminent international law experts, Professor Philippe Sands QC, Professor Andrew Clapham and Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh of London’s Matrix Chambers. (5)

They concluded that: “any authorisation by the UK of the transfer of weapons and related items to Saudi Arabia … in circumstances where such weapons are capable of being used in the conflict in Yemen, including to support its blockade of Yemeni territory, and in circumstances where their end-use is not restricted, would constitute a breach by the UK of its obligations under domestic, European and international law.”

They also opined that the UK Government can properly be deemed to have: “actual knowledge … of the use by Saudi Arabia of weapons, including UK-supplied weapons, in attacks directed against civilians and civilians objects, in violation of international law”, since at least May 2015.

It should also be noted that of the over one hundred licenses to arms exports to Saudi, by value the top items are combat aircraft and air-delivered bombs.

Matthew Norman sums the whole, murderous, shameful, filthy business (literally) up admirably (Independent, 23rd August 2016.)

“Coming second to the US in the medals table at one Olympics might be a flash in the pan. Finishing second behind America year after year in the global league of net arms exporters suggests a commitment to flogging the means of death to any regime – however disgusting – with the cash to buy them.”

Notes

  1. https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/the-death-toll-in-yemen-is-so-high-the-red-cross-has-started-donating-morgues-to-hospitals/
  2. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2016/08/uk-government-in-denial-and-disarray-over-treaty-it-helped-create-to-regulate-the-arms-trade
  3. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/exposed-british-cluster-bombs-used-deadly-attacks-yemen
  4. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/saudi-arabia-led-coalition-has-used-uk-manufactured-cluster-bombs-yemen-new-evidence
  5. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/government-breaking-law-supplying-arms-saudi-say-leading-lawyers 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Death in Yemen: British Weapons Sales to Saudi Arabia, and the “Proper Use” of Illegal Arms

Brazil’s Impeachment and the Fall of the Workers Party

September 1st, 2016 by Bill Van Auken

Thursday’s vote by the Brazilian Senate to initiate the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff on trumped-up charges of budgetary improprieties has effectively ended 13 years of rule by the Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores—PT) over Latin America’s largest country, with over 200 million inhabitants and the world’s seventh largest economy.

The ouster of Rousseff is the outcome of an undemocratic conspiracy organized by decisive layers within the Brazilian ruling class and supported by international finance capital. It has been carried out with the aim of effecting a radical change in economic policy and class relations and poses an immense threat to the jobs, basic rights and living standards of masses of Brazilian workers.

What has been imposed by means of this conspiracy is the most right-wing government since the end of the country’s two-decade-long military dictatorship over 30 years ago. Rousseff is supposedly merely suspended from office for the duration of a trial that could last until October. The reality, however, is that under her vice president and erstwhile political ally, Michel Temer of the PMDB (Brazilian Democratic Movement Party), the entire government has been changed. Every minister has been replaced, entire departments are being liquidated and a wholesale purge of state officials is underway.

With his premier speech as “interim president,” Temer resurrected the language of authoritarianism and dictatorship. He called for a government of “national salvation” to “pacify” Brazil and invoked the slogan emblazoned on the country’s flag, “Ordem e Progresso” (Order and Progress), as the watchwords of the new regime.

An unelected government is preparing to implement what the new finance minister, former Bank of Boston CEO Henrique Meirelles, acknowledged Friday will be “hard” austerity measures designed to impose the full burden of Brazil’s economic crisis, the worst in a century, on the backs of the working class. Inevitably, the government will resort to state violence and repression to carry out this agenda.

The economic crisis, which has resulted in 11 million unemployed with no letup in mass layoffs in sight, is at the root of the debacle of the PT government. The economic breakdown that has gripped world capitalism since 2008 has found a sharp expression in Brazil and throughout Latin America in the collapse of the commodities and emerging markets booms that made possible the PT’s policies of providing limited social assistance programs for the poor, while creating the most profitable conditions in the country’s history for the corporate and financial oligarchy.

The same crisis is undermining all of the bourgeois governments associated with Latin America’s so-called turn to the left, from the ousted Peronists in Argentina to Nicolas Maduro, who faces a possible recall election under conditions of an economic meltdown in Venezuela.

The Rousseff government not only failed to carry out measures to ameliorate the conditions of mass unemployment and falling real wages, it initiated its own austerity measures aimed at winning the favor of world financial markets and Wall Street ratings agencies. Social inequality in this starkly polarized country is once again on the rise, and the gains made in reducing extreme poverty over the past decade are evaporating.

While the methods used to remove Rousseff from office are entirely undemocratic, the protests by the president and her supporters that she is the victim of a “coup” ring hollow, given that the collection of corrupt and right-wing capitalist politicians behind the impeachment were, until recently, the PT’s closest political allies. They were also partners in a succession of corrupt operations, from the mensalao congressional vote-buying affair to the contract kickback scandal at Petrobras. It is perhaps the greatest political indictment of the PT’s rule that it served to protect and incubate the reactionary political elements that are now being unleashed upon the working class.

The PT sought to save itself from impeachment by trying, on the one hand, to secure support from these same layers with offers of more positions and power, and, on the other, to convince the ruling establishment that the Workers Party was better equipped to carry through an austerity agenda by dint of its electoral “legitimacy” and its collaboration with the CUT union federation in suppressing working class struggles.

In the end, the PT, a thoroughly venal capitalist party, bears criminal responsibility for the “coup” it condemns, whose principal victims will be not Rousseff and her fellow politicians, but the masses of Brazil’s workers and oppressed.

Particular responsibility for the acute crisis now confronting Brazilian workers rests with the various pseudo-left groups that backed the Workers Party and sought to subordinate the working class to its leadership. Chief among them are various revisionist tendencies that split from the International Committee of the Fourth International, rejecting its struggle for the international unity and political independence of the working class based on a revolutionary socialist program in order to adapt themselves to Stalinism and various forms of bourgeois nationalism, chief among them, Castroism.

In Brazil, these forces promoted the Workers Party as a substitute for the building of a revolutionary Marxist party in the working class. The PT was portrayed as providing a new Brazilian parliamentary road to socialism. Its name notwithstanding, the PT was from its founding not a party of the working class, but rather a bourgeois party based on privileged sections of the middle class. Its purpose was to contain the class struggle and the immense social tensions of Brazilian society, while defending capitalism.

While many of these tendencies were thrown out of the PT as it moved ever further to the right under the leadership of former metalworkers union leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, they continue to play essentially the same role today, offering not a trace of revolutionary leadership in the face of the impeachment crisis.

The Morenoite PSTU (Unified Socialist Workers Party) continues to advance the slogan “throw them all out,” essentially adapting to the right-wing conspiracy that produced the impeachment, while failing to provide any warning of the immense dangers confronting Brazilian workers. Having supported imperialist regime-change operations from Syria to Ukraine, it now is complicit in a domestic version of the same process.

The Pabloite tendencies organized around the group Insurgencia are part of PSOL (Socialism and Liberty Party), a party formed by legislators expelled from the PT. Their aim is to refurbish the original PT model in order to better subordinate the working class to the capitalist state.

The period in which these parties have been able to help suppress the class struggle is coming to an end, not only in Brazil, but internationally. As the present crisis demonstrates, the ruling class is no longer able to rule in the old way and it is becoming impossible for the working class to live in the old way, creating the conditions for revolutionary upheavals.

The most urgent political task is the formation of a new revolutionary leadership in the working class based on an assimilation of the bitter experience with the Workers Party and the long struggle of Trotskyism against revisionism. This means building a Brazilian section of the International Committee of the Fourth International.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil’s Impeachment and the Fall of the Workers Party
The impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff was an attack on democracy, said thousands of Brazilians marching against the coup government.

Brazil’s streets erupted in protest after democratically-elected Dilma Rousseff was deposed as president with 61 votes in the senate Wednesday.

Brazilians marched in dozens of cities across the country, including Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and Recife, among others. Police cracked down on the protests, using water cannons and pepper spray to disperse crowds. In Sao Paulo, protesters blocked off streets and highways with flaming barricades to show that their democracy is under attack.

Hundreds also gathered at the presidential palace to show their support for Dilma, holding balloons, flowers and handkerchiefs.

Those that took to social media quickly made the hashtag #ForaTemer a worldwide trend. The Twitter account Jornalistas Livres posted a photo of a broken camera, which they said was smashed by the governor of Sao Paulo.

The protests were a repetition of explosive marches Tuesday before the vote, where social movements shut down major roadways around Sao Paulo, and Monday, when military police cracked down with tear gas and flash bombs, local media reported.

At stake are the public welfare programs and educational programs created and expanded in the 13 years that the Workers’ Party or PT, has governed the country.

The vote to remove the twice-elected Rousseff from office hearkens back to Brazil’s dark history of oppressive military rule. In her testimony before the Senate Monday, Rousseff herself said her impeachment would represent the “death of democracy” in Brazil.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In the Wake of Dilma’s Impeachment: President Temer Gets Furious Welcome from Brazilians Across the Country

Russia blocked a move by the United Nations on Tuesday to sanction Syria for the government’s alleged use of chemical weapons in the country’s brutal civil war.

Britain and France called for UN sanctions after a UN-led investigation found that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces had carried out at least two chemical attacks, one in 2014 and one in 2015.

Following a closed-door Security Council meeting the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said he had “very serious questions” about the findings and suggested the panel should continue its work.

“There are a number of questions which have to be clarified before we accept all the findings of the report,” Churkin said.

Previous reports from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had concluded that toxic gases have been used as weapons in Syria’s five-year war, but stopped short of identifying the perpetrators.

The panel of inquiry, known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), for the first time pointed the finger of blame at the Assad government for chemical weapons use after years of denial from Damascus.

The British and French ambassadors described the use of chemical weapons against civilians as a war crime, while US ambassador Samantha Power called for quick action to ensure those responsible “pay a price.”

Churkin, however, made clear he was unconvinced by the JIM report.

“There is nobody to sanction in the report,” Churkin said. “It contains no names, no specifics, no fingerprints.”

“Clearly there is a smoking gun. We know that chlorine was most likely used, but there are no fingerprints on the gun,” he said.

The panel found that the Syrian government had dropped chemical weapons on two villages in northwestern Idlib province: Talmenes on 21 April, 2014 and Sarmin on 16 March, 2015.

In both instances, Syrian air force helicopters dropped “a device” on houses that was followed by the “release of a toxic substance,” which in the case of Sarmin matched “the characteristics of chlorine.”

Chlorine use as a weapon is banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria joined in 2013, under pressure from Russia, Assad’s ally.

No evidence

Syrian ambassador Bashar Jaafari rejected the findings, saying the panel lacked “physical evidence” to support its conclusions that chlorine barrel-bombs were dropped on civilians.

The report was “totally based on witnesses presented by terrorist armed groups,” Jaafari told reporters.

French ambassador Francois Delattre called for a “quick and strong Security Council response” that would include “imposing sanctions on those who are responsible for these acts.”

The council will be “looking at the imposition of sanctions and some form of accountability within international legal mechanisms,” said British Ambassador Matthew Rycroft.

The report also found that the Islamic State had used mustard gas in an attack on the town of Marea in northern Aleppo province in August 2015.

Human Rights Watch called on the council to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court for war crimes and to urgently impose sanctions.

Britain, France and the United States said such a step remained an option, even though Russia and China blocked ICC referral in 2014.

“Russia and China don’t have a leg to stand on by continuing to obstruct the Security Council on Syria sanctions and ICC referral,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch.

“The Security Council diminishes its importance if it doesn’t take strong action against demonstrated use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fabricated Evidence, Russia Blocks UN Move to Sanction Syria for Chemical Attacks