Global Research

El mercado laboral de Estados Unidos ha vuelto a tropezar. El pasado mes de mayo, la nómina no agrícola añadió 38 mil nuevos puestos de trabajo cuando los inversionistas de Wall Street esperaban un incremento por encima de 160 mil. Janet Yellen, la presidenta del Sistema de la Reserva Federal, no tuvo otra alternativa que dejar intacta la tasa de interés de referencia después de la reunión de junio del Comité Federal de Mercado Abierto. El riesgo de una nueva recesión en Estados Unidos es más amenazante que nunca, aunque los medios de comunicación occidentales insistan en promover la idea de que los principales peligros son la desaceleración económica de China y el posible abandono del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea.

Después de la reunión más reciente del Comité Federal de Mercado Abierto (FOMC, por sus siglas en inglés), realizada a mediados de junio, la presidenta de la Reserva Federal (FED), Janet Yellen, anunció que la tasa de interés de referencia permanecería intacta, esto es, en un rango entre 0,25 y 0,50 por ciento. Con ello, todo parece indicar que la FED no volverá a subir el costo del crédito interbancario a un día hasta antes del próximo mes de septiembre.

En definitiva, la propaganda del Gobierno de Barack Obama para convencernos de la “plena recuperación” de la economía norteamericana ha vuelto a caer en el descrédito. Ya pasaron más de seis meses desde que la FED elevó la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate’) y hasta el momento no existen señales que anticipen un nuevo incremento.

En repetidas ocasiones, la FED ha ajustado a la baja sus proyecciones de crecimiento de la economía: mientras que en marzo estimó una tasa de expansión para este año entre 2,1 y 2,3 por ciento, recientemente la redujo a un rango entre 1,9 y 2 por ciento. La economía va en caída libre, apenas en diciembre de 2015 el pronóstico de crecimiento de la FED para 2016 oscilaba entre 2,3 y 2,5 por ciento.

Es indudable, la creciente debilidad de la economía más poderosa del Grupo de los 7 (G-7) ha obligado a las autoridades monetarias a actuar con cautela, pues cualquier movimiento en falso incrementaría los riesgos de acentuar las tendencias recesivas, esta vez con altas posibilidades de combinarse con deflación (caída de precios).

El primer trimestre del año la tasa de expansión del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) de la economía estadounidense a duras penas alcanzó 0,80 por ciento. La recuperación del mercado de trabajo por su parte, continúa siendo demasiado frágil aunque se presuma como el principal logro de las políticas implementadas por la FED. Recordemos que en diciembre pasado, cuando la FED elevó en 25 puntos base la tasa de interés de referencia, la tasa de paro oficial se ubicaba en 5 por ciento, una cifra que a decir de algunos integrantes del FOMC, avizoraba una situación de “pleno empleo”.

Sin embargo, hoy sabemos que el banco central encabezado por Janet Yellen se equivocó. Los últimos datos no dejan lugar a sospechas: los vientos de una nueva recesión son muy amenazantes. El pasado mes de mayo la nómina no agrícola añadió solamente 38 mil puestos de trabajo, fue el incremento más bajo desde el año 2010. Por añadidura, los datos de marzo y abril fueron revisados a la baja, los empleadores contrataron 59 mil personas menos a lo reportado originalmente.

Por eso ningún integrante del FOMC salió a festejar que la tasa de desempleo empleo cayera a 4,7 por ciento cuando, en paralelo, la tasa de participación laboral descendió a 62,6 por ciento: miles de personas abandonaron la búsqueda de trabajo ante la falta de oportunidades. Es que la tasa de desempleo oficial oculta el subempleo masivo, si se contabilizaran tanto a las personas que están ocupadas en puestos de trabajo de tiempo parcial así como a aquellas que han abandonado recientemente el mercado laboral, las cifras cambiarían por completo. Hay alternativas de medición, la metodología U-6 que sí considera estos dos rubros, ubica la tasa de desempleo en 9,7 por ciento, esto es, representa más del doble de la tasa de paro oficial.

Cabe destacar que la falta de dinamismo de la economía estadounidense es consecuencia fundamentalmente de la extrema debilidad de la inversión empresarial, producto a su vez de una tasa de rentabilidad del capital demasiado baja, o por lo menos insuficiente para poner en marcha nuevas plantas productivas, capaces de generar empleo masivo y con ello, detonar un proceso recuperación de largo aliento. Sucede que los empresarios norteamericanos se resisten no solamente a invertir sino también a elevar los salarios, situación que ha impedido apoyar un incremento sustantivo de la inflación: el índice de precios al consumidor (CPI, por sus siglas en inglés) aumentó apenas 1,1 por ciento en términos anuales el mes pasado.

La imagen de una economía boyante parece cada vez más lejana luego de que el Conference Board de Estados Unidos, la institución encargada de supervisar la competitividad en escala mundial, dio a conocer que la economía norteamericana sufrirá este año la primera contracción de su nivel de productividad de las últimas tres décadas. Ante la falta de innovación, la productividad estadounidense se desplomará 0,2 por ciento. “El año pasado parecía que estábamos entrando en una crisis de productividad, ahora estamos a la mitad de ella”, sentenció Bart van Ark, el economista en jefe del prestigioso centro de investigaciones.

Pese a todo, los medios de comunicación tradicionales insisten en promover la idea de que las señales de alerta para la FED están localizadas fuera de territorio estadounidense. En un primer momento nos dijeron que la desaceleración económica de China representaba uno de los principales peligros para el mundo, más recientemente, nos han puesto sobre aviso de las fuertes turbulencias financieras que vendrán en caso de que el Reino Unido se decida a abandonar la Unión Europea (el llamado ‘Brexit’).

Muy pocos se han atrevido a indagar sobre la alta peligrosidad que representa Estados Unidos para la economía global: según las estimaciones de Deutsche Bank, el principal banco de inversiones del Continente europeo, la probabilidad de que la Unión Americana caiga en recesión durante los próximos doce meses es ya de 55 por ciento. Todo apunta a que más temprano que tarde, la dramática realidad económica terminará por imponerse frente a la tergiversación informativa.

 Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez : Economista egresado de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

image: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The world is at a dangerous crossroads. 

“The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare.”

Interview of Bonnie Faulkner with Michel Chossudovsky on Guns and Butter, KPFA

The significance of Anaconda 2016, NATO’s massive war games underway in Eastern Europe;

Global warfare and non-conventional warfare;

Iran and the Middle East;

Nuclear weapons reclassified for conventional use;

The Oded Yinon Plan for greater Israel;

The structure of military alliances an instrument of conquest;

The strategic alliance between Russia and China within a larger global geopolitical framework;

The criminalization of politics.  

The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with “moderate” terrorists.

With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from “extremist” terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the “moderate” terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. This is, of course, in addition to the SAA, NDF, Iraqi paramilitary forces/militias, Iranian military forces, and Hezbollah fighters working with the Syrian government.

Yet, even as Syria’s military clashes with the West’s proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations.

Into this context come recent reports from Russian media citing Kurdish sources that the French are now attempting to establish military bases in Aleppo province.

According to the source, cited by Sputnik, French forces stationed in northern Syria have already begun construction on a military base near Ayn al-Arab (Kobane) in Aleppo province.

“The French have begun constructing a military base similar to the US military bases… French experts and military advisers working in the region will be stationed there,” the source said.

The source also reported that the U.S., UK, and French “experts” are stationed in Manbij, the sight of a fierce battle between Kurdish-dominated SDF and ISIS forces.

Political analyst and former Deputy Foreign Minister of the “Kobani canton,” Idriss Nassen, told Sputnik that not only were the French forces in Manbij attempting to build a base but were tasked with training and support of the SDF alongside U.S. soldiers.

“French soldiers arrived in Kobani along with US troops to take part in liberating Manbij. They are primarily tasked with coordinating airstrikes of the [US-led] coalition, consulting and providing training to Manbij’s Military council and the Syrian Democratic Forces,” he said.

“France also intends to build a military base in Kobani. However, contrary to earlier reports, construction works will not take place at the Mistenur hill. The facility will instead be located to the south of Kobani,” Nassen added.

Nassen claimed “In addition, this area is not suitable for building a base due to security reasons. The French forces have been stationed at a cement factory to the south of Kobani.”

Manbij is a strategically significant location because it serves as virtually the last link between the northern border region and Raqqa, the ISIS capitol that the Syrian military currently has in its sights. If the NATO powers are able to seize (by virtue of their SDF proxies military gaining control via a process of death squad herding or by simply assuming power) and establish control over Manbij, it will serve as an opportunity to keep the ISIS supply lines open to Raqqa.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

The CIA released 50 new documents yesterday relating to its post-9/11 torture and rendition program. Despite the many disclosures that have come in the course of our decade-long fight to reveal the details of the program, the new revelations still have the capacity to shock.

The documents, released in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, vividly depict the brutality of torture, and further expose the fiction that this abuse is a scientific method for extracting information from victims. The documents also reveal how hard the CIA worked to bury the evidence of its crimes — including by seeking to silence its victims.

A few of the many new findings include:

CIA pressure to “break” detainees was deadly. A newly released CIA inspector general report about the death of detainee Gul Rahman concluded that he was singled out for especially harsh torture because of “pressure” to “break him.” We learned that he was kept nude or in a diaper for most of his detention, “solely for humiliation.” When they ran out of diapers, the guards would use “a handcrafted diaper secured by duct tape.”  CIA torturers kept Rahman naked in “cold conditions with minimal food or sleep” and kept questioning him even when he “appeared incoherent.” When they decided he wasn’t sufficiently “broken,” CIA personnel brutalized, starved, and froze him to death — and then lied about it.

We also learned just why the CIA and Bruce Jessen, one of the psychologists who designed the program, considered Rahman “resistant,” leading to torture so extreme that it resulted in his death. Based on pseudoscientific theories of torture and “resistance,” they assessed Rahman to have a “sophisticated level of resistance training,” because — among other reasons — he “complained about poor treatment” and said he couldn’t “think due to conditions (cold).” No one has yet been held accountable for Mr. Rahman’s death, but the ACLU represents Mr. Rahman’s family in suing Jensen and James Mitchell, the other psychologist who collaborated with the CIA in designing and overseeing the torture program.

The CIA’s rush to use the most brutal techniques on prisoners it decided were “resistant.” Although the CIA claimed that it would only use its most extreme torture techniques after more moderate interrogation methods failed,we now know from previously secret sections of the CIA inspector general report that the CIA in fact “accelerated” the use of waterboarding because “it was considered by some in Agency management to be the ‘silver bullet.’” The CIA would “rapidly escalate” to the waterboard based on its flawed belief that if a prisoner couldn’t provide new information, he must be withholding. Under the CIA’s logic, the less a detainee had to say, the more he would be torturedbecause “analysts are reluctant to agree that a detainee is not employing resistance techniques.”

More details about the extent to which the CIA was willing to go try and keep its crimes secret. Newly disclosed sections of the inspector general report reveal that “a particular concern for senior Agency managers is the long-term disposition of detainees who have undergone” torture. They were “loath to send CIA detainees” who had been tortured “to detention facilities where they would be available to the ICRC [the International Committee for the Red Cross].” In document after document, CIA employees made clear that they wanted a guarantee that their victims would never — for the rest of their lives — have a chance to tell their stories.

The documents also reveal why the CIA was so obsessed with secrecy: As everyone knew, the torture program could never withstand legal scrutiny. That is why the CIA discussed seeking an extraordinary “get out of jail free card” — an advance an advance promise from the attorney general not to prosecute its agents for their crimes.”

The CIA’s fixation on secrecy even impeded its own intelligence work.  Newly disclosed sections of the inspector general report describe senior officers expressing concern that efforts to keep the existence of the torture program secret were blocking “the dissemination of information obtained from the interrogation of detainees to analysts and the FBI in a timely manner.”

This new cache of documents fills in the picture of one of our darkest hours. Today, when loud voices call for a return to brutal and unlawful torture methods, it’s more important than ever that we have access to the full story of CIA torture. These documents, which the CIA suppressed for years, show just how horrific the torture program was, and how shameful it is that none of the perpetrators have yet been held accountable for their crimes.

NY Senator Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are teaming up with the NYPD to request high levels of funding for a federal “counter-terror” program that is directly bankrolling the militarization of police forces nationwide. To secure the funds, they are invoking the threat of terrorism and exploiting the climate of fear and incitement that has come to define the 2016 election cycle.

At issue is the the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), which was created in 2003 as a Department of Homeland Security grant program aimed at assisting “high-threat, high-density Urban Areas in efforts to build and sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.” From 2003 through 2015, at least $8.9 billion from taxpayers have been distributed in the form of UASI grants.

In reality, the program funds initiatives that contribute to blatant law enforcement overreach, including a police militarization and weapons expo known as Urban Shield and the training of SWAT teams across the country.According to the War Resisters League, which contributed research to this report, UASI effectively “strengthens and unifies state repression.”

In his proposal for next year’s federal budget, President Obama requested cuts to DHS’s funding of UASI from $600 million in fiscal year 2016 to $330 million in 2017, arguing that counter-terror funds are sufficiently provided elsewhere. A broad coalition of human rights organizations called this move a “step in the right direction.”

The Obama administration’s call for reductions provoked a fierce backlash, with the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, joining with NYPD police commissioner Bill Bratton to demand high levels of funding by casting the city as a “top terror target.”

Buoyed by support from Clinton, Schumer announced in a press statement in late May that he has successfully restored the UASI funds to the proposed Homeland Security budget. Schumer declared, “UASI is the cornerstone of effective preparedness and prevention against terror attacks and in an era of rising terror threats, our support for anti-terror programs should not be falling.”

The tussle over funding comes amid mounting concerns over police impunity. At a time when Black Lives Matter protests have forced public scrutiny of police militarization and killings of African Americans, politicians and police leaders are using the supposedly imminent threat of terror to bulk up their budgets and subvert a national conversation about the proper allocation of public resources.

“Ticking Time Bomb Mentality”

UASI grants do not exclusively fund police; they also finance first responders like firefighters when they can show that a “nexus to terrorism exists.” A FEMA spokesperson told AlterNet that the agency is unable to immediately provide a breakdown of what percentage of the recipients are law enforcement agencies.

Lara Kiswani, executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, explained in an interview with AlterNet: “If you want to fund emergency response, fund emergency response. We do not believe UASI is intended for that at all.”

Kiswani’s suspicion is understandable. A 2011 report from the National UASI Association, which describes itself as a “nonprofit composed of UASI Programs,”notes that, “From 2003 to 2010, Urban Areas spent approximately $623 million to support terrorism prevention capabilities. Much of this funding has focused on enhancing intelligence collection, analysis and sharing with fusion centers playing a key role in the process.”

Such centers, which operate as ill-defined counter-terrorism spying and intelligence gathering hubs, have conducted warrantless surveillance on Occupyactivists and Muslim-American communities. “Fusion centers have long been an issue that Congress keeps pouring money into without comprehensive oversight or accountability,” Michael German, a fellow for the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told AlterNet. “Because their focus is on intelligence, their threat to civil liberties is enormous and the ability to check abuse is almost nonexistent.”

But it gets worse. Craig Dziedzic, general manager for the Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative, noted this year that the funds continue to bankroll Urban Shield, which he described as “an annual full-scale exercise, which is conducted throughout the Bay Area UASI region for 48 hours.” Urban Shield brings together international SWAT teams, weapons manufacturers and police agencies to Alameda County, Calif. for a war games and arms sales extravaganza human rights campaigners say illustrates the epitome of state violence. The event has met such stiff resistance from local residents and activists that in 2014 its weapons expo was kicked out of Oakland.

UASI is also funneling money into SWAT teams across the country, fromMacomb, Michigan to Boston, Massachusetts. According to a 2012report from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), “Keene, New Hampshire, with a population just over 23,000 and a police force of 40, set aside UASI funds to buy a BearCat armored vehicle.” Coburn pointed out that UASI funds bankrolled first responders’ $1,000-per-person attendance at a training that included a workshop where actors dressed as zombies were gunned down “to simulate a real-life terrorism event.”

FEMA says that, in fiscal year 2016, 29 urban areas were deemed eligible for funds according to “an analysis of relative risk of terrorism.” The New York City area is by far the largest recipient of UASI funds, which finance the NYPD’s 500-officer Critical Response Command, a permanent counter-terror unit whose cars are “fitted to hold Colt M4 semiautomatic assault rifles,” according to New York Times reporter David Goodman.

UASI is helping expand and arm “counter-terror” policing in a city whose top police officer, Bratton, used public fear over terrorism in the wake of the Paris, Brussels and San Bernardino attacks to press for the expansion of police powers,including access to phone data. Some complain that his department has treated Black Lives Matter protesters like a terrorist threat. According to Josmar Trujillo, a writer and organizer with New Yorkers Against Bratton, “They are using this ticking time bomb mentality, where the mysterious threat of terrorism is always there and at any moment we could all die, so you have to rush to make decisions and bypass civil rights and human rights.”

AlterNet reached out to DHS but was unable to locate an official willing to speak on the record. The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Nexus to Terror”

What is the system-wide impact of financially incentivizing disaster response rooted in counter-terror measures, in a country that has been fighting a nebulous war on terror for nearly 15 years?

In a letter to U.S. senators, 35 grassroots groups, including the American Friends Service Committee, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement and Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that “by requiring training supported by these federal funds to contain a ‘nexus to terrorism,’ UASI serves to fuel the dangerous culture of aggression so rampant in U.S. police departments. UASI also creates a structural bond between militarized law enforcement and vital emergency response resources and workers.”

Notably, the congressional fight over UASI funding comes at a time when social movements are demanding accountability for police violence and racism and calling for alternatives to mass incarceration. Even Clinton claims to be disavowing her track record of supporting “tough on crime” and “war on drugs” policies, yet she is invoking the threat of terror to back high levels of UASI funding. “We need it, we need it, I want it,” Clinton said of UASI funding in anApril interview with reporters for the New York Daily News. “I don’t agree with the Obama administration on that.”

Kiswani claimed that “politicians are exploiting the climate of fear of Muslims and racism against Arabs in order to further programs like UASI so that they can use them to further exploit other communities of color. I think the war on terror has consistently been used to further the already-existing oppressive structures in the United States. This is no different than the way that the war on drugs has been used.”

Data shows that there is already tremendous overlap between the war on terror and the war on drugs. Of the wiretaps granted by state and federal courts in 2013, nearly 90 percent were used for drug investigations, with drug wiretaps almost tripling between 2003 and 2013.

UASI is just one piece of a much larger patchwork of federal initiatives that militarize police departments, including the 1033 program, which allows the Department of Defense to transfer weapons of war to state and local law enforcement agencies.

“Time after time we’ve seen how programs like UASI feed on cultures of fear to further militarization around the country and the world,” Tara Tabassi, national organizer for the War Resisters League, told AlterNet. “But we’ve also learned how being SWAT raided or teargassed by law enforcement, compels us to build movements across communities—working together to build a demilitarized world.”

On Wednesday, following the broad mobilization of workers in Tuesday’s protest against the Socialist Party (PS) government’s regressive labor law, President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls threatened to impose an outright ban on further protests against the law.

Appearing on France Inter radio in the morning, Valls called for an end to demonstrations such as those in Paris the previous day involving at least 75,000 workers, according to conservative estimates by the police. Referring to the Stalinist General Confederation of Labor (CGT) union, Valls said: “I ask them not to organize protests in Paris anymore.”

Valls made clear that the PS planned to defy the protests and impose the law, which is opposed by 75 percent of the French people, without even the fig leaf of minor changes. “The government will not change a text that is already the outcome of negotiations with the unions… It’s a text that is good for employees and for companies and creates new rights,” he said.

He asserted that the demonstrations could no longer be held safely and declared, “When one is incapable of ensuring security at a protest, when 700 or 800 rioters are allowed to infiltrate the protest and get out of control, one does not organize such demonstrations, which can quickly degenerate.”

He concluded that the PS could ban further protests against the labor law. If the CGT requested authorization for new protests, Valls said, “On a case by case basis, we will fulfill our responsibilities.”

Valls’ threat to ban protests against the labor law were reiterated by Hollande personally at a cabinet meeting Wednesday, according to his spokesman Stéphane Le Foll. Hollande said, “At a time when France is hosting the Euro 2016 [football tournament], when it is faced with terrorism, demonstrations can no longer be authorized if property, people and public property cannot be safeguarded.”

In a recent interview with Europe1 radio, Hollande stressed that the PS would impose the law without any substantial changes. “Too many governments have given in” to similar opposition in the past, he said. “This law, which is being debated including on the street, will pass.”

PS First Secretary Jean-Christophe Cambadélis echoed these remarks, calling for “a pause in the demonstrations, because they are degenerating into violence.” He said the CGT was being “used as a tool by rioters.”

Right-wing politicians supported the Socialist Party’s call for a ban on protests or indicated their agreement. “We can no longer accept repeated protests in big cities in France,” declared former prime minister François Fillon, while Marion Maréchal-Le Pen of the neo-fascist National Front (FN) said, “The question of the legitimacy of these protests can be posed. If the unions cannot avoid the sort of violence we have seen for weeks, these protests must at all costs stop.”

The claim that a ban on protests is required to prevent street violence is a transparently fraudulent pretext for trampling on the democratic rights of the working class. Valls and Hollande argue as if a few hundred unidentified rioters had succeeded in overpowering the tens of thousands of police deployed in Paris, as in other cities across France, and had sacked and pillaged large parts of the city.

The reality is quite different. Youth and workers overwhelmingly engaged in peaceful demonstrations have been subjected to violent assaults by riot police. When clashes have erupted with security forces, peaceful protesters have been quickly kettled and surrounded. Nonetheless, opposition in the working class has continued to grow and become more determined.

Shaken by this rising opposition in the working class, the PS and the entire French ruling class are signaling that they are prepared to shred democratic rights and criminalize any expression of working class opposition. The logic of this policy is the establishment of a police state regime to impose the austerity agenda of the European capitalist class.

The Socialist Party’s call to ban protests has momentous political and historical significance. Moves to implement it will provoke deeply rooted political opposition in the working class. Such a policy amounts to the destruction of the democratic rights won by the working class in the struggle against European fascism and against the US-backed bourgeois regimes set up immediately after World War II.

The European ruling classes averted social revolution, despite their historic crimes under the fascist regimes, due above all to the role of the Stalinist parties, which blocked a struggle of the working class for power. Nonetheless, they faced explosive anti-capitalist sentiment, the growing influence of the Trotskyist movement in many European countries, including France, and the danger of socialist revolution as embodied in the continued existence of the USSR. They were forced to make vast concessions on social and democratic rights.

Article 7 of the preamble of the French Constitution, adopted in 1946, formally guaranteed the right to strike, which had been denied under the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy regime.

Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted in 1950 and signed by France and many other countries across Europe, formally guaranteed the right to assemble and demonstrate.

What is being revealed today are the political implications of the dissolution of the USSR a quarter-century ago and the austerity drive that has been carried out by the banks and the European governments ever since, particularly since the 2008 economic crisis. The rights guaranteed in the French Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights are incompatible with the austerity assault on the working class across Europe. The ruling class is moving to dispense with these rights and deal with social opposition by repression, relying on its vast and growing police and electronic spying apparatus.

In France, this exposes the significance of the state of emergency imposed by the PS after the November 13 terror attacks in Paris. The World Socialist Web Site repeatedly warned that its main target was not Islamist terror networks—which the NATO powers tolerate insofar as they are useful as assets in their proxy war for regime-change in Syria—but the working class. Only a few months later, the PS is moving to outlaw opposition in the working class to its austerity agenda.

The struggle to defend democratic rights raises above all the question of the formation of a new revolutionary leadership in the working class. The CGT and the various pseudo-left organizations that are allied to it, such as the Left Front, will prove impotent and hostile to a struggle to mobilize opposition to the PS in the working class.

The statements of Valls and Hollande show that CGT General Secretary Philippe Martinez’s meeting with Labor Minister Myriam El Khomri today can accomplish nothing except prepare a sellout. Martinez told the press, “The government is wrong to refuse to negotiate and to dictate preconditions to all discussion… I hope that Friday we will remove the preconditions and that the discussions will allow us to advance.”

It is now obvious, however, that the PS will not change the law and does not intend to negotiate anything with Martinez except the terms of surrender.

The more it becomes clear that the only way forward is an intransigent political struggle against the PS, the more the CGT and the Left Front will oppose such a struggle. The Left Front consists of longstanding political allies of the PS. It voted for the state of emergency in the National Assembly. It even sent a leading member, Eric Coquerel, to attend a neo-fascist demonstration in support of the police last month. It will prove bitterly hostile to a defense of democratic rights against the PS.

The critical question facing workers in France is the mobilization of support in the international working class. The PS worked out the labor law, modeled on the Hartz laws in Germany, with leading officials across Europe. When it encountered the first wave of mass protests in March, the PS held a meeting to coordinate policy with social democratic politicians from Germany, Italy and Portugal. There is explosive social opposition to austerity and police state measures among workers in all these countries, and it is there that workers in France will find their most important allies.

Tunisia’s fate at the hands of France in the second half of the 19th century serves as a good example of debt used as an instrument of dominating and alienating a state’s sovereignty. In 1881, France conquered Tunisia and turned it into a protectorate. Until then, Tunisia, known as the Regency of Tunis was a province of the Ottoman Empir |1|, enjoying significant autonomy under a Bey.

Tunisia did not borrow from abroad until 1863

Public debt did not exist until the end of Bey Mustapha’s reign in 1837. Agricultural production ensured the country’s food sovereignty. His successor, Bey Ahmed (ruler from 1837 to 1855) launched a public works programme focusing on the establishment of a standing army, the purchase of military equipment and the construction of lavish residences. He also founded several factories (including the linen factory of Tebourba) on the European model. These accomplishments could not compare with the success of Muhammad Ali, the Egyptian monarch |2| who matched the European powers with his aggression |3|. However, these two courses of action had a common factor: the absence of external borrowing during the first part of the 19th century. The investments were mobilized from the country’s internal resources.

The public works programme turned out to be a fiasco because it did not stimulate the strength and development of the local producers. In 1853, the standing army was dissolved, the construction of the largest palace was discontinued and the factories were abandoned. The Bey of Tunis took to internal borrowing by agreeing to interest rates that were often usurious. This resulted in an inflated debt. The Beylik contracted debts by selling teskérés, or short-term treasury bonds, to rich Tunisians and wealthy foreign residents (Livornese, Genoese, French and so on).

Mohammed es-Sadok

With Muhammad as-Sadiq’s crowning in 1859 |4|, the influence of the European powers, their commercial interests and their businesses, particularly their bankers, went through the roof. The regime saw rampant corruption at the highest levels and the main perpetrator was Mustapha Khaznadar, the Prime Minister, who had been holding important posts since 1837: the Bey’s “treasurer” to begin with (Treasurer = Khaznadar in Turkish). Mustapha Khaznadar retained his apex position in the State till 1873. He levied commissions on each transaction, on each loan, on the income taxes-so much so that he amassed a colossal fortune. Until his dismissal in 1873, Mustapha Khaznadar played a bigger role than the Bey himself in the decisions of the state and the deals with the European financiers and entrepreneurs.

Mustapha Khaznadar

In 1859-1860, Mustapha Khaznadar and Bey Muhammad as-Sadiq made expensive purchases from Belgium, of weapons that were useless in Belgium and then replaced them with costly French rifles. They also constructed luxurious consular residences for France and Britain. The outcome of this was a hike in public expenditure and internal debt. Evidently, such expenditures were not consonant with the population’s interests. The internal public debt shot up by 60% during the first three years of Muhammad as-Sadiq’s reign. Wealthy Tunisians and foreign residents took advantage of an internal debt policy generating lofty profits. The State Executives stood to gain because they diverted a portion of the borrowed money (moreover, they were also party to the debt) while the foreign lenders also made profits. On the other hand, the people had to put up with a mounting burden of taxes.

The first external loan in 1863: a clear-cut swindle

Tunisia’s first overseas loan arrived in 1863. It was a thorough deceit that would lead to the French conquest of Tunisia 18 years later.

At that time, the financial centres of Paris and London were in active competition, the latter being the global forerunner. The Parisian bankers like their counterparts in London, boasted of ample liquidityand were seeking investment opportunities abroad. Loans to Latin America, Asia, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, Russia and North America were aplenty |5|. The funds were mainly disbursed for the construction of railways (with a speculative bubble taking shape in that sector), the refinancing of outstanding debts – in the case of Latin America – and arms purchases. Yields on the Paris local market were approximately 4-6% while yields on overseas loans were much higher (they could reach 10-11% real yield).

In early 1863, when the Bey announced that he wanted to borrow 25 million francs from abroad, many bankers and brokers in London (including Baron James de Rothschild and various London firms) and Paris (the Crédit mobilier and Emile Erlanger, a banker from Frankfurt based in the French capital) offered their services.

Émile Erlanger

The British and French Consuls in Tunis supported the deals of the London and Paris bankers respectively. In the end, the banker Emile Erlanger bagged the “contract”. A summary of his biography deserves a read |6|. According to the British consul, Emile Erlanger the banker had offered him 500,000 francs in exchange for his support.

What exactly was the 1863 loan?

Along with others, Erlanger got permission from the French government to sell Tunisian bonds at the Paris Stock Exchange. A report in 1872-1873 by Victor Villet, a French Treasury Inspector, described this loan as a real swindle.

According to Erlanger, 78,692 Tunisian bonds were issued at a face value of 500 francs each. They were sold at 480 francs each and entitled the buyer to an annual interest of 35 francs for a period of 15 years. This implied a notional interest rate of 7%, but since the bonds were sold at 480 francs the real interest was 7.3%. For the buyer it meant that by laying out 480 francs he could get 525 francs (15 years x 35 francs) as interest plus 500 francs at the maturity of the bond.

So, the borrower, the Tunisian government, received 415 francs (i.e 480 francs minus 65 francs as the subscription fee and other bank charges) while it had to repay 1025 francs.

In full, the borrower (Tunisia) received about 37.7 million francs (78,692 bonds sold at 480 francs or 37.77 million) and in exchange it had to repay 65.1 million.

Victor Villet, the French Treasury Inspector found in his surveys that Erlanger collected a little over 5 million in commission (approximately 13% of the amount raised). A sum of 2.7 million francs-clearly appropriated by the Prime Minister and Erlanger -must also be deducted from the amount that should have been received.

Therefore, for about 30 million francs receivable, the Tunisian government committed to repay 65.1 million francs.

Speaking of an indisputable scam or fraud, we must mull over the exasperating conduct of Emile Erlanger and the Tunisian Prime Minister. Erlanger said that he had sold just over 38,000 bonds in Paris and 40,000 in Tunis (remember that the number of total bonds issued amounted to 78,692). Apparently the sale on the Paris stock exchange was much lower than Erlanger’s claims. In fact, over 30,000 bonds remained unsold and in Erlanger’s possession. Erlanger would have earned a commission of over 5 million francs had he sold all the bonds. It seems that he had borrowed from other bankers the sum he had committed to transfer to the Tunisian Treasury (around 30 million francs) in four instalments. He probably pledged as collateral the 30,000 shares that he had not managed to sell. The editor of the Moniteur des Fonds Publics put forth a similar argument in an article published on August 19, 1869: “We believe that it would be absolutely truthful to say that holders living in France acquired 5,000 bonds, at the best… Therefore, Mr. Erlanger was left with about 30, 000 bonds.  In this situation, he felt embarrassed to face up to his commitments to the Bey. So what did he do? We believe he deposited his unsold bonds with the Comptoir d’escompte (bank) and obtained an advance with which he could remit some money to His Highness”. (Trans: CADTM)

This hypothesis is strengthened by Erlanger’s claims that he redeemed 20, 962 securities in January 1864 and 8,000 more in 1865, on the secondary debt market. However, the redemptions did not boost the price of those securities. It’s not likely. Redemption of 20,000 securities, with 38,000 officially in circulation, should automatically have raised the price. Yet, the price of Tunisian bonds did not increase. This implies that the securities were not in circulation on the market. Erlanger pretended to redeem securities, which, in reality, he had hoarded.

Moreover, and this must be noted, the 30,000 shares paid out interest every year. Since Emile Erlanger possessed them, it was he who cashed in the interests.

The immediate outcome of the 1863 loan

This external borrowing was meant to restructure the domestic debt; equivalent to 30 million French Francs (remember that it rose by 60% between 1859 and 1862 because of the expenditures of Bey Muhammad as-Sadiq who had been increasingly purchasing foreign goods). The outstanding debt was supposed to be liquidated with money borrowed from abroad. In reality, while the old debt was repaid, the authorities issued new teskérés (or treasury bonds) for an equivalent amount. This is what Victor Villet, the French Treasury Inspector, had to say: “While old securities were reimbursed simultaneously in the stock exchange and by the representatives of the Erlanger household in Tunis… a local government broker (Mr. Guttierez) resumed accepting public money, in exchange for new teskérés issued @ 91%. By dint of this farcical repayment, the debt simply … increased by approximately 15 million”. (Trans: CADTM) The revenue from the sale of the new teskérés was largely diverted to the pockets of the Prime Minister, other dignitaries and wealthy European residents.

The same Treasury Inspector also wrote: “The funds from the 1863 loan [which] were paid in cash in Bardo (seat of the Bey and the Prime Minister) … were deposited in a special account, but were not entered in the official government books; the state funds did not have any record of them and there is nothing to prove that they were used for public expenditure.”(Trans: CADTM)

The sum borrowed in 1863 was squandered in less than a year. At the same time, for the first time in Tunisian history the state was indebted to overseas agencies and that too by an immense sum. Annual repayments to foreign countries were unsustainable. The internal debt, which should have been repaid by external borrowing, increased twofold. Hounded by the creditors, the Beylik decided to pass the burden to the people by increasing the mejba (tax per capita) by 100%.

The revolt of 1864: outcome of the decision to increase a given tax by 100% in order to repay the 1863 debt

The tax increase in 1864 caused a general rebellion in the country. The protesters mainly demanded the discontinuation of the increase in the mejba or par capita tax |7|. As soon as the Bey’s officials started visiting the different corners of the country to collect the mejba, now increased to 72 piastres, the revolt broke out. On March 10, 1864 the French vice-consul Jean-Henri Mattei telegraphed from Sfax: “All the tribes have agreed that they will not pay the new tax of 72 piastres. (…) A network of all the tribes will be the first signal that it’s time for the advocates of this tax to leave Tunis.” |8| (Trans: CADTM) A few weeks later, another consular dispatch read: “The insurrection is widespread and is within an hour from Tunis.” |9| (Trans: CADTM) According to various witnesses, the insurgents accused the government, mostly the Prime Minister Mustapha Khaznadar, of selling the country to the French. They cited the 1863 loan granted by Erlanger, the banker from Paris, as proof.

France, Britain, Italy and the Ottoman Empire sent warships to the Tunisian territorial waters to threaten the people and to supply necessary aid to the authorities in case the situation went out of hands. The Bey stepped back amidst protests and announced on April 21, 1864 that the mejba will no longer be twofold |10|. In July 1864, he reprised the concessions to clinch a deal with Ali Ben Ghedhahem, the main rebel leader |11|.  Then, with the support of foreign powers, he unleashed repression. The Sultan, monarch of the Ottoman Empire, gave financial support to the Bey so that he could form new troops and take recourse to repression. The Sultan took this initiative to prevent France, Britain and Italy from outflanking him. |12|

A massive repression

Once the revolt was calmed, the Bey launched a massive crackdown to extract the maximum of taxes and fines from the population. The French consul wrote on December 4, 1864 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Paris: “The beylical government has refrained from granting clemency, a measure that it seemed keen on introducing …It has reprised severe methods, namely fetters and torture, in order to wrest exorbitant war-time taxes from the coastal provinces”. (Trans: CADTM) A French vice-consul wrote the following to the French consul:“It is my duty to inform you of General Zarrouk’s barbaric methods for executing the bey’s orders: thoroughly bleeding the indigenous people dry and torturing the elderly and the women who had nothing to do with the rebellion”(letter dated February 16, 1865). (Trans: CADTM) Another French official wrote: “Imprisonment, chaining, caning and other draconian methods which were absolutely illegal, given our prevailing public law, were the only ways adopted to extract the fines. Among these stringent measures, I wish to highlight the confiscation of property, torture leading to wounds and death, home invasion … and, finally, the attempted or accomplished rape of women under the very eyes of fathers or husbands in chains“(March 1, 1865). (Trans: CADTM) Jean Ganiage adds:”In March 1865, Espina, the vice-consul, estimated that the government had extorted 23 million piastres from the Sahel from October 1864 to January 1865. In addition, his employees pocketed some 5 million piastres”. |13|(Trans: CADTM)

The second external borrowing was worked out in Paris in 1865

Since the 1863 loan had failed to improve the country’s economic condition, the Bey and his Prime Minister took a headlong rush into a deal with Erlanger for a new loan in March 1865. Tunisia took on a further 36.78 million francs of debt. The conditions he imposed were even worse and more outrageous than in 1863. In fact, while securities worth 500 francs were sold for 480 francs in 1863, the new securities were now sold for 380 francs, i.e at 76% of their face value.

A buyer of a security worth 500 francs paid the discounted price of 380 francs, expecting to earn an annual interest of 35 francs for 15 years (525 francs). On its maturity in 1880, 500 francs were added to the security. An investment of 380 francs fetching 1025 francs, i.e. a profit of 645 francs, was extremely alluring. The notional interest rate was 7% but as the annual interest amounted to 35 francs the actual yield was 9.21% (= 35/380).

The Tunisian State took on a new debt of 36.78 million francs, however, the country received a little less than 20 million francs, since brokerage fees and commissions charged by Erlanger and Morpurgo-Oppenheim, his associates, amounted to 18%. What is more, almost 3 million was diverted directly, half for the bankers, half for the Prime Minister and his associates. The result was threefold:

• The new debt contracted in 1865 amounted to 36.78 million francs.
• The actual amount received was less than 20 million. |14|
• The amount to be repaid over 15 years was 75.4 million.

The bankers had struck gold: without investing anything, they earned approximately 6.5 million francs in the form of commissions, brokerage and outright theft at the time of issuance. All the securities were sold in a matter of days. Paris went euphoric over these securities from Muslim countries (Tunisia, Ottoman Empire, Egypt) and these were termed “turban securities.” The bankers paid newspaper editors to publish cheerful reports. As the Tunisian economy slumped, Semaine financière, a weekly Parisian journal wrote the following about the 1865 loan: “Today, the Bey of Tunis is under the moral protection of France, which takes interest in the Tunisian people’s prosperity, since this prosperity also implies Algeria’s safety”. |15| (Trans: CADTM)

The swindles of bankers such as Erlanger and Morpurgo-Oppenheim did not end there. Not content with embroiling Tunisia in an unfair debt they actively intervened, so that the loan would be used to finance their personal profit. Two examples: they convinced the Bey to buy two useless ships from a certain Audibert, a Marseilles merchant, for the price of new ships (250,000 francs). According to Victor Villet, the French Treasury Inspector, E. Erlanger, who had undertaken to supply 100 rifled barrels of the latest model for 1 million francs, did in fact deliver “ancient guns with their breeches knotted in a kind of sleeve. The con was too crude; in seconds we realised that those guns could not have cost the supplier more than 200,000 francs.” |16| (Trans: CADTM)The list of commercial supplies, reeking of obvious fraud, is long. Moreover, Erlanger persuaded the Bey to grant him a concession for manufacturing Tebourba linen, as security for the loan.

The debts accumulated during the period 1863-1865 led to Tunisia’s transformation into a Protectorate

The new debts accumulated during 1863 – 1865 left Tunisia at the mercy of its external creditors and France. It was simply impossible for Tunisia to successfully repay the due amount. The public treasury received a significant amount (30 million piastres, a sum much higher than an ordinary year’s revenues) in terms of the colossal revenues from tax following the repression of late 1864-early 1865. However, debt payment and extravagant spending against public interest depleted it quickly.

The year 1867 fared dismally in terms of agricultural production. In addition, the Bey exported agricultural goods to generate income. This resulted in a famine in many parts of the country and also a cholera epidemic since the state’s policies fostered a sickly population (devastated by taxes and affected by the rising price of basic food) and public expenditure in health was scanty. We’re speaking of 5,000 deaths in the capital, mainly due to famine, and 20,000 throughout Tunisia. |17|

At the international level, the bankers had suddenly become cautious and they were demanding even higher returns than in the past. In 1866, Mexico had quashed the French expeditionary force and subsequently suspended the debt payment, considered odious, to French bankers and holders of Mexican bonds (especially the ones sold in Paris by Erlanger the banker during 1864 and 1865). Consequently the Bey and his Prime Minister failed to grab new big loans from Paris or elsewhere. Their pipe dream for a loan of 100 million nosedived. Indeed, in February 1867 they signed a new contract with Erlanger the banker. Although Erlanger planned to sell 200,000 Tunisian securities in Paris, he managed to sell only 11, 033 after a few weeks. The enthusiasm for the Tunisian Turban securities had already died down. Consequently, the Bey resorted to “small” loans at usurious rates from other Parisian bankers, such as Alphonse Pinard |18|, director of the Comptoir d’escompte de Paris bank, who sanctioned a loan of 9 million francs in Paris in January 1867. Rothschild was contacted but he refused to lend to Tunisia. Oppenheim and others demanded approximately 15% interest rates.

The Bey partially suspended the servicing of both internal and external debt with effect from 1867. This prompted A. Pinard, the director of Comptoir d’escompte de Paris, to take Tunisia to the civil court of the Seine for contravening the clauses of the January 1867 loan, worth 9,000,000 francs. Pinard demanded ownership of the revenues from Tunisian customs and olive harvest. The court ruled in August 1867 and A. Pinard lost the case: the Regency of Tunis was a foreign territory and not subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Then Alphonse Pinard and the other bankers adopted another strategy. They formed a union |19| of the holders of Tunisian securities. Bankers such as Bischoffsheim, Bamberger, Levy-Crémieu and Edmond Adam joined. So did Joseph Hollander, director of the Banque des Pays-Bas and Pinard’s future father-in-law. The union took upon itself to ‘help’ the beylical government with interest payment. Later, in 1869-1870, Pinard managed to become a direct member of the International Finance Commission which took control of Tunisian finances and triumphed (see below).

The debts resulting from the loans of 1863-1867 were odious and should have been repudiated

The debt contracted between 1863 and 1867 was clearly odious for the Tunisian people. Alexander Nahum Sack, a law professor at Paris and proponent of the doctrine of odious debt wrote in 1927: “When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime.” |20| This debt fits that definition to a T.

Furthermore, he added: “One could also include in this category of debts the loans incurred by members of the government or by persons or groups associated with the government to serve interests manifestly personal — interests that are unrelated to the interests of the State.” This is a perfect description of the conduct of Prime Minister Mustapha Khaznadar and other dignitaries of the beylical regime. |21|

Sack also insisted that the creditors of such debts, once they have loaned with full awareness of the consequences, “have committed a hostile act with regard to the people; they can’t therefore expect that a nation freed from a despotic power assume the “odious” debts, which are personal debts of that power.” The bankers Emile Erlanger, Alphonse Pinard and their associates knew very well that the loans were against people’s interest. Also they were, as we have shown, directly party to the scam.

Regarding Erlanger the banker’s policy of issuing high-risk securities at the financial level and at an odious level concerning legal matters, we must also remember that he simultaneously issued Mexican securities in 1864 and 1865 on behalf of the Mexican puppet government set up by the French army.  This government was led by Maximilian I of Austria, who would be executed in June 1867. Erlanger disbursed a loan of $ 15 million to the Southern slave states (the Confederacy) in 1863 in Paris and London. It was pledged on cotton and he immediately stood to gain about $ 4 million |22|.

The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire

France was on the lookout for an opportune moment to take complete control of Tunisia

Ever since they colonised Algeria in the 1830s, the French leaders considered that France had the right to expand its colonial reach to Tunisia. It was only a matter of the right pretext and time. They also had other priorities, both internally and on the levels of Continental Europe, even the world. In the Arab region, Egypt demanded priority for geostrategic reasons: the possibility of direct access to Asia through the newly-opened Suez Canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; access to dark Africa by the Nile; the proximity of the East by land routes; Egypt’s agricultural prospects; competition between Great Britain and France (whichever of these two powers would control Egypt, would also have a strategic advantage over the other). Napoléon realised this and put theory into practice with his Egyptian campaign in 1798.

The conquest of Tunisia was not a priority; particularly because the efforts to stabilize France’s reign over Algeria had cost dearly, given the counter resistance. In France, no one could count on public support for a new colonial venture. In the 1860s, the project for seizing Mexico failed miserably. As mentioned above, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte had to withdraw his French troops from the Mexican soil in 1866 vis-à-vis the successful counter-offensive from the Mexican progressive forces and he had to deal with the claims of French bankers against Mexican debts (about 60 million). |23| At the end of 1867 Napoleon III was also worried about the advance of Garibaldi’s Republican red shirts who threatened to capture Rome, France’s protégé.

However, transforming Tunisia into a Protectorate, or an outright conquest of the country, was a priority, even an obsession for the French consul in Tunisia, France’s plenipotentiary representative to the Bey. The actions or conducts of various successive consuls bear testimony to this fact. As the rebellion raged in 1864, Charles Beauval, the French Consul, had a double game to play: while France officially supported the Bey, he negotiated with Ali Ben Ghedhahem, the main rebel leader, in case he decided to overthrow the Bey. He wrote on May 30, 1864, “it will be worthy of the Emperor to assemble all the tribes of Tunisia in a small Arab confederation”. (Trans: CADTM) According to the historian John Ganiage, in September 1865 “The Tunisian issues were discussed in a cabinet meeting presided over by the emperor. Marshal MacMahon, Algeria’s governor, proposed to send an expeditionary army to Tunis and had a detailed plan on how to organize and run this troop. However, this plan far exceeded the government’s intentions.” |24| (Trans: CADTM) Two years later, according to J. Ganiage, “For the Botiliau consul, there was no other solution than a direct French occupation of Tunisia; it’s annexation to Algeria or a temporary occupation against collateral.”(Trans: CADTM)

Moreover, the correspondence of the French officials in Tunisia reeked of racism, as evidenced by the Botiliau consul’s letter dated December 2, 1867 in which he denounced “the customs of the Arab people, their incompetence, their deceitfulness, lies, corruption …” |25| (Trans: CADTM)

Formation of the International Finance Commission in 1869

In January 1868, Marquis de Moustier, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, broadly outlined the proposal to establish an International Commission for taking control of Tunisia’s finances: “I think that our efforts should primarily focus on ensuring a proper management of the revenues pledged by the beylical Government. If we manage to exert a genuine control over the fiscal products – left in the hands of incapable hands or infidels today – we could take a giant leap towards our desired target. If there is an agreement for applying this principle we could entrust the work to a Commission with its headquarters in Tunis.”(Trans: CADTM)

In April, 1868, the Bey planned to issue a decree establishing the International Finance Commission as instructed by the French representatives. 15 months later, when France had received the green signal from Britain and Italy, the Bey issued the decree. The text of the Decree dated July 5, 1869 demonstrated Tunisia’s outright capitulation to its creditors. Article 9 was particularly important because it stipulated very clearly that the Commission would lay claim to all state revenues without exception. It additionally stated that no loan would be granted without its permission. Article 3 specified, even though diplomatically, that the most important figure in this Commission was the representative of France who would be appointed by the French Emperor. In fact, the Bey ratified that. The Commission was the one to ascertain the exact amount of the debt (Art. 5). That the Commission would restructure Tunisia’s debt and decide whether or not to reduce it, was a fundamental issue for the creditor banks. Article 10 was also of paramount importance for the French bankers because it stipulated that two direct representatives would be chosen from them and included in the Commission. Consequently, when the Commission was set up in November 1869, the union of the bondholders led by the Parisian banker Alphonse Pinard had got Erlanger as their representative |26|. British and Italian creditors holding domestic debt securities were also represented.

The articles above were written at the Palace of La Goulette on the 26 of Rabi’ al-awwal, 1286 (July 5, 1869)

The Tunisian debt restructuring in 1870

One of the principal tasks of the Commission, in fact the most urgent, was to restructure the debt. Victor Villet, the inspector of finances designated by France and, as we have seen, the principal person of the Commission, proposed in December 1869 that the sum of Tunisian debt, evaluated at 121 million francs be reduced to less than 56 million francs and rescheduled. |27|

The bankers’ representatives rejected the proposition and gained the support of their respective governments, particularly the government of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte who was very close to the French high finance sector. Not only was there no reduction of Tunisian debt, the bankers managed to have it increased to 125 million francs. This was a complete victory for the bankers’ representatives nominated to defend the interests of Alphonse Pinard and Emile Erlanger. These bankers held the 1863 and 1863 Tunisian bonds purchased on the open market (bonds they had themselves emitted for the Tunisian treasury) for 135 or 150 francs, speculating that they would lose value. Thanks to the restructuring of 1870 they gained replacement bonds at a value of almost 500 francs. So, the bonds with a face value of 500 francs that they had previously purchased for 150 francs were now exchanged for new bonds at 500 francs. A windfall that produced a new odious debt!

As the historian Nicolas Stoskopf wrote, the idea was to tighten some more the rope that the Bey had put around his own neck. N. Stoskopf wrote the following in his analysis of the enterprises of A. Pinard, director of the bondholders’ union “After 1867, the Tunisian state of bankruptcy allowed the engagement of the next phase. In the difficult negotiations and sly manoeuvring that followed, Pinard cynically continued to make windfall profits despising French savers as much as the condition of the Tunisians, but with the striking efficiency of an unequalled financier, as a result of the Tunisian debt unification of 1870 the five million francs held by the bondholders’ union increased in value to thirteen million francs.” |28| (Trans: CADTM)

The Tunisian authorities acted in complete complicity with this plundering of public resources. The Prime Minister Mustapha Khaznadar, other dignitaries of the regime and not forgetting the class of wealthy Tunisians who also held a very large quantity of Tunisian internal bonds realised enormous profits from this restructuring. As in most other countries, the local dominant classes are in total cahoots with the international creditors because they draw a large part of their own revenues from debt repayments. It was true in the 19th century and it remains true in the 21st century.

The enrichment of the bankers at the expense of the Tunisian people

Alphonse Pinard and Emile Erlanger decided to withdraw from Tunisia, they were largely rewarded and largely satisfied. His Tunisian operation allowed Erlanger to build a financial empire. He took over the Parisian bank Crédit Mobilier and a few years later grabbed Havas, the international press agency. |29| Alphonse Pinard continued his activities in France and elsewhere in the world with his contribution to the creation of Société Générale (today among France’s top three banks) as well as another bank that eventually became BNP Paribas (currently France’s biggest bank).

This extract from Marx’s Capital, published in 1867 well describes the role played by public debt: “The system of public credit, i.e., of national debts, whose origin we discover in Genoa and Venice as early as the Middle Ages, took possession of Europe generally during the manufacturing period.(…) National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican – marked with its stamp the capitalistic era(…) The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. (…)With the national debt arose an international credit system, which often conceals one of the sources of primitive accumulation in this or that people.” |30|

He adds: “At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and, thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the State. (…) the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy.” |31|

The failure of the International Finance Commission

In accord with article 9 of the decree that created the International Finance Commission of July 1869, its members control the State’s revenues. Nevertheless, the economic policies imposed by the repayment of the debt caused the economy to stagnate because the State had no productive investment, did not spend on stimulating the economy and burdened the small local producers, rural or urban, with heavy taxes. Consequently, tax revenues were insufficient to repay the 125 million francs of debt.

The Commission members representing the bankers withdrew in 1871, since they were satisfied and had no further advantages to reap from the work of the Commission, which faced failure of its own policies, imposed since 1869. The failure was such that the Prime Minister Mustapha Khaznadar, who had occupied government posts for 36 years, was sacked in 1873 and put under house arrest, his fraud and corruption having caught up with him under pressure from France.

Khérédine, Mustapha Khaznadar’s replacement tried unsuccessfully to introduce some reforms and was in his turn dismissed in 1876, especially as he did not sufficiently favour French business interests. Khérédine also sought a reduction of the interest to be paid on the debt. That was too much.

The Tunisian artisans were in a disastrous situation, since the introduction of free trade agreements they were unable to compete with European goods. The smallholders floundered. The manufacturing industry was nonexistent. The railway network was no more than a few dozen kilometres (Tunis – La Marsa and Tunis – La Goulette). Tunis’ streets were unpaved and the city was without drainage and sanitation.

Beylical artillery

The big powers gave France the go ahead to take possession of Tunisia

At the Berlin Congress in June 1878 both Germany and England advised France that she had a free field to do with Tunisia as she wanted.

Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, that inflicted a stinging defeat on France in the 1870-71 confrontation (Louis Napoléon Bonaparte was taken captive at Sedan, Alsace-Lorraine was annexed and damages obtained), considered that the new French rulers should be awarded some form of consolation (the Second Empire was replaced by the Third Republic in 1870). |32| Germany had no interest in Tunisia and Bismarck felt that France would be less concerned with regaining Alsace Lorraine if it focused on conquering Tunisia. England, that prioritised its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus; Egypt, Syria…) also approved of giving France something to do by grabbing Tunisia. Lord Salisbury, the British representative said to his French counterpart: “Take Tunis if you want, England will not object and will respect your decision. What’s more, you can’t leave Carthage in the hands of barbarians (Trans: CADTM).” |33| The French Minister of the Interior said “Mr. von Bismarck leads us to understand that he will not object if we take Tunisia (Trans: CADTM).” |34| The French government took its time to consider this position but did not take action because of other priorities. Meanwhile, the French consul in Tunis was on the lookout for a slip from the Bey that would justify a French military intervention. |35|

Finally, the action took place in 1881 when a majority favourable to conquest formed in the French government: the pretext being the ’exactions’ by the Kroumir tribe.

The bankers were informed of the French government’s intentions and purchased massive quantities of Tunisian bonds, priced at 330 francs, on the Parisian market in January 1881. On the eve of the military intervention their price had increased to 487 francs (for a nominal value of 500 francs), a price hitherto not attained. The idea was simple: once France had control of Tunisia the debt would be restructured again and all the creditors would be paid. They made no mistake; the debt was restructured in 1884, during the second term of President of the council, Jules Ferry. Public finances were also made to contribute to the satisfaction of the bankers.

The Havas agency, owned by Erlanger since 1879, took part in the public opinion campaign favourable to military intervention.

The 1881 invasion

France was ready to jump, on the first opportunity, to use the agreements made at the Berlin Congress. The difficulty for Jules Ferry was that a military intervention needed the agreement of the Chamber of Deputies.

As already said, the French diplomats sought all the possible means to provoke an incident that would justify a French military intervention. Theodore Roustan, the French Consul was ready to pounce. In May 1880 he wrote to Baron de Courcel, a very influential French diplomat (who would become the French Ambassador to Berlin in 1885 and take part in the 1884-85 conference which ’regulated’ the European colonial takeover of Africa) |36|: “We should wait and prepare our motifs to act before preparing the means. The foolishness of the Tunisian administration will help.” The conflict between the Algerian Ouled Nahd tribe and the Tunisian Kroumir tribe provided the opportunity to launch a large scale operation. At the end of February 1881 a difference between the two tribes provoked an attack by the Ouled Nahd on the Kroumirs with fatal casualties on both sides.

The French Consul was exalted. “We could not hope for a better occasion to act, and to act alone because the other powers are not concerned.” To avenge their dead, 400-500 Kroumir tribesmen attacked the Ouled Nahd twice on March 30-31 in Algerian territory but were repulsed by French troops; six French soldiers died in the fighting. |37|

Jules Ferry obtained funds from parliament to “re-establish order”. The way he requested the funds on April 11, 1881 was absolutely deceitful and hypocritical: “We are going to Tunisia to punish these crimes. At the same time we shall take all the measures necessary to make sure this kind of event does not happen again. The Government of the Republic does not seek conquests; it does not need them (loud applause from the left and the centre); but it has received in heritage, from previous Governments a magnificent Algerian possession that has been glorified by French blood and made fertile by France’s treasures. It will go so far, in the military repression underway , as is necessary to safeguard, in a permanent and serious manner, the security and future of France’s Africa (Trans: CADTM).” |38|

Twenty-four thousand troops were sent to fight the Kroumirs.

The Bardo treaty, creating a French protectorate, was signed on May 12, 1881 then validated at the Chamber of Deputies by an overwhelming majority. Only one member voted against it, the courageous socialist Alfred Talandier. |39| The Bey of Tunis was coerced into accepting for fear of losing his position, knowing that his brother would willingly take over with the help of the French. He ceded to the French Resident-General all his powers in foreign affairs, territorial defence and administrative reform.

The Bardo treaty

Several months later, France, still ruled by Jules Ferry, reinforced its military actions in Indochina in order to expand its colonial presence. During the summer of 1881, Ferry, having found another pretext for colonial manoeuvres, was voted funds by the Chamber of Deputies for a military offensive in Tonkin. |40|
The French army occupied Tunis in October 1881 and the holy city of Kairouan at the end of the same month. |41|

Faced with the people’s resistance, particularly the rebellion of the Tunisian tribes, |42| the French military action reinforced and the expeditionary corps was increased to 50,000. Through the La Marsa convention of 1883 the Bey was shed of his remaining authority and Tunisia came under direct French administration.

Image caption: first page of the Bardo Treaty

It is to be pointed out that the Bardo treaty, as much as the convention of La Marsa contains precise dispositions that imply the use of debt as a tool of submission and spoliation. Article 7 of the Bardo treaty says:  “The government of the French Republic and the government of His Highness the Bey of Tunis reserve the right, of a common accord, to fix the bases of a financial organisation of the regency that will be likely to ensure the service of the public debt and to guarantee the rights of the creditors of Tunisia” (Trans: CADTM). Article 2 of the La Marsa convention stipulated “The French Government will guarantee, at a moment and under the conditions that it deems best , loans to His Highness the Bey destined to the conversion or repayment of the consolidated debt, to a sum of 125 million francs, and the  floating debt to a maximum of  17,550,000 francs. His Highness the Bey accepts not to take on any further debt in the name of the Regency without authorisation from the French government.” (Trans: CADTM)

Conclusion

We can say without risk of error after having analysed the upsurge of Tunisian debt in the second half of the 19th century, that it was odious and tightened the colonial grip on the country.

Subsequently, it continued to be an important means of the domination and plunder of Tunisia’s natural and human resources, and a cause of its underdevelopment and marginalisation.

On the basis of this observation the Tunisian people would be within their rights to claim damages from France, who should make the banks (i.e. BNP Paribas or Société Générale) and French corporations, who gained from the debt to plunder the Tunisian people, participate in the compensation.

What is more, the lessons that we can learn from this analysis are of great interest in understanding the current situation in Tunisia.

Just like the 1863 and 1867 debts, the debts taken on by the Ben Ali regime between 1987 and 2010 are also largely odious, and the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and the Northern creditors (France being the first amongst them) know this very well, as show the resolutions passed by the Belgian Senate in July 2011 and the European Parliament in May 2012.

The economic and social policies instigated by the Beylik power in the 19th century to repay the debt are surprisingly similar to the conditions imposed by the IMF since its 1986 restructuring plan. |43|

In 1864, the increase in the ’mejba’ led to large popular revolts. In December 2010, the abandoning of social policies because of the debt burden led to a revolution. Whereas in 1864, France sent its gunboats to quell the revolt, in January 2011 the French Minister of the Interior, Michèle Alliot-Mari, proposed materiel assistance to the Ben Ali regime to maintain order.

Finally, where the international creditors used the situation in the 19th century to impose free trade agreements, the liberalisation of commercial exchanges imposed on Tunisia by the European Union since 1995, concerning agriculture, fisheries, services and public procurement (Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement – DCFTA) led to the same disastrous effects on the Tunisian society.

The overthrow of Ben Ali in 2011 has not put an end to the debt system. On the contrary, the successive governments, under the pressure of the creditors, continue to push Tunisia further into debt. At the same time the struggle against the debt is getting organised and is intensifying. A project to pass a law that would install an audit of foreign and domestic debt since July 1986 was presented to the assembly of the Representatives of the People in May 2016 by 40 representatives (out of 217).

To get rid of the shackles of domination and underdevelopment, Tunisia has no other choice than to break the chains of the system.

First page of the La Marsa convention

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014);Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc. See his bibliography:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Toussaint He co-authored World debt figures 2015 with Pierre Gottiniaux, Daniel Munevar and Antonio Sanabria (2015); and with Damien Millet Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Monthly Review Books, New York, 2010. Since the 4th April 2015 he is the scientific coordinator of the Greek Truth Commission on Public Debt.

Bibliography :

Corm Georges. 1982. « L’endettement des pays en voie de développement : origine et mécanisme » in Sanchez Arnau, J.-C. coord. 1982. Dette et développement (mécanismes et conséquences de l’endettement du Tiers-monde), Éditions Publisud, Paris. (English version: Debt and Development, Praeger, New York, 1982).
Ganiage, Jean. 1959. Les origines du Protectorat français en Tunisie, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1960 et Maison tunisienne de l’édition, Tunis, 1968, 580 p. (In French)
Luxemburg, Rosa. 1913. L’accumulation du capital, Maspero, Paris, Vol. II, 1969. The Accumulation of Capital. English edition first published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mandel, Ernest. 1972. Le troisième âge du capitalisme, La Passion, Paris, 1997, 500 p. (In English: Late Capitalism. London, NLB, 1976)
Marichal, Carlos. 1989. A Century of Debt Crises in Latin America, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 283p.
Marx, Karl. 1867. Le Capital, livre I, Œuvres I, Gallimard, La Pléiade, 1963
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France. 1876. Décret d’institution de la caisse de la dette publique d’Égypte… et 6 autres décrets relatifs au Trésor et à la dette, Paris, 1876. 30 pages.http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark :/12148/bp… Retrieved on May 14, 2016 (in French)
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France.1898. Arrangement financier avec la Grèce : travaux de la Commission internationale chargée de la préparation du projet, Paris, 1898, 223 pages.http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark :/12148/bp...
P.H.X. [Paul Henri d’Estournelles de Constant]. La politique française en Tunisie : le Protectorat et ses origines (1854-1891). Paris : Plon, 1891. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark :/12148/bp... Réédité en 2002 : Paul d’Estournelles de Constant, La conquête de la Tunisie. Récit contemporain couronné par l’Académie française, éd. Sfar, Paris, 2002. (in French)
Reinhardt Carmen and Rogoff Kenneth, Cette fois, c’est différent. Huit siècles de folie financière, Paris, Pearson, 2010. (in French). (In English: This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises, NBER Working Paper No. 13882 Issued in March 2008.http://www.nber.org/papers/w13882)
Reinhardt Carmen M. and Sbrancia M. Belen. 2015 “The Liquidation of Government Debt.” Economic Policy 30, no. 82 : 291-333
Sack, Alexander Nahum. 1927. Les effets des transformations des États sur leurs dettes publiques et autres obligations financières, Recueil Sirey, Paris. (in French)
Stoskopf, Nicolas. Alphonse Pinard et la révolution bancaire du Second Empire. Histoire, économie et société, 1998, 17ᵉ année, n°2. pp. 299-317 [en ligne]. Available in French on :http://www.persee.fr/doc/hes_0752-5... (Consulté le 21/05/2016).
Toussaint, Éric. 2004. La finance contre les peuples. La bourse ou la vie, CADTM-Bruxelles/CETIM-Genève/Syllepse-Paris, 640 p. (in French)
Toussaint, Éric. 2016.http://cadtm.org/Newly-Independent-…
Toussaint, Éric. 2016. http://cadtm.org/Greece-Continued-d… TOUSSAINT, Éric. 2016,http://cadtm.org/Debt-as-an-instrum…  Van Krieken, G.S. 1976. Khayral-Dîn et la Tunisie (1850-1881), Leiden, E.J.Brill. 325 pages.
Wesseling, Henri. 1996.  Divide and Rule: the Partition of Africa, 1880-1914. Praeger.1997 (first edition in Dutch, 1991).

Acknowledgements: The author thanks Mokhtar Ben Afsa, Fathi Chamkhi, Nathan Legrand, Gus Massiah and Claude Quémar for their review and suggestions, and Pierre Gottiniaux for the illustrations.
The author accepts full responsibility for any errors that may occur in this work.

Translation : Suchandra De Sarkar and Mike Krolikowski

The upper house of the Swiss parliament on Wednesday voted to invalidate its 1992 application to join the European Union, backing an earlier decision by the lower house. The vote comes just a week before Britain decides whether to leave the EU in a referendum.

Twenty-seven members of the upper house, the Council of States, voted to cancel Switzerland’s longstanding EU application, versus just 13 senators against. Two abstained.

In the aftermath of the vote, Switzerland will give formal notice to the EU to consider its application withdrawn, the country’s foreign minister, Didier Burkhalter, was quoted as saying by Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

The original motion was introduced by the conservative Swiss People’s Party MP, Lukas Reimann. It had already received overwhelming support from legislators in the lower house of parliament in March, with 126 National Council deputies voting in favor, and 46 against.

Thomas Minder, counsellor for the state of Schaffhausen and an active promoter of the concept of “Swissness,” said he was eager to“close the topic fast and painlessly” as only “a few lunatics” may want to join the EU now, he told the newspaper.

Hannes Germann, also representing Schaffhausen, highlighted the symbolic importance of the vote, comparing it to Iceland’s decision to drop its membership bid in 2015.

“Iceland had the courage and withdrew the application for membership, so no volcano erupted,” he said, jokingly.

Switzerland’s longstanding application to join the EU has not had a significant impact on the country’s politics for more than 20 years, as its accession negotiations have been suspended since 1992 in the wake of a referendum to join the European Economic Area, when the Swiss voted down the idea of closer ties with the EU.

Some politicians even argued that the vote was an unnecessary formal procedure that didn’t make much sense as Switzerland is no longer regarded by the EU as an official candidate to join the bloc.

 

Filippo Lombardi, from the Christian Democratic People’s Party, said that it was “not very clever to discuss it once again,” calling the debate about Switzerland’s accession at this stage “a bit ridiculous,”Neue Zürcher Zeitung reported.

Switzerland, never a member of EU, shares free trade with the union and free movement of people as part of the Schengen zone.

The timing of Switzerland’s reassurance of its sovereignty and independence from the EU institutions, if accidental, may come in handy for campaigners in the UK advocating a British exit from the EU. Polls show the UK’s referendum on EU membership, to be held in a week on June 23, as being extremely close, with Leave slightly in the lead.

Посмотреть изображение в Твиттере

The missile defense capable USS Porter is in the Black Sea to trigger discussions on the state of European and global security. This month experts mark the 28th anniversary of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that came into force on June 1, 1988. Those were the days of great hopes and expectations.

Today Ukraine’s drama, the EU’s migrants’ crisis, China’s economic slowdown and the fight against the Islamic State group hit headlines while another crisis is looming in the background – the unraveling of nuclear arms control and the related problem of non-proliferation. The prospect of losing the legal regime for managing the instruments of devastation is very much real.

It is true that the two key treaties – the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty – are still in force.

However, their future is not assured. The 2010 New START (also known as the Prague Treaty) was an important achievement in preventing the collapse of arms control. But it expires in 2020 without any prospects for a new agreement coming into force. There are no signs that the parties are planning to launch talks on the subject. The future of the INF is also in doubt. The Treaty is threatened by ballistic missile defense (BMD) deployment. Aegis Ashore uses the naval Mk-41 launching system, which is capable of firing long-range cruise missile. This is a blatant violation of the INF Treaty provisions.

The countries which host BMD sites inevitably become targets for Russia’s Iskander surface-to-surface missiles and aviation.

Actually, the United States launched the arms control erosion by withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to no longer accept any restrictions on its missile defense deployments. Washington still has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 20 years after it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1996.

Russia refuses any limitations on its sub-strategic nuclear arms while the US enjoys advantage in conventional long-range precision guided weapons, and NATO is implementing the program of stationing missile defense Aegis sites in Romania and Poland – in the vicinity of Russia’s borders. European security is weakened by the Russia-NATO stand-off. Nowadays, the plans to establish nuclear-weapons-free zones in Europe are, to large extent, forgotten. Measures that might include steps to prevent nuclear weapons being stationed outside the borders of the nuclear-weapon states are not on the Russia-NATO Council’s agenda. There is no accord between Russian and NATO on nuclear incidents prevention. Currently around 200 B61 bombs are deployed in underground vaults inside around 90 protective aircraft shelters at six bases in five NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey). About half of the munitions are earmarked for delivery by national aircraft of these non-nuclear states, although they all are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 that envisions certain obligations.

Article I of the treaty prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from nuclear-weapons states to other countries. Its Article II requires non-nuclear weapons states not to receive nuclear weapons. The US and NATO breach a major international treaty.

Russia considers US forward-based tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to be an addition to the US strategic arsenal that is capable of striking deep into Russian national territory. Moscow has, therefore, demanded that the United States withdraw these weapons (which amount to about 200 air-dropped gravity bombs in the process of being upgraded) from Europe as a precondition to any possible talks on the issue. The process is stalled.

In addition, developments in non-nuclear BMD systems and long-range, precision-guided offensive weapons, as well as their proliferation, have complicated nuclear arms control.

The United States is in violation of the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA). Russia and the US agreed to transparently dispose of weapons-grade plutonium, thereby preventing it from being reused for military purposes. The agreement specifies that the United States will dispose of its plutonium by burning it in light water reactors (Article III.2).

In 2016 the US Energy Department changed the plans in favor of “a cheaper, faster alternative”.

Changing the disposition method requires formally amending the agreement, which cannot be done without Russia’s consent.

Despite that, the US administration’s Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal calls for the termination of the MOX (mixed oxide) project.

The violation was one of the reasons the Russian President skipped the Nuclear Security Summit held in Washington, DC on March 31-April 1, 2016.

The seven nuclear-armed states besides Russia and the United States have refused to join the discussions on any limitations till Russia and the US get closer to their numerical levels. In fact, it implies another substantial reduction on top of cuts already undertaken by the “Big Two”. Global and regional powers with quite different points of view, ambitions, and political and military experiences from Russia and the United States are now important international players. Nuclear-arms limitations are no longer in the foreground of international security giving place to local conflicts, the fight against terrorism, and nuclear proliferation – the issue greatly exacerbated by the recent North Korean activities.

Nuclear nonproliferation is also in trouble. Nothing has been done in real terms. For instance, a conference on the establishment of weapons of mass destruction–free zone in the Middle East (agreed on at the 2010 Nuclear Summit) has never materialized. 2016 Washington Nuclear Summit ended without producing any tangible results with Russia skipping the event. Negotiations with North Korea have been in limbo for many years and there is no prospect for their revival. This is confirmed by the recent events.

The talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty have been deadlocked for many years with the US-Russian cooperation on the safety and security of nuclear sites and materials ended in 2014.

The 2015 Iran deal is the only silver lining, but it still has a long way to go to become a long-term, comprehensive process. All other negotiations on nuclear arms reduction and nonproliferation have come to a dead end. Russia and the United States still retain their leading roles in the nonproliferation regime, but they can use this advantage effectively only joining together. The history of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program provides a telling example.

Today the world is facing the most serious and comprehensive crisis in the fifty-year history of nuclear arms control with almost every channel of negotiation deadlocked and the entire system of existing arms control agreements in jeopardy. One can see the US taking one decision after another to undermine the arms control regime that has served as a pillar of international security for dozens of years. This crisis may quite possibly result in the total disintegration of the existing framework of treaties and regimes followed by probable resumption of the arms race with dire consequences for humanity. Further proliferation of nuclear weapons may lead to the deliberate or accidental use of nuclear weapons in local wars. Only political unity among the major global powers and alliances, coupled with urgent and effective action, can reverse this trend.

Inventiveness and an aggressive search for new approaches can adapt nuclear arms control to the new realities, including disentangling further strategic arms reductions from the present knot of problems, binding agreements on the capabilities of BMD systems, limitations on existing and emerging long-range, precision-guided conventional offensive weapons and reductions in substrategic nuclear arms. Cooperative relations among key global and regional powers and alliances could be adapted to the emerging new post–Cold War world order molded through patient negotiations launched upon a joint Russia-US initiative. Nuclear arms control – the central pillar of the process – should be restored and modernized.

Hopefully, the next President of the United States will realize that the problems can be resolved if the leaders of the great powers are willing to work them out, and if experts approach them creatively.

Getting to London at this time of the year still sees that early summer foliage in full bloom. There is a rich sap-green life to the trees, and the prospect of a wet season. As the environment teams with turbulent activity and adjustment, the political scene is proving just as frantic.  Britain goes to the referendum polls on June 23. 

London is snared by the Brexit debate, with posters and placards festooning the city speaking to the benefits and catastrophes of remaining in the European Union. But for all that, such activity is taking place in the beast of Britain’s political and financial establishment.  For all that, it remains a supremely padded cacoon, a vast bubble of protection against so much about what the rest of Britain is saying.

The Leave and Stay campaigns have been at each other’s throats in what has been, or some time, a campaign more on illusions than facts.  Veteran journalist Peter Oborne went so far as to describe the debate as a post-factual one.  Those arguing for staying in the EU have done so clumsily and unconvincingly; those on the leave bandwagon have done their best to make omission and misguided patriotism their central policy.

There has even been a good deal of dark cynicism thrown into it, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne using the NHS, that long hated symbol for Tories of universal health care, as political hostage. His promise: Leave Europe, and we will have to gut the service to plug inevitable deficits. The parochial, John Bull set have capitalised on such stances, marking out areas of fiction to assault the British public with in the lead up to the poll.

The Leave campaign, masking itself with stern officialdom, has been busy sending formal correspondence to voters urging the good thing: exit with pride.  One leaflet titled “The European Union and Your Family” is keen to illustrate “The Facts”.  Such a document is designed “to help you make your decision in the referendum on Thursday 23 June.” Comforting.

Then come those mysterious fog dispelling facts (facts, for some reason, is always coloured a good bolshie red).  Again, the magic figure of 350 billion pounds a year for being an EU member makes its tiresome appearance.  No mention of other facts, be they subsidies and assistance for British agriculture.

Another fact, conveyed with omissions and faults, is the expansion of the EU. There are legitimate reasons to argue against such a move in terms of political and economic stability, but the Leave campaign has no holds barred on the issue of how troubling it is that other states, when they join “will have the same rights as other member states.”  Equality between members?  Revolting, sneer the campaigners.

There is no qualification to the list of states in the queue either.  “Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey” are written in bold text, suggesting that new thieves and brigands are being readied to land on Britain’s shores.  Such hysteria ignores the fact that the British service industry is dominated by a multitude of European nationalities, doing jobs Britons feel beneath, and in some cases beyond them.  In that sense, an expanded EU has been an unqualified boon.

For all that, London remains a Venetian city state in the national debate, a point which might explain the bizarre show that unfolded on the Thames on Wednesday.

It was a moment of stock political surrealism, featuring battling flotillas, pleasure boats, and dinghies.  It saw Nigel Farage from the UK Independence Party with supporters yelling as they clamoured for a swift departure from the EU, and a combative greying Bob Geldorf, flicking V-signs from a pleasure cruiser stacked with pro-EU supporters.  They were armed with the Sixties pop hit “I’m in with the in crowd” blared at deafening levels.

That was not all.  Farage, with his boat decked with patriotic balloons, chairs and baubles, had joined pro-Brexit Scottish fishermen squirting water at rival campaigners who had taken to dinghies to harry the Brexiteers.  To add to this assembly line of absurdity were transfixed Members of Parliament and a hundred souls or so on a bridge singing Rule Britannia.[1]

The exchange, verbally, was hardly Shakespearean. More like unsupervised playground spluttering.  There were rude gestures.  There was shouting and jeering. “You’re a fraud!” charged Geldorf through his microphone.  “You’re no fisherman’s friend!” Geldorf’s point was fair enough, obscured as it was by the scene.  Farage, despite being on the European Parliament Fishing Committee, was hardly a regular, having only attended one out of 43 meetings.

Never exaggerate the credentials of pure opportunism, especially from a politician who loathes the EU but has been subsidised by its accounts for a good period of time.  Farage has always liked to play the enemy within the Brussels establishment, all too often coming across as the resident philistine.

Nor has Geldorf done much to clarify the issues for the Remain campaign.  To those outside London, he remains the millionaire who has dandified causes, a wealthy individual who ennobles poverty and privation for the sake of mission. Furthermore, much of the ground for those wishing to remain in the EU is taken to be obvious for the campaigners, which is exactly why it has verged on smug incompetence.

The idea of Britain leaving the system is deemed so imbecilic is does not warrant a decent counter, hence the Leave campaign’s main handicap.  It warrants no coherent critique of various European practices that require a good deal of trimming, or the basic notion of constitutional reform.  London, as it proved to British Labour in the last election, risks becoming an isolated oasis in the debates of Britannia. Voters outside the vast metropolis will make the difference.

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

Notes:

These days you may get hugs from many common people in the Middle East or Latin America when you say that you are Russian, but such emotional outbursts are mainly intuitive. After being bombarded by extremely effective and negative Western propaganda for years and decades, people of the world still know very little, if anything, about two enormous countries that have been proudly resisting the Western imperialism – Russia and China.

I recently spent five weeks in Latin America, where the West openly supports the entire wide spectrum of counter-revolutionary movements, literally overthrowing one progressive government after another. I worked alongside the left-wing intellectuals there, helping to define the way forward, to rescue the Process.

But I was shocked by how little is known there about both Russia and China – for decades two natural allies of the patriotic Latin American Left.

“Are you for Putin or against?” And: “Is China really as capitalist now as we read?”

These were two most commonly asked questions.

Not in Cuba, of course. Cuba, almost free of most of propaganda media outlets of the Empire is actually one of the best-educated and informed societies on Earth. There, people know all about those long decades and centuries of the epic struggle of the Russian people against Western imperialism. There, it is very well known that China is essentially and once again increasingly a Communist (and successful) nation with clear central planning, which uses some controlled capitalist practices in order to build a prosperous society for its people.

But even in such educated countries like Argentina and Chile, even in those centers of progress and revolution like Ecuador and Venezuela, the two world giants are often misunderstood. The majority of people in Latin America may feel sympathy for both Russia and China, but there is no deep knowledge of the realities there.

It is truly discouraging, because the Latin American Left is one of the essential components of the front against Western imperialism, standing shoulder to shoulder with Russia and China, but also South Africa, Iran and other proud nations.

It is easy to understand the reasons behind all this. Even in some of the most revolutionary nations of Latin America, the Western mass media outlets have been managing to retain their presence, often through the right-wing big business cable TV and satellite distributors. Most of the biggest newspapers are still in the hands of local business interests.

And so the negative and misleading messages about Russia and China are spread constantly. People are bombarded with them from the television screens, from the pages of mass-circulation newspapers, and from the imported (Western) films.

Many are resisting. They instinctively want to cling to both Russia and China. But they don’t have enough “ammunition”; not enough positive and inspiring information is available to them. In the meantime the critics are armed to the teeth with toxic propaganda that is mass-produced in New York, Los Angeles, London and Madrid.

And the situation is much worse in Asia.

There, the Empire has truly and fully mobilized all available resources, in order to discredit its two main adversaries.

Speaking to my friends and colleagues in such places like Indonesia and Philippines, I was told that most of the people there know little, even close to nothing about Russia. It is still perceived through the Cold War and post-Cold-War stereotypes. The Western propaganda apparatus has been portraying Russians as cold, aggressive, brainwashed and dangerous.

Great Russian culture, Russian arts and the exceptional warmth of the Russian people, are something almost totally unknown in most of the Asian nations.

Great foreign policy successes of Russia, like those in Syria, are twisted and turned into the crimes, even in Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, where “people should definitely know better”.

In India, which had been for decades very close to the Soviet Union, the situation is somehow brighter, but only among the extremely small and educated group of its citizens. There, like in many other parts of the world, pro-business and pro-Western mass media is skillfully defending the interests of the West, demonizing all that is standing in the way of the Empire.

China is being targeted with an even greater and more malicious force than Russia. Successful and Communist China is the worst nightmare for the West and for the local, Asian ‘elites’.

The entire propaganda apparatus is now in overdrive, spreading ideological attacks and negative messages. The most peaceful major country on Earth is being portrayed as an aggressor and threat to regional and world peace. In the Philippines and elsewhere, the global Western regime is arousing the cheapest and extremely dangerous bellicose forms of nationalism.

The local Chinese diaspora of Southeast Asia that consists mainly of the anti-Communist elements, descendants of the people who left China after the revolution, are playing an extremely important and destructive role.

Nobody seems to notice that the United States/NATO is encircling both Russia and China with its military bases, while deploying new offensive missile systems. Nobody talks about those tens of millions of people who were massacred during the Western invasions of Asia during the 20^th century.

And the situation is not much different in Africa and elsewhere.

True, both Russia and China have invested some substantial resources in order to counter the Western propaganda. The RT, Sputnik and NEO (New Eastern Outlook), have all become extremely effective global information and intellectual detoxification outlets.

But the West is still investing more. The ideological war is even something that is lately being discussed openly in Washington. The more Russia and China resist and the more they defend themselves; the more Western propaganda steps up its indoctrination campaigns.

Clearly, both Russia and China have to do more, not only for their own interests, but also for the good of the world.

The great achievements of China and Russia have to be explained in detail. Such information should be spread to all corners of the planet.

In this field, China should learn from Russia, as the Chinese media outlets now available abroad are still too ‘timid’ and too reconciliatory. It requires real strength and determination to counter the mighty and centuries-old Western propaganda and brainwashing schemes. It also requires large financial budgets.

But the intellectual ‘resistance’ and the ideological wars should not be fought only in the fields of the politics, news and analyses. The tremendous cultural and intellectual achievements of both China and Russia should be made available to the populations on all continents. China has done so already a lot, mainly through its Confucius Institutes. It should be doing more, and so should Russia.

Both countries are in possession of marvelous cultural wealth, overflowing with wisdom and arts. Their humanism is much deeper than that of the West – the West that has been mainly building its wealth, for centuries, by plundering the Planet.

For as long as one can remember, both Europe and North America had been committing genocides, while enslaving entire continents. At the same time, they have been engaging in self-glorification, promoting their political, economic and cultural concepts. They claimed cultural superiority. And they have been doing it with such force, such ruthlessness and in the end with such success, that they have managed to fully indoctrinate most of the world into accepting that there is really no alternative, no other way (except the Western way) forward.

There are naturally other ways, and needless to say, much better ones!

In fact, before European colonialism began ruining and enslaving the planet, almost all parts of the world were living in much more developed and gentler societies than those of the West.

Now very little is known about this fact. Alternatives are not discussed in the mainstream, anymore. The search for a better world, for more humanistic concepts, is almost totally abandoned; at least in the West and in its colonies and ‘client” states.

It as if this horrid nightmare, into which the world had been forced into by the global Western dictatorship, is the only imaginable future for our human race.

It is not. And there are two great countries on this planet, Russia and China, which can offer many alternatives. They are strong enough to withstand all the pressure from the West. They have hearts, brains; they have the know-how and resources to offer alternatives and to re-start millennia old, essential discussions about the future of our humanity.

But in order for this to happen, the world has to first know about both Russia and China. It has to understand their cultures.

The war against imperialism should be fought not only on the battlefields; it should be fought on the airwaves, at the printing presses, in the concert halls and theatres. Kindness, humanism, internationalism and knowledge can often serve as weapons much more powerful than missiles, strategic bombers and submarines.

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 Terrorism. Point 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.

Last July, the conservative Washington Post columnist George Will asked the question,

If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behavior be any different?

At the time, he was talking about the effect Trump would have on the upcoming first Republican debate. The eventual Republican nominee, in Will’s words, might say “something hideously inflammatory.”

“The debate gets hijacked,” Will said in his comments about Trump in July. “The process gets hijacked.”

Bill Clinton and Donald Trump Photo credit: Matt Johnson / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0) and Gage Skidmore / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Here’s an example of Will’s mole theory at work: Earlier this month, Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who had just endorsed Trump, held a press conference in an impoverished part of Washington, D.C., trying to gain attention for a GOP plan to fight urban poverty. But the media did not cover his plan to help the city’s poor.

It focused instead on a question asked by a reporter about Donald Trump’s verbal attacks on the ethnicity of Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over a fraud case against Trump University. The headlines, rather than naming any of Ryan’s policy proposals, were all about his response:

Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable.

George Will Photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

An Unforced Error

With high profile Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, andfrequent Trump apologist Newt Gingrich, denouncing Trump’s comments as racist, it becomes worth asking George Will’s question again.

Is Donald Trump, who spent most of the past few decades as a Democrat and personal friend to the Clinton family, trying to drive the Republican party into a ditch?

Simple logic would suggest he is not — a Trump presidential campaign that goes down in flames would put him in a place of deep dislike among much of the American people, and the effect on his brand, businesses, and celebrity would be bad enough for him personally that he probably would never attempt such an elaborate scheme, even to help his closest friends.

But as George Will pointed out, it matters little what Trump’s original intention was. His campaign is turning into exactly the kind that someone would run if they wanted to deliberately hand the election to the Democrats.

Trump has already gone out of his way to offend several important groups — women, a war hero, the mighty media, Mexicans, and again, Mexicans..

Trump’s racist comments about Judge Curiel weren’t a mere gaffe. He was not caught off guard by a question about it. Instead, Trump deliberately brought up the judge’s heritage seemingly out of nowhere at a rally, and has only doubled down when asked about it.

An article published by Bloomberg highlighted just how much Trump’s vendetta against the judge flies in the face of good campaign strategy. On a conference call with campaign surrogates — including high-ranking Republican elected officials who planned to speak for Trump in media appearances — Trump began to yell about a memo that his PR team had sent out trying to tamp down discussion of Trump’s comments.

He lashed out, saying that the campaign needed to defend itself against journalists. “The people asking the questions — those are the racists,” Trump was quoted byBloomberg. “I would go at ’em.”

Trump’s combative strategy not only hurts any attempts at party unity; it also highlights the acrimony that seems to be brewing within the Trump campaign apparatus.

As quoted in the Bloomberg article, Trump even attacks one of his own staffers when he tells his campaign surrogates: “You guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren’t so smart.”

Trump Podium
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Deliberate Fumbling?

The very existence of this article is a sign that Trump’s campaign is eating itself from the inside. The information in the Bloomberg article came from two Trump supporters, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Leaks are usually a sign of trouble in an election campaign. In 2008, for example, numerous staffers working with vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke candidly to the press about their frustrations with the Alaska governor. It has become a time-honored tradition for those on a sinking ship to bad-mouth the captain in the hopes of salvaging their reputations for future work.

But we’re still five months away from the general election. If these leaks are coming out of the Trump campaign now, then what can we expect over the next few months?

Numerous media outlets covering the Trump campaign have reported that it is understaffed, overtaxed, and chaotic, without strong day-to-day leadership. The operation is said to be plagued with constant discord between loyalists to Trump’s original primary team — led by campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and press secretary Hope Hicks — and the new hires brought on board by strategist Paul Manafort.

Rick Wiley, who was hired by Manafort to be the campaign’s national political director, was fired just six weeks into his new job, purportedly over clashes with state directorsloyal to Lewandowski.

And The New York Times reported that people in the campaign “have told associates they believe that their Trump Tower offices in New York may be bugged.”

All this chaos comes from a campaign staff of only 73, compared to the Clinton campaign’s more than 800. Trump has been reluctant to spend money on his campaign, not wanting to dip further into his personal fortune, and not showing any affinity for traditional fundraising. He has worried many Republican strategists with his outright refusal to invest in a data analytics team, which is usually helpful in get-out-the-vote efforts and ensuring that the right message reaches the right voters.

A more robust data operation might have dissuaded Trump from spending his campaign’s meager funds contesting New York, a state that went to President Obama by a nearly 30-point margin, and which had been represented by Hillary Clinton as its senator during its darkest hour, in 2001.

Trump claims that his spartan campaign is more versatile and less wasteful than a full-scale national operation, and that he was able to win the primary against well-seasoned opponents based solely on the strength of his singular personality.

But the task of earning the more than 60 million votes needed for the general election poses very different challenges from winning 13 million votes to secure the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton  Photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Missed Opportunities

Trump’s lean-and-mean staff was well suited to a primary where he was up against 16 competitors, and was able to stand out from the crowd because of his celebrity status. His Twitter account, with more than 8 million followers, was better positioned to drive the conversation than a slew of barely-charismatic senators and governors jockeying with each other for attention while initially ignoring the buffoonish reality-TV star.

But in the general election, Trump is up against one of the most famous women in the world. The media will likely cover both of them on a near constant basis, undercutting  Trump’s ability to generate media-space with salvos of crude insults.

A general election media strategy usually depends on keeping good news about your candidate and bad news about your opponent in the headlines. A well-run campaign fights back against negative news by ensuring that something positive replaces it in the news cycle.

The Trump campaign has so far proved inept in fighting back against Clinton in news coverage.

On May 25, the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General filed a report deeply critical of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State. The smart response from the Trump campaign all week would have been…nothing — allowing the media to stay focused on a story that hurt Clinton.

But instead, the political press became focused on Trump’s dismissal of Wiley, before focusing on his over-inflated claims of donations made to veterans’ groups.

On June 2, a Clinton speech attacking Trump’s temperament and ability to handle important foreign policy and national security matters received coverage from numerous major media outlets. Once again, the Trump team did not come up with a helpful response to take media attention away from Clinton. The only Trump news in this period was the aforementioned attacks on Judge Curiel’s Mexican lineage.

Dismal Approval Among Minorities

The hubbub over Judge Curiel highlights perhaps the most important way in which Trump has refused to adjust to the difference between the primary and general elections. Exit polls of the Republican primary showed more than 80% of voters were white. In the coming general election, demographic projections suggest that 31% of eligible voters will not be white.

And blacks and hispanics have shown deeply unfavorable views towards Trump in polls.

Trump’s whites-only strategy flies in the face of the Republican party’s own plan for how this election would pan out. In the wake of Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama in 2012, the Republican National Committee commissioned a report, called the Growth and Opportunity Project (also informally referred to as the “autopsy” report), figure out how the party could turn things around in 2016.

A major recommendation of the report called for broadening the GOP’s base beyond white voters, with an especially enthusiastic outreach towards Hispanics.

“If Hispanic Americans hear that the GOP doesn’t want them in the United States, they won’t pay attention to our next sentence,” wrote the report. “It doesn’t matter what we say about education, jobs or the economy; if Hispanics think that we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies.”

Trump’s campaign has seemingly taken the opposite approach, calling Mexican immigrants “rapists,”  repeating ad infinitum his vague plan to build a wall on the border, claiming a sitting federal judge cannot judge him fairly because he is of Mexican heritage.

And counting a taco bowl he ate on Cinco De Mayo as “outreach”.

This was exactly the kind of thing George Will was talking about. Republican leaders wanted a candidate who could expand the party and stop Hispanics from becoming lockstep Democratic voters. Among the many candidates who ran for the Republican nomination were Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, who had both successfully made inroads with Hispanic voters in their native state of Florida.

That Puzzling Phone Call

In December, Jeb Bush  tweeted, “Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy@HillaryClinton. Continuing this path will put her in the White House.”

Bush had a point. Clinton and Trump had known each other for decades before the mogul decided to run for president. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton attended Trump’s third wedding at his Florida estate in 2005. Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton, the daughters of the two candidates, have shared a longstanding friendship. In a 2012 interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, he called Clinton “a terrific woman” and praised her tenure as Secretary of State.

“I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job,” he told Van Susteren in 2012. “I like her.”

The Washington Post reported last summer that shortly before entering the race, Trump talked with Bill Clinton on the phone and discussed his role in politics.

It is hard to resist wondering what the two talked about in that phone call. For Trump to actually be running with the direct intention of getting his old friend into office would be among the most outlandish and crazy things ever to have happened in the history of American politics.

But so many things about the 2016 campaign have defied conventional wisdom and expectations. And as a possible conspiracy theory, it benefits from having a shockingly small amount of people who would need to keep quiet.

If Trump planned on wrecking the Republican party to make Hillary Clinton president, the only three people who would have had to be in on it were the Clintons and Trump himself.

Speculating about the secret inner thoughts of Donald Trump is a game you cannot win. But Will’s question remains difficult to answer. “If Donald Trump were a Democratic mole placed in the Republican Party to disrupt things, how would his behavior be any different?”

Hillary Helper

We are in the midst of Hillary Clinton’s second attempt and Clinton’s limitations as a presidential candidate have become clear.

In her own words, she is “not a natural politician.” She is an awkward campaigner, has trouble relating to voters, is widely seen as untrustworthy, and is attacked from both the right and the left. She has been dogged by a scandal that brings into question her ability to be trusted with information sensitive to national security. In poll after poll, she has record-breaking unfavorability ratings.

But the dislike Americans feel toward Clinton is dwarfed only by their ill-feelings towards her opponent. After a brief bump in polling when he locked down the Republican nomination, Trump has been falling in head-to-head matchups with Clinton. She has become the overwhelming odds-on-favorite among bookmakers.

Some might see George Will’s slyly provocative question as the ultimate in conspiracy theorizing. What does Trump have to gain from giving Hillary a leg up to the White House? A Get-Out-of-Jail card after the Trump University verdict comes down?

In the end, who can say what goes on beneath that famous excrescence of hair?

But one thing is for sure: If Hillary Clinton becomes president, a big part of the reason will be her old friend Donald Trump.

Around 100 heavily armed Al-Nusra fighters were spotted arriving in the border region between Syria and Turkey, the Russian Center for Syrian Reconciliation reported, citing sources in Kbana, a village in the Latakia province. The terrorists’ reinforcements came amid the Syrian Arab Army advances in the province. The government forces have captured the village of Ayn Issa and made attempts to take control of several high points that overlook the militant stronghold of Kbana: Ruwysat al-Joz, the Zyiqat mountain and hill 1112. If the SAA is able to seize the control of these strategic high points, the liberation is a matter of time.

Heavy clashes erupted in South Aleppo last night when Al Nusra and allied Jihadist groups seized from pro-government forces the village of Zeitan. Following a series of heavy firefights, the loyalists were able to re-take this village. Separately, heavy clashes were in Khalsah. Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were participating in the clashes against Jihadists there.

Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege on the strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij. Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments by different Western states.

The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015 and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016. France’s Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units. Meanwhile, UK special forces operating on the front line alongside rebels in Syria near the Jordanian border. They participate in direct clashes, provide training and manage of the opposition group, called “New Syrian Army.”

Thus, it’s confirmed that 3 Western states have deployed forces in Syria and the one is under the question. All these forces have been deployed and now they operate in the Arab country without any request or authorization from the Syrian government. Such situation could easily lead to a partial occupation of the Arab country when the anti-ISIS operations are finished.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Over the past year, several attempts in the New York legislature to pass laws protecting Israel against the boycotts, divestment and sanctions collectively known as “BDS” have failed. BDS punishes Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. In an unprecedented end run around the legislative process, Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order this month that would accomplish just what the legislature has refused to do.

Cuomo’s order directs all agencies under his jurisdiction to discontinue all dealings with companies and organizations that support BDS. It also mandates that Cuomo’s commissioner compile a list of institutions and companies that support a boycott of Israel. The blacklist will be publicly posted. The burden of proving that these entities do not support the boycott is on the companies and institutions themselves.

What Is BDS?

The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement was launched in 2005 by representatives of Palestinian civil society. They called upon “international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era … [including] embargoes and sanctions against Israel.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s decision to punish participants in the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions movement enables the Israeli occupation of Palestine and a never-ending cycle of violence.

(Photo: Marc A. Hermann / MTA New York City Transit)

To read more stories like this, visit Human Rights and Global Wrongs.

This call for BDS specified that “these non-violent punitive measures” should last until Israel fully complies with international law by (1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the barrier Wall; (2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and (3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land as stipulated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194.

The BDS movement has had several successes in recent years. Groups honoring BDS include the United Church of Christ, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, Mennonites and Quakers and several academic institutions, as well as many artists and intellectuals.

In 2014, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu excoriated BDS during his address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the powerful United States-based organization that lobbies for Israel. Cuomo now walks in lockstep with Netanyahu. In his executive order, Cuomo declared, “If you boycott against Israel, New York will boycott you.”

Omar Barghouti, a founder of the BDS movement, said in an email to The New York Times: “Having lost many battles for hearts and minds at the grass-roots level, Israel has adopted since 2014 a new strategy to criminalize support for BDS from the top” in order to “shield Israel from accountability.”

What Is the Israeli Occupation?

Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is a form of colonialism. Israel maintains effective control over Gaza’s land, airspace, seaport, electricity, water, telecommunications and population registry. Israel deprives Gazans of food, medicine, fuel and basic services. The occupation constitutes collective punishment, which is considered a war crime.

In 2002, more than 100 Israeli army reservists declared they would no longer fight in the West Bank and Gaza Strip “with the aim of dominating, expelling, starving and humiliating an entire people.” “The price of occupation,” they said, “is the loss of the Israeli Defense Forces’ semblance of humanity and the corruption of all of Israeli society.” The soldiers reported firing at Palestinians who hadn’t endangered them, stopping ambulances at checkpoints, and stripping areas clean of groves and trees necessary to people’s livelihoods.

Cuomo’s executive order is a blatant ploy to prevent any criticism of Israel’s policy of occupation and oppression of Palestinians.

An Unconstitutional Executive Order

Cuomo’s order is also unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court has made clear [that the] government can’t penalize people or entities on the basis of their free expression, and political boycotts are a form of free expression,” the New York Civil Liberties Union declared. “Creating a government blacklist that imposes state sanctions based on political belief raises serious First Amendment concerns.”

“Boycotts are a constitutionally protected form of speech, association and assembly — as well as a non-violent form of resistance to oppression,” according to Audrey Bomse, co-chair of the National Lawyers Guild’s Palestine Subcommittee.

Barghouti concurs. He told the Times that the boycott is a “time-honored tactic of resisting injustice in the US.”

Boycotts Achieve Social Change

Indeed, it was the domestic consumer and rent boycotts, the international academic boycotts and divestments, and the UN General Assembly’s call for boycotts and sanctions against South Africa that nourished the anti-apartheid movement.

“As someone who successfully moved a boycott of South African goods in 1962 … I fully support the right to use a boycott as a legitimate expression of those who oppose [Israel’s policies],” said Lord Hughes, chairman of the UK’s Anti-Apartheid Movement for 20 years, in an interview with Al Jazeera.

From 1965 to 1970, a consumer grape boycott organized by the United Farm Workers (UFW) forced growers to sign their first union contracts, granting workers better pay, benefits and protections. UFW President Cesar Chavez called it “a gate of hope through which [farm workers] expect to find the sunlight of a better life for themselves and their families.”

And the 1955 to 1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott by African Americans, guided by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. after Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat on a bus to a white man, ultimately led the US Supreme Court to order the integration of Montgomery’s bus system.

“Gov. Cuomo has decided that his moral compass points in the direction of Joseph McCarthy rather than Rosa Parks,” said Columbia Law School professor Katherine Franke, who chairs the board of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

The National Lawyers Guild, Palestine Legal and CCR wrote in a legal memorandum that the anti-BDS bills pending in the New York legislature “harken back to the McCarthy era when the state sought to deny the right to earn a livelihood to those who express controversial political views.” The memo added, “The courts long ago found such McCarthy-era legislation to be at war with the First Amendment,” as they “unconstitutionally target core political speech activities and infringe on the freedom to express political beliefs.”

More than 100 churches, human rights groups and legal organizations signed a letter to the New York legislature opposing the pending legislation, saying “it would chill and deter constitutionally protected speech by intimidating people from engaging in political actions for fear of being blacklisted … These measures are dangerous and unconstitutional. No legislation should restrict the rights of New Yorkers to engage in efforts to bring sanctions against a nation engaged in human rights violations.”

In addition, “It is unprecedented for a state to create a list of entities that support or engage in a First Amendment protected political activity, and deny them financial benefits because of it,” according to Palestine Legal.

BDS Is a Nonviolent Anti-Occupation Strategy

Last week, Ron Huldai, mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa and a former Israeli Air Force pilot, made news when he declared that Israel’s occupation is a factor that causes Palestinians to turn to terrorism. Likewise, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack once said that if he were a Palestinian, he would have joined a terrorist organization.

After the June 8 terrorist attack in Tel Aviv claimed the lives of four Israelis, an editorial in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated, “The terror will continue as long as the Palestinian people have no hope on the horizon … The only way to deal with terrorism is by freeing the Palestinian people from the occupation. Until then, the Palestinians will continue their opposition using force, as most peoples have done throughout history.”

In Bomse’s words, “The response of the movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people should be to build an even stronger consensus in support of Palestinian human rights and against Israeli colonialism.”

Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, said, “There will not be progress toward a just peace without pressure on Israel to respect Palestinian rights.” She added, “Bringing about that pressure, through a global grassroots mobilization, is exactly what BDS is about.”

BDS should be embraced as a nonviolent strategy to challenge the Israeli occupation.

According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, 44 percent of Democrats want Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to make an independent run for the White House.

hat bears repeating, that’s 44 percent of Democrats, not 44 percent of Sanders supporters.

That number closely corresponds to the 43 percent of voters who have chosen Sanders over rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary to date.

The poll also found that more than three-quarters of Democrats say Sanders should have a “major role” in shaping the Party’s positions and that nearly two thirds say Clinton should choose Sanders as her vice-presidential running mate.

Sanders and his supporters can now rest assured that their voice in deed has been heard throughout much of the Democratic Party and that they are influencing its base, for whatever that might be worth.

However, the poll also suggests that many Democrats still seek Party unity, with nearly two thirds saying that Sanders should endorse Clinton. Sometimes you get uncomfortable overlap with polling questions. The slight overlap in this case could suggest that roughly 10 percent of Dems would be content if Sanders either ran as an independent or endorsed Clinton, rather than both.

The poll was conducted from June 7-10 and included 455 respondents. It has a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 5.3 percentage points.

A previous Reuters poll also found that Sanders was the most popular candidate for the role of Commander in Chief among all likely voters (identified Democrats, Republicans, and independents), earning 38 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 31 percent and Republican Donald Trump’s 26 percent.

These new poll numbers must be troubling for the Clinton campaign as Sanders has repeatedly vowed to stay in the race through the convention and is meeting this evening with several close advisors to discuss “the future” of his campaign.

While Sanders has maintained that he will ultimately support whoever the Democratic nominee may be, the spectre of a possible independent run by the Vermont senator must still haunt Clinton, especially when considering how much better he does among crucial independent voters than she does.

Sanders beats Clinton by a staggering 31 points among independent voters nationally, and he also has a track record of courting substantial numbers of independents and Republicans both in Vermont and nationally. You combine that with the fact that nearly half of Democrats want him to run as an independent, and you could have one of the most viable independent runs in recent history. He could pull a majority of blue states, swing states, and even some red states — he did very well in several deep red states outside of the Bible Belt during the primary.

Trump and Clinton both also have huge likability deficits when compared to Sanders. In a three-way race, both Clinton and Trump will have a tough time against Sanders.

Read also:

Wall Street declares war against Sanders

Why millennials love Bernie Sanders

Sanders proposes full reversal of US policy in the Middle East

The MAN WHO shot over 100 people and killed 49 in an Orlando nightclub Saturday worked at a retirement home as a security guard for G4S – a giant, often controversial global contracting corporation that provides mercenary forces, prison guards and security services. G4S is one of the world’s largest private security companies, with more than 620,000 employees and a presence in over 100 countries.

G4S confirmed in a statement that Omar Mateen had worked for the company since 2007, and said it was “shocked and saddened” by the shooting. A later statement said that Mateen was subject to “detailed company screening” in 2007 and again in 2013, “with no adverse findings.”

But one of Mateen’s former coworkers told the New York Times that he “saw it coming,” that Mateen “talked about killing people all the time,” and that he was “always angry, sweating, just angry at the world.”

FBI agents seen outside of Pulse nightclub after the fatal shooting in Orlando, Florida.

The coworker, who said he quit his job due to harassment from Mateen, explained that he “complained multiple times” to G4S, because Mateen didn’t like “blacks, women, lesbians, and Jews.”

Yet G4S continued to employ Mateen, who was able to obtain a “security officer” license to buy firearms in addition to his state license and conceal carry permit.

Mateen was even allowed to work at G4S while under FBI investigation. According to the FBI, Mateen was suspected of involvement in terror in 2013. The FBI investigation included the use of paid informants, recording conversations, following him, electronic surveillance, and interviewing him three times, FBI Director James Comey said on Monday. The investigation was closed because it produced no hard evidence of terrorist complicity.

G4S’s statement says that Mateen was subject to “checks from a U.S. law enforcement agency with no findings reported to G4S.” But according to the New York Times, the investigation took place because of “reports from [Mateen’s] coworkers, that he… suggested he may have had terrorist ties.”

G4S has previously been accused of improperly vetting its employees. In 2009, Danny Fitzsimons, a former British paratrooper and employee of a G4S subsidiary, killed two colleagues in Iraq, claiming to be “the antichrist” and saying he “must satisfy” his “bloodlust.” An official investigation concluded that his employer did not properly vet his psychological health.

In 2007, G4S signed contracts with five Israeli prisons and “interrogation centers,” leading to accusations that it was complicit in torture and theimprisonment of children. In 2010, three G4S security guards killed an Angolan national during a deportation flight from the U.K., by restraining him in an asphyxiating position.

In January, five G4S officers were arrested after a BBC expose revealed systematic abuse and neglect at a G4S-run youth jails.

G4S has also become a focal point for the Israel-focused Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement over its partnerships with Israeli prisons and military checkpoints. Activist pressure has led to divestment from the company by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Methodist Church, and UNICEF in Jordan. G4S has since announced that it would end its Israeli prison contracts.

In 2002, G4S acquired the United States-based Wackenhut Corporation, a private security and prison contractor with a deeply troubled history, including the widespread sexual assault of inmates at a Texas detention center in 1999.

Wackenhut went on to win a contract to guard the U.S. Embassy at Kabul, worth $189 million over five years. In 2009, the Project on Government Oversight sent a letter to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with photographic evidence that embassy guards had created a “Lord of the Flies environment,” at the embassy, said to include guards and supervisors “peeing on people, eating potato chips out of [buttock] cracks, vodka shots out of [buttock] cracks… [drunken] brawls, threats and intimidation from those leaders participating in this activity.”

Nevertheless, Wackenhut was hired by the U.S. government and BP in 2010 to manage perimeter security for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Gulf Coast.

In 2011, G4S won a contract to provide security for the 2012 London Olympics – only to overcharge the British government and provideunderstaffed security.

On the news that Mateen worked for G4S, the company’s stock dropped 6.6 percent, wiping out $280 million in company value.

The following is the transcript of an interview given to Be Curious TV by Dr Nabil Antaki, a doctor based in the Syrian government held western sectors of Aleppo. In this interview, given during his recent trip to France, Dr Antaki once more observes that Western media has been misleading and obscurantist in their reporting of events in Syria.  Dr Antaki reinforces that President Assad’s popularity has increased rather than waned since the US NATO war against Syria began five years ago and he deconstructs much of the propaganda upon which the US and NATO base their interventionist, neo-colonialist policies. Translation [from French] of interview by Vanessa Beeley.

Dr Antaki’s previous interview with Arret Sur Info was also translated by Vanessa Beeley and published here at 21st Century Wire: Aleppo Doctor Attacks Western Media for Bias, Censorship and Lies

Lausanne 23rd May 2016

BeCuriousTV  “Welcome Nabil Antaki.  Please would you let us know what is happening in Aleppo and Syria. You are briefly in Europe.  You are Syrian, born in Syria and residing in Aleppo. You are a doctor at the St Louis hospital in western Aleppo, the area under “regime control”. People living in the west who are are not aware of what is happening in Syria might ask which is worse, the Syrian regime violence or that of the terrorists or the “rebels”. This antagonism is reflected at the heart of our media where on one side we find those who affirm that Bashar al Assad’s “regime” is terrorising his own people and on the other side are those who claim that Assad’s forces are defending their people against armed Jihadists”

Dr Antaki: “Firstly I would like to clarify..you have mentioned several times, Assad’s “regime” and Assad’s “army and its a confusion that we dont appreciate in Syria..when we read in all the media about Bashar’s airforce, Bashar’s army.  In fact, it is the Syrian army, the army of the State of Syria and when you mentioned that I live in western Aleppo which is under “regime” control, no, it is under the control of the Syrian state. Our people are not afraid of the Syrian army because it is an army that defends all of Syria against armed terrorists who have invaded Syria in order to establish their Islamic state. Therefore we should never say at all that the Syrian people are afraid of the Syrian army because it is not a “regime” army as described by the media, people are, in reality very grateful for the presence of the Syrian army.  

Let me give you an example. A few months ago the Syrian army launched an offensive to bring some relief to Aleppo which has been surrounded or besieged [by terrorists] for the last 3 years.  According to the western media the Syrian army was imposing a siege upon the Syrian people in Aleppo when in fact the opposite was true and the Syrian army was trying to break the three year terrorist siege of Aleppo. Therefore, no, the people are not afraid of the Syrian army, they are afraid of the terrorists. 

BCT: “So just to be clear, the western media is not reporting accurately what you are living through in Aleppo?”

NA: “Exactly. Western media only reports on events in eastern Aleppo. Since 2012, Aleppo has been cut in two. Three hundred thousand people live in the zones controlled by the terrorists in the east but the remaining three quarters of Aleppo inhabitants, around 1.5 million people, live in western areas controlled by the Syrian state.  So, when we hear from the western media about what is happening in Aleppo they focus only on the eastern areas. 

When we issue a cry for help for Aleppo, it is transformed into a cry only for eastern Aleppo.  When the media announced that the last pediatrician in Aleppo had been killed, it is not true because in western Aleppo we have around 100 pediatricians. Perhaps its the last pediatrician killed on the other side, I have no idea, I have no information, but what I do know is that the inhabitants of the eastern sector living under terrorist control are Aleppans like us but chance dictated that they were living in areas invaded by terrorists. 

BCT: “They didnt flee the area..?”

NA: “From the beginning over half a million people fled towards western Aleppo because they were afraid of the terrorists but there are some people who were afraid to leave, perhaps without the means to leave, afraid to lose what they had amassed during their entire life, their little appartment, their TV. They thought that if they left they might lose it all, so they decided to stay not for any ideological reasons but because materially they prefered to stay where they were. 

BCT: “You have just been describing eastern Aleppo to us which is under terrorist control.  Please would you differentiate for us between terrorist and “rebel”. 

NA: “At the beginning of the war in Syria there were multiple groups among which there were a very small percentage of democratic opposition to the Syrian “regime” but the majority were terrorist groups intent upon establishing an Islamic state. Over time these democratic groups were absorbed into the terrorist groups and currently these terrorist groups represent more than 95% of the hundred or so armed opposition groups on the ground in Syria.  

Therefore the Free Syrian Army and the opposition who are not terrorists but are nevertheless armed represent no more than 5% of the armed groups, the rest are all terrorists. 

The principal terrorist groups are DAESH [ISIS] and Al Nusra. These two groups have been added to the “terrorist” list by the United States and Russia so everyone has the right to target them with air-strikes. However there are other groups which emanate from Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate, which are not yet considered to be terrorists. Among these are three principal groups, Jaish al Islam [Army of Islam], Ahrar al Sham [Free of Damascus] and Jaish al Fatah [Army of Conquest/Liberation].  These three groups were created by Al Nusra to escape being put on the terrorist list but nevertheless have their origins in Al Nusra which is Al Qaeda in Syria. 

So when these three groups are added to the terrorist list which will enable them to be neutralised, there will remain only those armed groups that are not terrorists with whom we could negotiate and achieve a political compromise.”

BCT: “What about the refugees?  The 12 million migrants seeking refuge.” 

NA: “Half the Syrian population is displaced. There are 23 million people in Syria and 12 million people have been driven from their homes. 3.5 million are refugees outside Syria in neighbouring countries like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. There are 8 million internally displaced people who have not left Syria but have been forced to leave their homes. This is a very serious situation and these people need assistance just as much as those who have left Syria. 

The United Nations agencies focus only on the people living in the camps external to Syria. All these people are not fleeing the actions of the Assad “regime” or Assad’s army as described in the media.  These people are fleeing neither Assad’s government nor the Syrian army, nor the hypothetical actions of either of these groups.  These people are either fleeing from combat zones or they are fleeing misery.  The majority of the Syrian people are now living below the poverty line.  

80% of Aleppo’s population are dependent upon NGO food parcels. People are impoverished. They have exhausted their savings, those who had work lost it, those who had an asset, a workshop or a factory, a shop, have lost everything.  People are destitute, they are fleeing this misery or they are fleeing the combat zones. They are also considering their children, they endured 2, 3, even 4 years but the war has continued into 5 years and they want to assure their children of a future so they take the decision to uproot and to seek a future somewhere else, to start a new life.  

BCT: ” How do you and the Syrian people feel about the sanctions and economic embargoes imposed by western governments since the beginning of the war?”

NA: “We are disgusted by these sanctions because these sanctions and these embargoes have not been implemented against the Syrian government but against the Syrian people, all the Syrian people. For example, me personally, as person x, living in Syria, does not have the right to conduct the smallest transaction. If I wanted to send $ 1000 to my children, I am unable to do so. I can neither import or export anything. This is crippling.  I am a doctor, I wanted to replace one part of a piece of medical equipment.  Normally this would take one week, it took a year and a half to get hold of the part because we couldnt import it from Japan as it was a multi-national company. 

So these sanctions penalise the Syrian people and at a certain moment the EU lifted the sanctions but only for the people living in the terrorist controlled zones. Those people living in areas under the control of the Syrian state could do nothing. Contrary to their claims, this does not penalise the “regime”, it punishes the Syrian people. 

BCT: “You are a Christian. A middle east Christian. If someone were to question your objectivity what would be your response?”

NA: “I dont speak to you as Nabil Antaki the Christian, I speak as Nabil Antaki the Syrian who has witnessed his country being attacked and destroyed. It is not about being Christian or Muslim, Syria is an ethnic and religious mosaic.  There are eleven different Christian churches and as many different Muslim sects, its not about the Syrian government protecting the minorities and that is why we support the Syrian government.  No, the government is secular, it protects everyone, whether a minority or a majority, everyone is respected inside Syria. It is a secular “regime”.  Unlike the Islamic state that absolutely does not respect the minorities. 

If the Christians are pro-government or pro the Syrian state it is because from the beginning they have supported a secular state as opposed to an Islamic state. 

The current President is very popular. I am actually not a fan of the President, I defend Syria not the President. But viewing it objectively we cannot deny his popularity and in my opinion, if tomorrow, we have free elections under international law, giving all Syrians the right to vote, even those in diaspora, we would see our President re-elected.

The west has not understood this fact.  Assad’s was popular at the beginning of the war against Syria, his support is even stronger now, not because he defends the minorities which is what the media would like you to believe but because he defends all Syrians. Christians are about 8% of the Syrian population so when they say Assad is popular because he defends the Christians and that is why the Christians support Assad, its a joke.  If we are with him or against him, it has no effect upon his popularity. We have neither soldiers nor arms, we are 8%. 

Assad is popular with all groups and sectors of our Syrian society so if we want this war to end we have to stop demanding that Assad steps down as one of the conditions, we have to negotiate with him, conduct free elections and work towards democracy. 

BCT: “Let me just come back to some of the points you made.  You speak of Assad’s huge popularity but was this the case in the beginning, in 2011?”

NA: “This is my point! When the troubles started, there were anti Bashar demonstrations, 10,000 or 15,000 people maximum. These demonstrations were televised and the figures were hugely exaggerated up to one or two hundred thousand.  On the other hand, massive spontaneous demonstrations poured onto the streets in support of the Assad government, in Aleppo, in Damascus, all the big towns and cities. Over a million people supporting Bashar. Nobody filmed these demonstrations or perhaps I should say nobody televised them in the west.  So, organic demonstrations of millions of people were ignored while the few thousand that marched against Bashar were blown out of all proportion and highly exaggerated. 

So there was a huge amount of bias, partisan reporting and partiality from the media from the beginning. Assad was always popular and this has not changed. He is perhaps even more popular now than in the last few years before the war.  He had enormously liberalised both the political and the economic sectors so people were happy, even though they knew there were still things that needed improving.

Life was not perfect but nobody wanted war, they wanted reform. Even the most outspoken enemies of the government did not want war, and certainly not this war.  They wanted reforms and they wanted democracy but nobody wanted to kill Syria to improve Syria.

BCT: “We have two coalitions on the ground in Syria, according to you what is their efficacy?” 

NA: “In my opinion the Western international coalition is not effective because you cannot combine two opposing sides. You have a coalition of the US and Europe with Turkey and the Gulf States and at the same time we know that Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia finance the Jihadists, finance Daesh, finance Al Nusra. On the one hand they want to fight against the terrorists, on the other they are helping them. That is completely abhorrent. 

Additionally, there are the Kurds in Syria who have also taken up arms against DAESH.  The US has found its allies in the Kurds to fight against DAESH. However Turkey is completely against the arming of the Kurds so Turkey combats the Kurds.  So, we have two countries who are allied, the US and Turkey but one is allied with the Kurds and the other is against them so how can this ever work.  There are too many contradictions within the Western coalition and that is why it has achieved nothing. 

Before the Russian intervention, the coalition air-strikes were cosmetic strikes.  They would carry out a hundred or so strikes in the desert and that was the extent of their campaign.  They only became effective after Russia intervened. 

From our perspective the Russian intervention was extremely beneficial and they have the full support of the Syrian people which contradicts the western narrative.  The west accuses Russia of targeting not only the terrorist groups but also the “moderate rebels”. Russia has been very succesful in bombing the Islamic State groups so the West is trying to slow their progress by claiming they are targeting the non terrorist groups and accusing Russia of aiding Bashar instead of targeting DAESH.  Of course this is not true, when the West want to bomb its ok but when Russia wants to bomb, they dont do it right. 

BCT: “How do you think the Western media portray the reality on the ground in Syria?”

NA: “Western media is not objective. They are partisan, they are against the Syrian state.  They are supporters of the terrorist-rebels, so the Syrian people is fed up with their portrayal of events in Syria. We dont ask that they are pro or anti “regime”, we simply ask them to be objective.

BCT: “What might you like to say from a personal point of view?”

NA: “All that I want to say to the West is please be more objective, educate yourselves, dont accept disinformation, put pressure upon your governments because Syria is a country that desires its freedom, prosperity and democracy.  

The war has destroyed us, we have had enough, we want it to stop!

On Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country.

The preliminary decision for this was made two years ago after Crimea abandoned Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. That NATO decision was made in anticipation of Ukraine’s ultimately becoming a NATO member country, which still hasn’t happened. However, only now is NATO declaring cyber war itself to be included as real “war” under the NATO Treaty’s “collective defense” provision.

NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.

NATO had produced in 2013 (prior to the take-over of Ukraine) an informational propaganda video alleging that “cyberattacks” by people in Russia or in China that can compromise U.S. national security, could spark an invasion by NATO, if the U.S. President decides that the cyberattack was a hostile act by the Russian or Chinese government. In the video, a British national-security expert notes that this would be an “eminently political decison” for the U.S. President to make, which can be made only by the U.S. President, and which only that person possesses the legal authority to make. NATO, by producing this video, made clear that any NATO-member nation’s leader who can claim that his or her nation has been ‘attacked’ by Russia, possesses the power to initiate a NATO war against Russia. In the current instance, it would be U.S. President Barack Obama. However, this video also said that NATO could not automatically accept such a head-of-state’s allegation calling the cyber-attack an invasion, but instead the country that’s being alleged to have perpetrated the attack would have to have claimed, or else been proven, to have carried it out. With the new NATO policy, which was announced on June 14th, in which a cyber-attack qualifies automatically as constituting “war” just like any traditional attack, such a claim or proof of the target-nation’s guilt might no longer be necessary. But this has been left vague in the published news reports about it.

In the context of the June 14th NATO announcement that cyberwar is on the same status as physical war, Obama might declare the U.S. to have been invaded by Russia when former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails were copied by someone in Russia.

It’s a hot issue now between Russia and the United States, and so, for example, on the same day, June 14th, Reuters headlined “Moscow denies Russian involvement in U.S. DNC hacking”, and reported that, “Russia on Tuesday denied involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee database that U.S. sources said gained access to all opposition research on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

In previous times, espionage was treated as being part of warfare, and, after revelations became public that the U.S. was listening in on the phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, espionage has become recognized as being simply a part of routine diplomacy (at least for the United States); but, now, under the new NATO policy, it might be treated as being equivalent to a physical invasion by an enemy nation.

At the upcoming July 8th-9th NATO Summit meeting, which will be happening in the context of NATO’s biggest-ever military exercises on and near the borders of Russia, called “Atlantic Resolve”, prospective NATO plans to invade Russia might be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus plan for the entire alliance. However, even if that happens, it wouldn’t be made public, because war-plans never are.

The origin of this stand-off between the U.S. and Russia goes back to promises that the West had made in 1990 to the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, not to expand NATO up to the borders of Russia, and the West’s subsequent violations of those repeatedly made promises. Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact, on the basis of those false assurances from Western leaders. Thus, Russia is surrounded now by enemies, including former Warsaw Pact nations and even some former regions of the Soviet Union itself, such as Ukraine and the Baltic republics, which now host NATO forces. NATO is interpreting Russia’s acceptance of the Crimeans’ desire to abandon Ukraine and rejoin Russia following the 2014 Ukrainian coup, as constituting a showing of an intent by Russia to invade NATO nations that had formerly been part of the Soviet Union and of the Warsaw Pact, such as Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia; and this is the alleged reason for America’s Operation Atlantic Resolve, and the steep increase in U.S. troops and weapons in those nations that border on Russia.

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

The decision on whether to renew EU approval for the herbicide glyphosate is to go to an appeals panel on 23 June after a last ditch attempt to get a temporary re-authorisation failed on 6 June (for some background information, see this). It is unclear if the meeting will produce the majority vote needed to pass the authorisation. The current licence for glyphosate in the EU expires on 30 June.

In an ideal world, glyphosate would be taken off the commercial market due to its obvious adverse effects on human health and the environment. In such a world, the EU would at the same time be facilitating policies that would ensure a major shift towards more sustainable agricultural practices.

In the world that we exist in, however, commercial and geopolitical interests trump any notion of what is in the public interest, what is good for the environment and strategies that could result in localised food production systems to ensure food security, thriving communities, nutritious food, replenished soils and climate-friendly practices.

These interests have succeeded in rolling out a system of economic plunder and bad food and poor health across the planet. If the ordinary person were to engage in biopiracy, ecocide, the devastation of livelihoods and to knowingly poison the environment and food, as these corporations have, they would face years of incarceration.

Instead, we find these corporations securing privileged access to or control over institutions and co-opting politicians, policy makers, scientists and regulators, who sit on powerful bodies masquerading as ‘public servants’ or mouth platitudes about serving humanity, while effectively serving the interests of their real constituents: the global agritech/agribusiness cartel.

Conflicts of interest: the EFSA and the Royal Society

In February 2016, campaigner Rosemary Mason wrote to Dr Bernhard Url, Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), asking him some serious questions about the independence of EFSA committees. The letter comprised the fully-referenced document ‘Glyphosate causes cancer and birth defects. Humans are being poisoned by thousands of untested and unmeasured chemicals’.

Bernard Url failed to reply.

On 6 June, Mason wrote to the president of the influential UK’s Royal Society, Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, about conflicts of interest within the Society.

Venki Ramakrishnan failed to reply.

In late May, the Royal Society released the report ‘GM Plants: Questions and Answers’. The report reads less like an objective appraisal and more like a pro-GMO whitewash on GM crops.

The report conveniently fails to address the ongoing debate around glyphosate and, where it is briefly mentioned, it is in glowing terms. Given the prevalence of herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and its devastating health and ecological impacts, this is a serious omission. This should come as little surprise, however, as Professor Jonathan Jones who has links with Monsanto was one of the authors of the report and claims that glyphosate is not poisonous to mammals

Over the years, the Royal Society has consistently misrepresented the facts about glyphosate and GMOs, as highlighted by Steven Druker (discussed further on).

Mason has now penned another open letter (Open Letter to the President of the Royal Society and GMO Scientists (1)), to Ramakrishnan and GMO scientists who are members of the Royal Society.

If GMO scientists are pushing to get GMOs into the UK (and Europe), along with the associated chemical inputs, such as glyphosate, it seems reasonable to suppose that they would be both willing and able to respond to Mason’s points.

Mason would like these scientists to address the crisis of independence that the EFSA and the Royal Society seem to be experiencing. For example, Mason notes there is no CV available for the public to see for Prof Dr. Achim Gathmann, Vice-Chairman EFSA GMO Panel 2016-2018, and concludes it is because he works for the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL), Berlin: the very office which controversially declared glyphosate not to be carcinogenic.

She also raises the issue of transparency regarding three unpublished studies that the EFSA used to help base its decision on that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans (contradicting the WHO evaluation that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’ to humans): the 2001 study owned by the Israeli pesticides company ADAMA Agan Ltd, the 2009 study owned by the Australian pesticides company Nufarm; and the 1997 study owned by the Japanese pesticides company Arysta Life Sciences.

The public must ask to view these documents by submitting their requests to the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate. They will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mason cites examples of the EFSA GMO Panel ‘adopting’ GM without properly considering environmental consequences, despite it admitting to GMOs leading to problems of reduction in farmland biodiversity, glyphosate-resistant weeds and the destruction of food webs and the ecological functions they provide. Papers (cited by Mason) show that super weeds are massively destructive to the environment in the US and that over a period of 30 years there has been uncontrolled spread and contamination globally by many GM plants that are now herbicide resistant.

Prof Joe Perry (Chairman of GMO Panel) retired as a Rothamsted (a UK research institute involved with GM crop research) employee in June 2006. Mason argues he effectively became ‘Rothamsted’s man in Europe.’ From July 2006 he was permanently employed on various GMO Committees, until he took over from Harry Kuiper in 2012 as Chairman of the GMO panel.

While the EFSA claims that the GMO Panel is a committee of experts on GM, Mason provides concrete evidence that they are often anything but. She cites in great detail many examples of the use of flawed science, the ignoring of numerous studies that contradict the assertions being made by panel members and bad advice being offered by prominent and influential figures to push a pro-GMO agenda. At the same time, the EFSA does its best to play down the conflicts of interest among members.

Mason asks why did the EFSA conceal its own paper that discovered a hidden viral gene in GMO crops. Again, Mason suspects deception is the order of the day. She cites evidence to show that US and EU GMO regulators have for many years been inadvertently approving transgenic events containing an unsuspected viral gene which has potential harmful consequences. This, along with other cases detailed by Mason, implicates regulators and the industry in a circle of mutual incompetence and complacency.

Rosemary Mason brings attention to numerous key studies that highlight the adverse health and environmental impacts of GMOs and pesticides which have been ignored by the EFSA, and various conflicts of interest are noted regarding the Royal Society’s ‘Questions and Answers’ recent report.

After having read the points raised by Mason (just a few have been outlined here – readers are urged to read her letter in full) along with the evidence she supplies, many might well assume that, at best, the EFSA is either complacent, or, at worst, incompetent or corrupt.

As a supporter of GM plants, she is quite naturally interested to know what the Royal Society has to say in response.

Mason then goes on to discuss Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team’s study showing the toxic and carcinogenic properties of glyphosate-based Roundup. She highlights the industry-motivated attacks he faced, which again were based on flawed assertions wrapped up as scientific fact: ‘unscientific polemics’ masquerading as science.

And Royal Society members were prominent in these attacks.

Mason does not hold back in naming individual scientists, including members of the Royal Society, whose work she calls into question and whose reputations are at stake due to false, misleading or ignorant statements, academic fraud and corruption, gross scientific misconduct or unscientific papers that were subsequently retracted.

Supporting the biggest fraud in the history of science

The genetic engineering of the food supply is the biggest fraud in the history of science, according to Steven Druker, who provides firm evidence that governments and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs.

Mason draws on Druker to make her case and concludes that if the US Food and Drug Administration had actually heeded its own experts’ advice, told the truth and obeyed the law, the GM food venture would have imploded and never gained traction anywhere, and – as GMOs drive the sale of glyphosate – we would not have witnessed the massive increase in the use of glyphosate which is causing devastation to people and environments across the globe.

In her letter, Mason makes clear to president of the Royal Society Sir Venki Ramakrishnan that Steven Druker has in fact already challenged the Royal Society over its pro-GMO bias. In his open letter to it, he challenged the Society to respond to the catalogue of questionable practices, the smearing of scientists who are critical of GMOs and false statements it or its individual members have been responsible for.

Although members of the Royal Society have been at the vanguard of the pro-GMO scientific movement in the UK, Druker has received no response. The Royal Society has not defended itself. It supports GM crops but refuses to have a rational debate about them.

Mason draws on numerous credible sources to show how modern agriculture and its practices and chemical inputs present a growing threat to humanity and the environment due to hormone-disrupting chemicals, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, crop monocultures, industrially produced fertilizers and pesticides, antibiotic feed supplements and degraded soil, etc.

She also provides quite a detailed summary of the deep politics of GMOs and the green revolution to place issues within a wider context.

Cesspool of corruption?

Recipients of Mason’s various painstakingly researched open letters usually fail to provide any response. They should understand, however, that her letters are ‘open’ for the public to read. She conveys deeply held concerns that millions of people have about glyphosate and GMOs and would like to be addressed.

She – and by implication, the public – faces the similar blank responses that Steven Druker faced with his two open letters to Monsanto and the Royal Society. The public would like answers. Are we to conclude that the whole affair concerning GMOs/glyphosate is mired in “a cesspool of corruption“?

The fact we do not receive answers, are informed that we can read certain important reports in a ‘reading room’, are offered a whitewash report on the GM issue by Britain’s preeminent scientific body or can merely make requests to read texts (with no guarantee we will be given access) plants in the public’s mind that something is being kept from it.

THE AGROCHEMICAL CORPORATIONS AND THEIR PAID LOBBYISTS ARE CONTROLLING PESTICIDES REGULATION. SCIENCE, AND IN PARTICULAR THE ROYAL SOCIETY, THINKS IT HAS ALL THE ANSWERS. MANY GMO SCIENTISTS HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

The world is at a dangerous crossroads.  The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

America’s hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered  collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.

The economic dimensions of  this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific countries in all major regions of World.

Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of  economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments’ ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.

In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, etc, have been the target of  sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.

The global economic crisis is intimately related to America’s hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a  spiralling defense budget backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. “War is Good for Business”: the powerful financial groups which routinely manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war. A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.

Beyond the Globalization of Poverty 

Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the “globalization of poverty”: countries are transformed in open territories,

State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy,  all of which ultimately leads to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire populations (refugee crisis).

This “second stage” goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of  a process of outright destruction of human life.

In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.

The New World Order

Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are

• Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds and secret accounts,

• the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major “defense contractors”, security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits, on contract to the Pentagon;

• the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,

• The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;

• Big Pharma,

• The Communication Giants  and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.

There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.

These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence.  The state structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the “Deep State”, integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks, secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate interests.

In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental organizations, trade unions, political parties.

What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.

Media Propaganda

The corporate  media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.

Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.

Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.

Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development

There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era, the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.

In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union. Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.

The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians, civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It’s called corruption, co-optation, fraud.

Latin America: The Transition towards a “Democratic Dictatorship”

Salvador Death Squads

In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e. a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded. They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.

Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of  the entire Latin america region.

In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the “Dirty war” and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.

The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged. Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.

Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of “dirty tricks” including acts of infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money laundering and the protection of the drug trade.

The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky’s Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)

Entrevista com Peter Kuznick

Nesta entrevista, Prof Peter Kuznick fala sobre: os bombardeios atômicos de Hiroshima e Nagazaki; as mentiras e os crimes por trás da guerra do Vietnã, além dos reais motivos por trás daquela invasão desumana; por que os EUA se engajaram em uma Guerra Fria contra a União Soviética, e como que aquela guerra e a mídia influenciam o mundo de hoje; os interesses por trás dos assassinatos do presidente Kennedy; o imperialismo norte-americano contra a América Latina, durante a Guerra Fria e atualmente sob a falsa premissa de guerra contra o terror e de guerra contra as drogas.

Edu Montesanti: No livro The Untold History of the United States, o senhor e Oliver Stone revelam que o lançamento das bombas atômicas em Hiroshima e Nagasaki pelo presidente Harry Truman eram militarmente desnecessárias, e as razões por trás daqueles crimes de guerra. Você poderia comentar tais versões, por favor?

Peter Kuznick: É interessante para mim que quando falo com as pessoas de fora dos Estados Unidos, a maioria acha que os bombardeios atômicos eram desnecessários e injustificáveis, mas a maioria dos norte-americanos ainda acredita que as bombas atômicas foram atos realmente humanos porque salvaram a vida não apenas de algumas centenas de milhares de norte-americanos que teriam morrido em uma invasão, mas também de milhões de japoneses.

Isso é uma ilusão confortável profundamente arraigada no imaginário de muitos norte-americanos, especialmente entre os mais velhos. É um dos mitos fundamentais que emanam da II Guerra Mundial deliberadamente propagado pelo presidente Truman, por seu secretário de Guerra, Henry Stimson, e por muitos outros que também espalharam a informação equivocada de que as bombas atômicas haviam forçado a rendição japonesa. Truman afirmou em suas memórias que as bombas atômicas salvaram a vida de meio milhão de norte-americanos.

O presidente George H. W. Bush, mais tarde, elevou esse número para “milhões”. A realidade é que os bombardeios atômicos não salvaram vidas norte-americanas nem contribuíram significativamente à decisão japonesa de se render. Elas podem ter na verdade atrasado o fim da guerra e custado vidas norte-americanas. Elas certamente custaram centenas de milhares de vidas japonesas, e feriram muitas mais.

Como o relatório de janeiro de 1946 pelo Departamento de Guerra EUA deixou claro, havia muito pouca discussão sobre os bombardeios atômicos por funcionários japoneses que antecederam sua decisão de se render. Isto foi recentemente reconhecido de modo tão chocante pelo oficial do Museu Nacional da Marinha dos EUA em Washington, D.C., que afirma: “A vasta destruição causada pelos bombardeios de Hiroshima e Nagasak,i e a perda de 135 mil pessoas causaram pouco impacto sobre os militares japoneses. No entanto, a invasão soviética à Manchúria… mudou a ideia deles”.

Poucos norte-americanos percebem que seis dos sete cinco almirantes e generais dos Estados Unidos que ganharam a quinta estrela durante estão registrados como tendo dito que as bombas atômicas eram militarmente desnecessárias, ou moralmente repreensíveis, ou amba as coisas. Essa lista inclui os generais Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Henry “Hap” Arnold, e os almirantes William Leahy, Ernest King  e Chester Nimitz.

Leahy, que foi chefe de gabinete dos presidentes Franklin Delano Roosevelt e Harry Truman, qualificou os bombardeios atômicos de violações de “toda ética cristã que já ouvi falar, e de todas as leis de guerra conhecidas.” Ele alegou que “os japoneses já estavam derrotados e prontos para a rendição… O uso desta arma bárbara em Hiroshima e Nagasaki não serviu como nenhuma ajuda material em nossa guerra contra o Japão. Ao sermos os primeiros a usá-las, adotamos um padrão ético comum aos bárbaros da Idade das Trevas”.

Eisenhower concordou que os japoneses já estavam derrotados. MacArthur disse que os japoneses teriam se rendido meses antes se os EUA lhes tivessem dito que poderiam manter o imperador, o que os EUA ao final os permitiram fazer.

O que realmente aconteceu? Na Primavera de 1945, ficou claro à maioria dos líderes japoneses que a vitória era impossível. Em fevereiro de 1945, o príncipe Fumimaro Konoe, ex-primeiro-ministro japonês, escreveu ao Imperador Hirohito, “Lamento dizer que a derrota do Japão é inevitável”.

O mesmo sentimento foi expresso pelo Conselho Supremo de Guerra em maio, quando declarou que “a entrada soviética na guerra vai desferir um golpe fatal contra o Império”, o que foi repetido com frequência, posteriormente, pelos líderes japoneses.

Os EUA, que haviam quebrado os códigos japoneses e interceptado os cabos japoneses, estavam plenamente conscientes do crescente desespero do Japão para acabar com a guerra se os EUA lhes facilitasse a exigência de “rendição incondicional”. Não apenas o Japão estava arrasado militarmente, mas o sistema ferroviário estava em frangalhos e seu suprimento de alimentos encontrava-se encolhendo. O próprio Truman referiu-se ao cabo interceptado em 18 de julho como “o telegrama do imperador japonês pedindo paz”. Os líderes norte-americanos também sabiam que o Japão realmente temia a possibilidade de uma invasão soviética, a qual os japoneses tentaram sem sucesso evitar.

Os líderes japoneses não sabiam que, em Yalta, Stalin tinha concordado em entrar na Guerra do Pacífico, três meses após o fim dos combates na Europa. Mas Truman sabia disso e entendeu o significado daquilo. Já em 11 de abril de 1945, o Estado-Maior Conjunto de Inteligência dos Joint Chiefs of Staff relatava que “se em algum momento a URSS tiver que entrar na guerra, todos os japoneses vão perceber que a derrota absoluta é inevitável”.

Em Potsdam em meados de julho, quando Truman recebeu a confirmação de Stalin de que os soviéticos estavam entrando na guerra, Truman se alegrou e escreveu em seu diário, “Será o fim dos japoneses quando isso acontecer”. No dia seguinte, ele escreveu para sua esposa: “Nós vamos acabar com a guerra um ano mais cedo agora, e pense nas crianças que não serão mortas”.

Assim, havia duas maneiras de acelerar o fim da guerra, sem deixar cair bombas atômicas. A primeira era mudar a demanda para a rendição incondicional e informar os japoneses de que eles poderiam manter o imperador, o que a maioria dos políticos norte-americanos queria fazer de qualquer maneira porque viam o imperador como personagem-chave para a estabilidade pós-guerra. A segunda era esperar pela invasão soviética, que começou à meia-noite do dia 8 de agosto.

Foi a invasão que se provou decisiva, não as bombas atômicas cujos efeitos levaram mais tempo para serem registrados e foram mais localizados. A invasão soviética desacreditou completamente a estratégia ketsu-go do Japão. O poderoso Exército Vermelho rapidamente demoliu o Exército Kwantung do Japão. Quando o primeiro-ministro Kantaro Suzuki foi perguntado por que o Japão precisava se render tão rapidamente, ele respondeu que se o Japão atrasasse, “a União Soviética vai conquistar não apenas a Manchúria, a Coréia, o Karafuto, mas também Hokkaido. Isto irá destruir a fundação do Japão. Temos que acabar com a guerra, quando podemos lidar com os Estados Unidos”;

A invasão soviética mudou a equação militar; as bombas atômicas, por mais terríveis que fossem, não fizeram isso. Os norte-americanos tinham bombardeado cidades japonesas por vários meses. Como Yuki Tanaka demonstrou, os EUA já haviam bombardeado mais de 100 cidades japonesas. A destruição atingiu a alta de 99,5 por cento no centro de Toyama.

Os líderes japoneses já tinham aceitado que os Estados Unidos poderiam acabar com cidades japonesas. Hiroshima e Nagasaki foram mais duas cidades a serem vencidas, contudo através da destruição com detalhes terríveis. Mas a invasão soviética provou ser devastadora tanto quanto os líderes norte-americanos e os japoneses previram que seria.

Mas os EUA queriam usar bombas atômicas, em parte, como advertência aos soviéticos de que elas estavam de prontidão se eles interferissem nos planos dos EUA em relação à hegemonia pós-guerra. Isso foi exatamente o que Stalin e aqueles em torno dele no Kremlin interpretaram dos atentados. A utilização pelos EUA das bombas teve pouco efeito sobre líderes os japoneses, mas revelou-se um fator importante para dar início à Guerra Fria. E colocaram o mundo em uma ladeira rumo à aniquilação.

Truman observou em pelo menos três ocasiões distintas, que estava se iniciando um processo que poderia resultar no fim da vida neste planeta. Quando ele recebeu a notícia em Potsdam do poderio através do teste da bomba em 16 de julho no Novo México, escreveu em seu diário: “Nós descobrimos a mais terrível bomba da história do mundo. Pode ocasionar a destruição através de fogo que profetizou no Vale Era Eufrates Noé, em sua arca”.

Então os bombardeios atômicos contribuíram muito pouco ou nada para o fim da guerra, mas deram início a um processo que continua ameaçando a humanidade de aniquilação hoje – 70 anos ou mais após os atentados. Como Oliver Stone e eu dizemos em The Untold History of the United States, matar civis inocentes é crime de guerra. Ameaçar extinguir a humanidade é muito, muito pior. É o pior crime que jamais poderá ser compactuado.
No capítulo Guerra do Vietnã, é revelado que as forças armadas norte-americanas realizaram naquele pequeno país o lançamento de um maior número de bombas que todos aqueles lançados durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Por favor, detalhe este fato e comente por que você acha que isso aconteceu.

Os EUA derrubaram mais bombas contra o pequeno Vietnã do que tinha sido despejado por todos os lados em todas as guerras anteriores, em tempos de história, e três vezes mais que as todas lançadas por todos os lados na Segunda Guerra Mundial. Aquela guerra foi a pior atrocidade, o pior exemplo de agressão estrangeira cometida desde o fim da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Dezenove milhões de litros de herbicida envenenaram o campo. As belas florestas do Vietnã foram completamente eliminadas. Os EUA destruíram 9 mil das 15 mil aldeias do Vietnã do Sul.

Os EUA destruíram todas as seis cidades industriais do norte, bem como 28 das 30 cidades do interior e 96 das 116 cidades distritais. Os EUA ameaçaram usar armas nucleares em várias ocasiões. Entre aqueles que discutiram e, ocasionalmente, apoiaram este uso estava Henry Kissinger. O ex-secretário de Defesa Robert McNamara disse aos meus alunos que acredita que 3,8 milhões de vietnamitas morreram na guerra.

Assim, a guerra foi realmente horrível e os norte-americanos nunca pagaram por este crime. Em vez de ganhar um Prêmio Nobel da Paz pelo fim da guerra, Henry Kissinger deveria ter ido ao banco dos réus em Haia, julgado por ter cometido crimes contra a humanidade.
Fale, professor Kuznick, de suas experiências na década de 60 no Vietnã, e por que os EUA decidiram se envolver em uma guerra contra aquela nação.

Oliver e eu nos aproximamos da guerra de diferentes perspectivas. Ele abandonou a Universidade de Yale e se ofereceu para o combate no Vietnã. Ele foi ferido duas vezes e ganhou uma medalha por coragem em combate. Por outro lado, eu me posicionei frontalmente contra a invasão dos EUA ao Vietnã desde o início.

Como calouro na faculdade, dei início a um grupo anti-guerra. Organizei-me de forma ativa contra a guerra. Tive profunda aversão àquilo. Eu odiava as pessoas que eram responsáveis por aquela guerra. Achava que eram todos criminosos de guerra, e ainda acho. Assisti a muito protestos contra a guerra e falei muitas vezes em manifestações públicos. Como meu amigo Daniel Ellsberg gosta de dizer, eu achava que não estávamos no lado errado, mas que éramos o lado errado.

Os EUA gradualmente se envolveram naquilo. Primeiro, financiaram a guerra colonial francesa e, em seguida, assumiram a luta em si depois que os vietnamitas derrotaram os franceses. O presidente Kennedy enviou 16 mil “conselheiros”, mas percebeu que a guerra era um equívoco e planejou acabar com ela se não tivesse sido morto. Os motivos norte-americanos eram variados. Ho Chi Minh não só era nacionalista, como era também comunista. Nenhum líder dos EUA queria perder uma guerra para os comunistas, em lugar nenhum.

Isso era especialmente verdadeiro após a vitória comunista na China em 1949. Muitos temiam o efeito-dominó que o Vietnã pudesse causar em termos de vitórias comunistas em todo o Sudeste Asiático. Isso deixaria o Japão isolado, e no Japão também acabaria por voltar-se para o bloco comunista. Por isso, a motivação era geopolítica.

Outra era econômica. Os líderes norte-americanos não queriam perder o trabalho barato, as matérias-primas e os mercados na Indochina. Outra razão foi que o complexo militar-industrial dos EUA – as indústrias de “defesa” e os líderes militares aliados a eles – enriqueceram-se com a guerra. A guerra era a razão de ser deles, e eles lucraram com a guerra tanto através dos altos lucros quanto das promoções.

Por isso, foi uma combinação de manutenção da dominação dos EUA no mundo, defender e explorar interesses econômicos norte-americanos, e uma mentalidade anti-comunista perversa e corrosiva que desejava derrotar os comunistas em todos os lugares.
Quais foram as verdadeiras razões por trás da Guerra Fria dos EUA contra a União Soviética?

George Kennan, funcionário do Departamento de Estado norte-americano que forneceu a base teórica para a teoria de contenção, expôs os motivos econômicos por trás da Guerra Fria em um memorando muito esclarecedor em 1948, em que disse: “Temos cerca de 50 por cento da riqueza do mundo, mas apenas 6,3 por cento da sua população… não podemos deixar de ser objeto de inveja, de ressentimento. Nossa verdadeira tarefa no próximo período é conceber um padrão de relações que nos permitirão manter esta posição de desigualdade”.

Os EUA prosseguiram com esta tarefa. Às vezes, foi necessário, para isso, apoiar ditaduras brutais. Às vezes, foi necessário apoiar regimes democráticos. A luta ocorreu no âmbito cultural bem como os domínios políticos, ideológicos e econômicos.

Henry Luce, editor da revista Time, disse em 1941 que o século 20 deveria ser o século norte-americano. Os EUA iriam dominar o mundo. Os EUA se propuseram a fazer isso. Os soviéticos, tendo sido invadidos duas vezes pela Europa Oriental, queriam uma zona tampão entre si e a Alemanha. Os EUA se opuseram a tais esferas econômicas e políticas que limitavam a penetração econômica dos EUA.

Embora os EUA e a União Soviética nunca tivessem se enfrentado em uma guerra, eles travaram muitas guerras perigosas por procuração. Os seres humanos têm a sorte de terem sobrevivido àquela era sombria.
Como o senhor vê a política dos EUA em relação a Cuba desde a Revolução Cubana, e em relação à América Latina em geral desde a Guerra Fria?

Os EUA controlaram completamente a economia e a política cubana a partir da década de 1890 até a revolução de 1959. Batista levava água para os investidores norte-americanos. Os EUA interveiram repetidamente nos assuntos da América Latina entre 1890 e 1933 e, em seguida, muitas vezes novamente na década de 1950. Castro representou a primeira grande ruptura desse ciclo.

Os EUA queriam destruí-lo e garantir que ninguém mais na América Latina seguisse seu exemplo. Falharam. Os EUA não destruíram sua revolução, mas garantiram que ela não tivesse sucesso economicamente, ou criasse a democracia do povo que muitos esperavam.

No entanto, foi bem-sucedida de outras maneiras. E a revolução sobreviveu à Guerra Fria, e após ela. Ela tem inspirado outros revolucionários latino-americanos, apesar de todo o apoio e de todo o treinamento dos EUA aos esquadrões da morte, que patrulhavam o continente deixando centenas de milhares de mortos. A Escola dos EUA para as Américas tem sido fundamental na formação dos líderes de esquadrões da morte.

Hugo Chávez e outros têm se apoiado em Fidel como inspirador da esquerda latino-americana. Mas muitos líderes progressistas foram derrubados nos últimos anos. Hoje Dilma Rousseff está lutando por sua vida, mas Evo Morales e Álvaro García Linera  na Bolívia seguem firmes, resistindo orgulhosamente aos esforços dos EUA para dominar e explorar novamente a América Latina.

Mas em toda a América Latina, os líderes progressistas foram derrubados ou estão sendo enfraquecido por escândalos. Os neoliberais apoiados pelos EUA estão preparando-se novamente para saquear as economias locais de acordo com o interesse de capitalistas estrangeiros e domésticos. Não é uma paisagem interessante. As pessoas vão sofrer imensamente, enquanto alguns ficam ricos.
De acordo com suas pesquisas, Professor Kuznick, quem matou o presidente John Kennedy? Que interesses estavam por trás daquele magnicídio?

Oliver produziu um grande filme sobre o assassinato de John Kennedy. Não sentimos que precisávamos rever essas questões em nossos livros e documentários. Estamos focados, em vez disso, no que a humanidade perdeu quando Kennedy foi roubado de nós. Ele havia crescido imensamente durante seu curto período de tempo na Presidência.

Ele começou como combatente da Guerra Fria. Até o final da vida, seguindo as lições que aprendeu durante os dois primeiros anos de sua administração e pontuadas pela crise dos mísseis cubanos, ele desejou desesperadamente acabar com a Guerra Fria e terminar com a corrida ao armamento nuclear. Se tivesse vivido, como Robert McNamara afirmou, o mundo teria sido fundamentalmente diferente.

Os EUA teriam se retirado do Vietnã. Os gastos militares teriam caído drasticamente. Os EUA e os soviéticos teriam explorado maneiras de trabalhar juntos. A corrida armamentista teria sido transformada em uma corrida de paz. Mas ele teve seus inimigos nas comunidades militares e de Inteligência, e no sector militar da economia.

Ele também era odiado pelos segregacionistas do sul, pela máfia e pela comunidade reacionária de exilados cubanos. Mas aqueles por trás de seu assassinato partiram, muito provavelmente, da ala militar e da inteligência.

Não sabemos quem fez isso, mas sabemos cujos interesses foram avançados pelo assassinato. Tendo em conta todos os furos na versão oficial, conforme detalhado pela Comissão Warren, é difícil acreditar que Lee Harvey Oswald agiu sozinho e que a bala mágica causou todo aquele estrago.
O senhor acha que o imperialismo dos EUA contra a região hoje, especialmente os ataques contra países progressistas são, essencialmente, baseados na mesma política dos tempos da Guerra Fria?

Não acho que os EUA queiram uma nova Guerra Fria com um rival real que possa competir em todo o mundo. À medida que os neocons se proclamaram após a queda da União Soviética, os EUA realmente querem um mundo unipolar no qual exista apenas uma superpotência e não rivais.

Os países progressistas têm menos aliados importantes hoje do que tinham durante a Guerra Fria. Rússia e China fornecem algum equilíbrio para os EUA, mas não são realmente países progressistas desafiando a ordem capitalista mundial. Ambos estão cercados por seus próprios problemas internos, e pelas desigualdades.

Há poucos modelos socialistas democráticos para o mundo a seguir hoje. Os EUA têm conseguido subverter e sabotar a maior parte dos governos visionários e progressistas. Hugo era este modelo. Ele alcançou grandes coisas para os pobres da Venezuela. Mas se olharmos ao que está acontecendo agora no Brasil, na Argentina, em Honduras… é um quadro muito triste.

Uma nova onda revolucionária é necessária em todo o terceiro mundo com novos líderes comprometidos em eliminar a corrupção, e em lutar por justiça social. Pessoalmente, estou animado com os recentes acontecimentos na Bolívia, apesar dos resultados da última eleição [referendo por reforma constitucional que permitiria ao presidente Evo Morales se candidatar a um quarto mandato, até 2025].
O quanto a cultura da Guerra Fria influencia a sociedade norte-americana e mundial hoje, Professor Kuznick? Qual papel o regime de Washington e a grande mídia desempenham sobre isso?

Os meios de comunicação são parte do problema. Eles serviram para ofuscar, em vez de educar e esclarecer. Imputam a sensação de que existem perigos e inimigos à espreita em todos os lugares, mas não oferecem soluções positivas.

Como resultado, as pessoas são movidas pelo medo e para responder de forma irracional. O ex-vice-presidente dos EUA, Henry Wallace, um dos visionários líderes dos EUA no século 20, respondeu à cortina de ferro de Winston Churchill em 1946, advertindo:

“A fonte de todos os nossos erros é o medo… Se estes receios continuarem, chegará o dia em que nossos filhos e netos vão pagar por esses medos com rios de sangue… Por medo, grandes nações têm atuado como bestas selvagens, pensando apenas na sobrevivência”.

Isso também opera no nível pessoal, onde as pessoas vão sacrificar suas liberdades para conseguir maior segurança. Vimos isso ocorrer nos EUA após o 11 de Setembro. Estamos vendo isso agora na França e na Bélgica.

O mundo está se movendo na direção errada. A desigualdade está crescendo. As 62 pessoas mais ricos do mundo têm agora mais riqueza do que os 3,6 bilhões mais pobres. Isso é obsceno. Não há desculpa para a pobreza e para a fome em um mundo com recursos abundantes. Neste mundo, os meios de comunicação servem a vários propósitos, o menor dos quais é informar as pessoas e armá-las com as informações que elas precisam para transformar suas sociedades e o mundo.

Os meios de comunicação, em vez disso, têm ampliado o medo das pessoas a fim de que aceitem regimes autoritários e soluções militares a problemas que não têm soluções militares, proporcionar entretenimento estúpido para distrair as pessoas de problemas reais, e narcotizar as pessoas em sonolência e apatia.

Este é um problema especialmente nos Estados Unidos, onde muitas pessoas acreditam que existe uma imprensa “livre”. Onde há uma imprensa controlada, as pessoas aprendem a enxergar os meios de comunicação com ceticismo. Muitos norte-americanos que acreditam na imprensa não entendem as formas mais sutis de manipulação e de engano.

Nos EUA, os principais meios de comunicação raramente oferecem perspectivas que desafiam o pensamento convencional. Por exemplo, tenho sido constantemente entrevistado pelos principais meios de comunicação da Rússia, da China, do Japão, da Europa e de outros lugares, mas raramente sou entrevistado pelos meios de comunicação dos Estados Unidos.

Nem meus colegas progressistas são convidado aos programas dos principais meios de comunicação dos EUA. Desta maneira, há, sim, uma certa medida de liberdade de imprensa nos Estados Unidos, mas essa liberdade não tem sido tão cerceada pelo governo quanto pela auto-censura e silenciamento de vozes progressistas.

Grande parte do resto do mundo está mais aberto a criticar os EUA, mas não tão contundentemente quando se trata de criticar as políticas de seus próprios governos.
O que o senhor poderia dizer sobre a ideia de que a atual “Guerra ao Terror” dos Estados Unidos, e até mesmo “Guerra às Drogas” especialmente na América Latina são maneiras que os EUA encontraram para substituir a Guerra Fria, e assim expandir seu poder militar e a dominação global?

Os EUA rejeitam os métodos dos antigos regimes coloniais. Criaram um novo tipo de império amparado por um número de 800 a mil bases militares no exterior a partir das quais forças especiais norte-americanas operam em mais de 130 países todo ano.

Em vez de as forças invasoras que consistem em grandes exércitos de terra, que provaram não trabalhar de país a país, os EUA operam de maneiras mais secretas e menos pesadas. O método de matar preferido de Obama é através de drones. Estes são de legalidade duvidosa e produzem resultados questionáveis. São certamente eficazes em matar pessoas, mas há muitas evidências que sugerem quem para cada “terrorista” que matam, criam mais 10 em seu lugar.

A guerra contra o terrorismo que os EUA e seus aliados têm travado nos últimos 15 anos, apenas criou mais terroristas. Soluções militares raramente funcionam. Diferentes abordagens são necessárias e elas terão que começar com a redistribuição de recursos do mundo, a fim de fazer com que as pessoas queiram viver em vez de matar e morrer. As pessoas precisam de esperança.

Elas precisam de um senso de afinidade. Precisam acreditar que uma vida melhor é possível, para elas e para os filhos. Muitos se sentem inúteis e marginalizados. O fracasso do modelo soviético produziu um vácuo em seu lugar. Como Marx advertiu há muito tempo, a Rússia estava muito atrasada cultural e economicamente para servir de modelo para o desenvolvimento socialista global.

A revolução foi contestada desde o início por forças invasoras capitalistas. Problemas abundavam desde o início. Em seguida, o stalinismo trouxe sua própria série de horrores. Na medida em que o modelo soviético tornou-se padrão mundial para a mudança revolucionária, havia pouca esperança para a criação de um mundo decente. Nem o modelo chinês forneceu um padrão melhor.

Assim, alguns se voltaram para o Islã radical que traz sua própria visão de pesadelo. Como os governos progressistas continuam tropeçando e caindo, a hegemonia dos EUA se fortalece. Mas os EUA têm apresentado poucos benefícios a oferecer ao mundo. As gerações futuras vão olhar para trás a esta Pax Americana não como um período iluminado, mas de guerra constante e de crescente desigualdade.

A democracia é grande em princípio, mas menos eficiente na prática. E agora, com a ameaça nuclear se intensificando e as mudanças climáticas também ameaçando a existência futura da humanidade, o futuro permanece incerto. Os EUA vão se agarrar a guerras contra o terror e contra as drogas para manter as desigualdades que George Kennan traçou há 68 anos. Mas este não é o caminho que deve ser seguido.

O mundo pode olhar para a política interna dos EUA como uma descida suicida – um sinal hilariante do completo fracasso da democracia norte-americana -, mas o sucesso do ponto fora da curva de Bernie Sanders e até mesmo a revolta anti-establishmententre as bases republicanas mostram que os norte-americanos estão sedentos por mudança.

Tanto Hillary Clinton quanto o establishment republicano, com seus laços com Wall Street e soluções militaristas, não impõem respeito fora de certos segmentos limitados da população. Eles podem ganhar agora, mas seu tempo é limitado.

Pessoas de toda a parte estão desesperadas por novas respostas progressistas positivas. Algumas, claramente como se vê agora em toda a Europa, estão se voltando à direita demagoga em tempos de crise, mas isso se deve, ao menos em parte, ao fato de que a esquerda não conseguiu fornecer a liderança que o mundo precisa.

Uma esquerda revitalizada é a chave para salvar este planeta. Estamos correndo contra o tempo que se esgota. O caminho pela frente não será nada fácil. Mas podemos e devemos prevalecer.

Artigo em inglês :

The Untold History of US War Crimes, 5 de mayo de 2016

First published in June 2013

The big banks have committed massive crimes and manipulated virtually every market.

The failure to prosecute fraud is preventing a sustainable economic recovery.

As such, prosecuting Wall Street fraud is arguably an issue of national security.

The government is collecting everything … and spying on just about everything we do.  So why can’t it gather info on the crimes of the big banks … so we can prosecute them?

You might assume that spying is only used to stop terrorism.

But the government has – in fact – often invoked national security powers in regards to the financial system.  For example, Business Week reported on May 23, 2006:

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations.

Reuters noted in 2010:

U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve’s bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters.

This is especially true given that some of the biggest banks have been caught actively assisting terrorists.

Unfortunately, spying is being used to crush dissent … and specifically to protect the banks and targetthose who are trying to hold the banks accountable.

The Orlando mass murderer, Omar Mateen, worked for G4S, one of the largest private security employers in the world. G4S has some 625,000 employees spanning five continents in more than 120 countries. As a private security company it provides services for both governments as well as corporations. Some of its well-known contractors are with the British Government, the United States, Israel, Australia and many more. G4S providers a range of services in the areas of corrections, policing, and security of important facilities. In the corporate sector it has worked with such well-known companies such as Chrysler, Amtrak, Apple, and the Bank of America.

 A statement from G4S, published by The Independent June 12 says that:

“We are shocked and saddened by the tragic even that occurred at the Orlando nightclub. We can confirm that Omar Mateen had been employed with G4S since Sept 10 2007. We are cooperating fully with all law enforcement authorities, including the FBI, as they conduct their investigation. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the friends, families, and people affected by this unspeakable tragedy.”

Mateen worked with the company since 2007. G4S provides security personnel for the Department of Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Protection at the US-Mexico border, and helps transport undocumented immigrants from urban areas.

 Mass killings like the one in Orlando directly benefit private security firms like G4S by increasing fears and demands for higher security services. Estimates are that over $200 billion is spent on private security globally with higher amounts expected yearly. The industry currently employs some 15 million people worldwide.

 G4S offers security guards, alarms, management and transportation of cash and valuables, prison management, and electronic monitoring of offenders in 120 countries worldwide. They are the second largest private employer in the world. Their annual revenue in 2014 was $10.5 billion. Increasingly G4S operates in “complex environments” and accepts jobs national armies are not trained to do like land mine clearance, and military security in active war zones.

 Chevron Oil in Nigeria contracts with G4S for counter insurgency operations that deploy armed groups of fast-response mercenaries both on land and on delta water patrol boats mounted with machine guns. G4S maintains a similar operation in South Sudan. G4S also provides surveillance equipment to checkpoints and prisons in Israel.

 G4S has been plagued with problems in the last decade, most noticeably with the botched contract at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. They failed to provide the 10,000 plus trained employees they had promised under contract. Instead G4S had roughly 2,000 people properly trained, with many more getting only a few weeks’ worth of preparation. The result led to the British Military being called in to provide security with some 13,000 troops alongside G4S.

 In June of 2014, G4S was accused of violently removing protesters from outside its own offices in London, a claim the company denies, and a few months after that G4S had to pay $100,000 for unlawfully restraining youths in a secure training facility. In 2011, a double amputee was improperly secured in one of G4S’s ambulance services and died when the unsecured wheelchair tipped over backwards as he was being transported to the hospital.  It was found that the G4S staff was not sufficiently trained to move patients safely from their homes to hospitals. And as far back as 2004, a 15-year-old died when three G4S employees at Rainsbrook Secure Training Center restrained him. None of the officers were charged in that incident.

 G4S is a transnational security company in direct service to the global corporations and the transnational capitalist class. G4S protects capital and assets around the world and is increasingly taking a private military style approach as needed. As a multi-billion-dollar public company major investors come from the financial core of the transnational capitalist class including; Blackrock, UBS, Vanguard, Barclays, State Street, Allianz, J.P. Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse, and FMR. Even the State of California and New York have holdings in G4S. Nine of the thirteen largest most connected money management firms and banks in the world have direct investments holdings in G4S. Omnicom, the largest public relations and propaganda firm in the world, handles media for G4S and undoubtedly is currently in full crisis management mode to protect the company and minimalize links to Omar Mateen.

 G4S is a part of neoliberal imperialism that is leading to the substitution of and privatization of state police. Inside G4S’s 625,000 employees are undoubtedly a number of reactionary individuals with extreme racist, homophobic, and xenophobic feelings similar to Omar Mateen. These folks are armed walking time bombs that can individually or collectively unleash disruption and chaos on humans anywhere in the world. The resulting chaos and fear will be used to justify even more demands for private security, including even martial law, all resulting in improved profits for G4S.

Peter Phillips is a Professor of Political Sociology as Sonoma State University, president of Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Fully footnoted research on G4S is available on line at: 

http://www.projectcensored.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/C16_Ch08_Phillips_21stCenturyFascism.pdf

http://projectcensored.org/private-military-companies-in-service-to-the-transnational-capitalist-class/

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton urged Americans to recall the “spirit of 9/12” during her response to the massacre of 49 people by Omar Mateen on June 14. Such a call is deeply alarming, given how American Muslims were treated the day after the September 11th attacks.

It also is an expression, which has been affiliated with the Tea Party patriots of the right. Radio host Glenn Beck promoted a “9-12 Project” years ago and was widely mocked and scorned for using the tragedy of the attacks to advance his personal agenda.

Clinton declared,

“Americans from every walk of life rallied together with a sense of common purpose on September the 12th. And in the days and weeks and months that followed we had each other’s backs.”

“President Bush went to a Muslim community center just six days after the attacks to send a message of unity and solidarity. To anyone who wanted to take out their anger on our Muslim neighbors and fellow citizens, he said, ‘That should not and that will not stand in America,’ Clinton added.

“It is time to get back to the spirit of those days. The Spirit of 9/12. Let’s make sure we keep looking to the best of country, to the best within each of us.” (Note: In the copy of her speech uploaded to her campaign website, “Spirit” is capitalized to give it gravitas.)

While it is true Bush appealed to Americans to not attack American Muslims, they still faced “chanting mobs and drive-by stone-throwers.”

The New Jersey Star-Ledger reported on threats and vigilante attacks:

At the Masjid Bilal mosque in Ocean County, someone put up a poster that read,”You (expletive) Muslims! Close down you’re church or I’ll burn it down.” In Lawrence Township, a man told a gas station attendant he would kill him. In Gloucester County, a Muslim who pumps gas was punched.

In Atlantic City, John Fotiades, 42, of Ventnor was accused of calling a taxi company and threatening to blow it up unless its taxis were pulled off the road – even though it had no Muslim drivers. Fotiades, the only person arrested in New Jersey’s bias incidents, was charged with making terroristic threats.

In Paterson, a group of teens in a mostly Arabic neighborhood said a carload of people rode by waving American flags Tuesday. One reportedly shouted,”We’re going to bomb you when you sleep!”

This was the true “spirit of 9/12,” even if it was not the spirit President Bush promoted.

As Phyllis Bennis wrote, “It was the events of September 12, when the Bush administration made the decision to take the world to war, that changed the world, and that continued to threaten the world’s security and shred U.S. democracy.”

The nation collectively refused to examine how the projection of American power abroad bred resentment against the country.

Bennis argued:

…[T]he biggest cause of anger against the U.S., in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world, is the arrogance with which that unchallengeable U.S. power is exercised. International law is dismissed, U.N. resolutions are ignored, binding treaties are abandoned. So while Washington demands that other countries strictly abide by U.N. resolutions and international law, and imposes sanctions or threatens military assault in response to violations, it holds itself accountable only to a separate “law of empire” which applies to the U.S. alone.

The nation did not reflect on U.S. support for regimes, which brutally crush dissent and anger Arab populations. It did not assess how backing Israel’s occupation of Palestine or harsh sanctions in Iraq contributed to hatred of American superpower. Instead, President Bush signed an authorization for the use of military force, which set the stage for perpetual war on and away from any declared battlefields.

What drove high-ranking officials to believe they could get away with torture and warrantless spying, what motivated these same officials to capture detainees and subject them to rendition or transport them to Guantanamo Bay, where they could be held indefinitely without charge or trial, was the “spirit of 9/12.”

Liberals typically have frowned upon this nationalistic talk of recalling the fabled unity of the day after 9/11. On September 10, 2009, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked, in response to Beck’s project, “Is there a statute of limitations, or something, on when it’s okay to start being real blatant about exploiting a national tragedy for other purposes? Did that statute expire this year do you think?”

Particularly, such talk by Beck of September 12 was viewed as a way for the Tea Party to promote their toxic brand of conservative politics.

How, then, should we view talk of the “spirit of 9/12” when it is deployed by a person, who could be the first woman president of the United States?

Not only has Clinton called on Americans to return to this “spirit,” but she is also suggesting the terrorism watch list must be greatly expanded. She has come out in support of more surveillance of online activities of citizens. She has also said the U.S. should ramp up air strikes in Iraq.

Clinton has engaged in the kind of tough-minded rhetoric that hearkens back to the days Bush spoke about smoking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. “If you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America,” she said.

The country desperately needs a system of background checks and gun control policies to ban assault weapons. Yet, reforms do not stand a chance of making more than a minor impact if the politics of empire continue to be promoted by leaders like Clinton.

Donald Trump would like to ban Muslims, and perhaps, even round up American Muslims and deport the ones he can get away with removing from the country. Clinton rejects this terrible policy, but she still seems to be content with bolstering parts of the security state, which treat American Muslims as suspects. So, for a section of the American population, they can expect to be removed from the country entirely if Trump wins or treated to further measures, which make them feel like they are only entitled to the illusion of freedom because their government views them as suspect.

Neither mindset holds out much hope for peace and reconciliation. Both virtually guarantee there will be more Mateens, who are mentally unstable and abusive but turn to extremism to carry out acts they view as resistance against a wicked force in the world.

Clinton has a cadre of neoconservatives and liberal interventionists, who have lined up to support her run for the presidency. For them, her message about the “spirit of 9/12” dovetails nicely with their belief that America is a key part of “the foundation and the core of the liberal world order.”

The first woman president is proud to have the opportunity to carry on the imperial tradition of American power. Or, as Glenn Beck might put it, “Are you ready to be that person you were that day after 9-12?”

In the first days of June, the news became known that the 28th mechanized brigade had been transferred from its place of permanent deployment in Ekaterinburg to the city of Klintsy in Bryansk region on the border with Belarus. According to the first deputy head of the city administration, Oleg Kletny, the soldiers arrived at their new stationing point on May 30th. 

This instance of re-deployment has caused a real storm in the media on both sides of the Russian-Belarusian border. On June 2nd, two journalists asked the press-secretary of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, to comment on the appearance of Russian soldiers on the Belarusian border, to which he answered:

“I know nothing about this. But speaking of a strengthening of the grouping on the border with Belarus would be an exaggeration.

The Russian ambassador to Belarus, Alexander Surikov, then came forth with commentary and stated that the transfer of Russian troops was due to the activism of radicals in Ukraine who could pose a threat to the security of the Russian border. He stated:

“Why Belorussia? As I understand it, the Minsk Agreements aren’t working out for us and radicalism in Ukraine is once again on the rise. Besides Right Sector, new forces are forming that are ultra-right and more radical. In Ukraine, the point of war is once again beginning to prevail. But we really wish that it wouldn’t. Thus, these are but preventative measures.”

Following this, at a routine press conference Peskov addressed the question put forth to him by journalists regarding the comments of the Russian ambassador in the Russian Foreign Ministry, and said that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is more competent to comment on such than he himself.

The redeployment of Russian soldiers was also enthusiastically commented on by Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian liberal media. The later have declared that Russia is allegedly planning to realize a “Crimean scenario” in the neighboring country, which means that Minsk should keep its eyes open and not allow any provocations on the part of its eastern neighbor. Russian liberal media declared that this was an attempt by Moscow to increase coercive pressure on Minsk on some important issues that the two have not yet agreed upon, such as on the price of gas.  In Belarus, some publications sympathetic to liberal and nationalist movements inside the country declared that it was necessary to prepare for imminent “Russian aggression,” even by going as far as to discuss how many division should be put up against the Russian army.

The head of the analytical center Belarus Security Blog, Andrey Porotnikov, stated that the concentration of Russian military units intended for an offensive operation is a direct threat to Belarus. In his opinion, this is caused by the fact that in Russia an alleged “war party” is in power which under the pretext of strengthening positions in the context of the confrontation with NATO tends to intervene in the internal affairs of the republics of the post-Soviet space. Porotnikov stated:

“Russia has abandoned the principle to which it adhered since 1991 – non-interference in the internal affairs of its neighbors. Its foreign policy has become unpredictable and demonstrates a complete lack of recognition of the independence of post-Soviet states and the inviolability of borders in Europe.”

But let’s digress from this wave of hysteria, the goal of which among other things is warming up the next wave of Russophobia in Belarus, and let’s look at the situation from a position of reason. The Bryansk region to which Russian units have been relocated borders Belarus in the north. The southern part has a border with the Chernigovskaya and Sumskaya regions of Ukraine, in which there is an unstable situation that, according to the Russian ambassador in Belarus, is the region for the transfer of additional forces of the Russian army to this region. As for the city of Klintsy, it is located directly in the middle of the western ledge of the Bryanskaya region between the Russian-Belarusian and Russian-Ukrainian borders.

The forces which Russia has deployed to Klintsy are extremely small. According to some reports, the personnel of the unit that has arrived in Bryansk region consists of little more than 200 persons of the 28th brigade. But if you listen to biased media, then the impression might be made that Russia is re-locating just about its entire army along the Russian-Belarusian border in preparation for crossing the border and realizing the notorious “Crimean scenario” in the case of a problem in Russian-Belarusian relations.

In fact, Russia’s activity is explained firstly by the already-mentioned Ukrainian problem. Secondly, this comes in conjunction with the significant increase of NATO activity in Eastern Europe. Relatively recently, the general secretary of the North Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, stated that four additional NATO battalions will be deployed in Poland this year.

Moreover, American, British, German, Polish and other countries’ soldiers soldiers are periodically holding exercises in Poland and the Baltic states. Over the past few years, they have also become frequent guests in Ukraine, whose leaders have declared Russia to be the main national security threat, as in their official documents they now call our country the “aggressor country.” Naturally, in this context of the extremely hostile policy of our “Western partners” and their cohort Kiev, the strengthening of Russian troops on Russia’s western borders is a reasonable and justified step.

That such activities will be held was stated at the beginning of this year by the commander of Russia’s land forces, General-Colonel Oleg Salyukov. In his words, “the formation of new divisions is one of the measures of response to the increasing intensity of NATO exercises in the recent period.” The same statement was repeatedly made by the head of the Russian defense ministry, Sergey Shoigu, who on May 4th stated:

“The ministry of defense has adopted a number of measures whose goal is countering the buildup of NATO forces in close proximity to Russian borders.”

In the context of a further threat by NATO and its allies, NATO said that three new division will be established in the western zone which will be equipped with the most modern weapons. Frankly speaking, a land division of the Russian army has about 10,000 personnel. It isn’t difficult to calculate that three new divisions would mean 30,000 people whom Russia would deploy to counter the NATO threat on its western borders. Thus, the hysteria spread by certain media sources, political analysts and other “experts” who decried a “Russian threat” when 200 Russian servicemen arrived in one of our western regions is not very understandable. Similar measures were announced in advance, and their purposes were also clearly stated. The purpose is not to blackmail any allies to the west in any way, especially not Belarus.

It’s good that Minsk understands this. Just the other day, the president of the republic, Alexander Lukashenko, stated that in the case of a war with NATO that the Russian and Belarusian armies would fight together against the alliance:

“The Russians often talk about how new NATO contingents are being deployed up to Russia’s borders. It must be emphasized that above all this is happening at our borders, Belarusian borders. We see this and accept it without whining. Adequate measures are being taken without any noise.”

In addition, Lukashenko emphasized that Belarusian units would be the first to enter into battle against the enemy and would hold back NATO forces until the first reinforcements of the Russian army arrive from its western regions. Lukashenko said: “We have a joint grouping of armed forces in the west which will ensure the security of our fatherland – Belarus and Russia. And at the heart of this group are units of the Belarusian army.”

The referendum on whether the Britain leaves or stays in the European Union is just eight days away. A glossy leaflet dropped through my letterbox headed: “Vote Leave – The European Union and Your Family: The Facts.”

The Vote Leave campaign (1) has a Board and Committee comprising of – broadly – the sort of far right “Little Englanders” that comedies derive from. There are a handful of Lords, there is Iain Duncan Smith who called for the invasion of Iraq within two months of 11^th September 2001, who by November 2001 was holding meetings on the topic with then Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleeza Rice.

Ironically he also became Conservative Party Leader in September 2001. Announcement of his victory in the leadership contest was delayed until 13^th September 2001 due to the World Trade Centre disaster. By 2003 his MPs had passed a vote of no confidence in his leadership forcing his resignation.

Another “Vote Leave” heavyweight (literally) is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, MP, former Mayor of London and the UK’s Donald Trump (without the orange hue but with the mouth and hair.) Born in New York, educated at the European School in Brussels amongst other educational establishments, with Turkish, French and Swiss forbears and a former Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, there nevertheless appears to be nothing remotely outward looking or international about him.

In Feb 2015 he stated he was to relinquish his US passport (2) having had residency and dual nationality, either or both of which he seeks to deny Europeans or indeed British wishing to work and live in Europe. He stated that: ‘ … he would approach US ambassador Matthew Barzun about the change. ”It is a laborious business. They don’t make it easy for you,” ‘ he stated.

Cynics speculated that this move was actually due to his having an eye on being Prime Minister in anticipation of questions being raised raised as to his loyalties.

However, according to the Daily Telegraph, aides said his priority was to avoid paying more to the US tax authorities, after he was forced to settle a large US capitol gains bill (see 2.)

Another on the ant-transnational relations, pull up the drawbridge “Vote Leave” wagon is the Minister of State for Employment, Priti Patel. She was born in the UK to parents who were immigrants to Uganda of Gujarati origin who then emigrated to the UK shortly before Idi Amin announced the expulsion of Ugandan Asians in the 1960s. They established a chain of newsagents, founding a thriving business as have so many who have come to the UK. However, Patel is hell bent on stopping others from far closer to home doing the same thing, or again, UK residents who wish to travel the other way.

A Hindu with close ties to Gujarat, in January 2015 she was announced there as being among the celebrated “Jewels of Gujarat – Leading Global Gujarati Personalities.” Double standards abound. Ironically, in 2003 she was quoted as saying that: “racist attitudes do persist within the (Conservative) party.” (3) Look in the mirror Madam.

A small example of the utter hypocrisy of “Vote Leave.”

Then there is the blatant disregard of the truth. This was contained in the delivered leaflet under “The Facts”:

“ While we’re in the EU, the UK isn’t allowed to negotiate our own trade deals. This means we currently have no trade deal with key allies such as Australia, News Zealand or the USA – or important growing economies like India, China or Brazil …”

On the Australian government’s website is: “Imports from UK A$ 12,559 million. Exports to UK A$ 8,585 million.” (2014 figures.)

The New Zealand government website records: “Imports from United Kingdom – $889 million, up $38 million.” The UK was the in top five exporters to NZ. Exports from New Zealand to the UK totaled 3,128 million NZ $s and was also fifth in the twenty top export markets. (2014 figures.)

As for the USA and China, this from the UK government website:

“The importance of China to the UK economy as a trading partner has increased consistently since 2004, with both imports and exports increasing. Following a growth of imports from £11.4 billion to £37.6 billion in 2014, China has become the UK’s second largest import partner behind America, accounting for 7.0% of UK imports in 2014 compared with 3.3% in 2004 … “

Further, according to the United States Census Bureau (4) US imports from the UK, January to April 2016 were valued 17, 398.2 million US $s, with US exports to the UK worth 18,403.8 million US $s.

For 2015, total exports from the US to the UK were worth 58,114.6 million US $s and imports from the UK to the US 57,962.3 million US $s.

Trade between India and the UK (2014) equaled 4,301.46 million US $s according to UK government websites and regarding Brazil: “400 of the world’s 500 largest companies operate in Brazil. These include many UK companies, such as Rolls Royce, BG Group, Shell, BP, JCB, Rexam and Experian.”

As this is finished I tripped over another “Vote Leave” scam. They have placed an ad on various sidebars on emails and other sites (5.) It asks: “Do you agree with Jeremy Corbyn?” (UK opposition Leader and campaigner for staying in the EU.) There is a “yes” or “no” click on. Click on “yes” and a page opens with a picture of Corbyn and: “If you agree with Jeremy and will vote Leave on 23rd June, sign up below”, with the usual spaces for name, email etc – underneath is “I agree with Jeremy.”

Apart from being clearly legally actionable, “Vote Leave” is trying to sell to the gullible that Corbyn – who has multiplied Labour Party members in order of magnitude since being elected, who listen to his views – is advising them to vote to opt out of the EU.

It can only be hoped that those in the Labour Party Cabinet are reaching for their lawyers. The EU has undoubted imperfections, but is a cosmopolitan, outward looking paradise compared to being left on a small island with a misinformed at best, untruthful at worst, isolationist cabal like “Vote Leave” at the helm.

Notes:

1.     http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/campaign

2.     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11413801/Boris-Johnson-clears-way-to-Number-10-by-renouncing-US-passport.html

3.     http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6206132.stm

4.     https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html

5.     http://action.voteleavetakecontrol.org/stand_with_corbyn

Counter-propaganda as an “Instrument of Peace”. Fidel Castro and the “Battle of Ideas”: The Dangers of Nuclear War.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 13 2016

War is a criminal undertaking. What is required is to break that legitimacy, to criminalize war through a global counter-propaganda campaign. The lies and fabrications which provide legitimacy to America’s “humanitarian wars” must be fully revealed.

Clipping Academic Freedom in Australia. “The Use of Social Media to Express Opinions”

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 14 2016

Universities have become bastions of managerial madness.  The trends began some time ago, when money became the ultimate pursuit, and Mr Dollar became chancellor and chief.  The obsession with obtaining grants, the panjandrums awarding grants, the siphoning off funds, underwriting…

50th Anniversary of the Black Power Slogan and Its Significance

By Abayomi Azikiwe, June 14 2016

1966 proved to be a turning point in the African American liberation struggle On June 16, 1966, the recently-elected chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Stokely Carmichael, later known as Kwame Ture, was arrested and taken to jail…

Trump’s Turn to the Neo-liberal Republican Elite: Only Clinton Can Save Trump’s Electoral Victory

By Prof. James Petras, June 15 2016

Trump’s turn to the neo-liberal Republican elite means he will intensify his repressive and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump’s appeal will be aided by mindless violent protestors and provocateurs as they conveniently “overwhelm the police” at anti-Trump rallies.

Why Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Soon be Abandoning the Democratic Party

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, June 15 2016

“I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those (rainbow) flags in God’s face if I were you. …this will bring about the destruction of your nation.…

No Lone Wolf Shooting? Reported Multiple Orlando Gunmen

By Stephen Lendman, June 15 2016

Whether true or not awaits credible evidence proving it. A previous article called it highly unlikely for one gunman to kill or injure over 100 victims singlehandedly before SWAT police stopped him. Orlando shootings bore distinct earmarks of state-sponsored false…

The Orlando Shooting. Many things are just not right with this story, including the father of the alleged shooter Omar Mateen, an Afghan-American, Seddique Mateen, who is closely linked to some of the most powerful leaders and agencies in Washington DC.

Below is a photo of Omar’s father after a meeting at the US State Dept. in Washington DC where he met with “officials”, but oddly, no log of his visit is available in the public record.

 

Image Credit: facebook.com/seddique.mateen

The alleged shooter’s father played an absolute key role in setting up the entire “hate crime” narrative by inserting this quote into the MSM machine during the immediate aftermath of the sensationalized media event. Seddique Mateen said:

“We were in Downtown Miami, Bayside, people were playing music, and he saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry. They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, ‘Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.’ And they were in the men’s bathroom and men were kissing each other.”

For the media, and every other political leader in the US, this was now classified as a “hate crime”, and so… case closed. In other words, a simple story line with real traction was now baked firmly into this event – about a homophobic, “ISIS-inspired,” crazed ‘lone gunman’ who ‘went postal’ in a Orlando gay nightclub, and coincidentally, on the eve of an international Gay Pride celebration day.

Then came the first twist. Just 24 hours later, we learn from a report in the Orlando Sentinel that the alleged shooter Omar Mateen was in fact a frequent visitor for years at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando.“It was definitely him. He’d come in for years, and people knew him,” one customer said.Another Pulse customer, Kevin West, even stated on record that he had been talking with Mateen for up to one year on a gay-chat mobile app. So, based on this updated information, this could not have been a “hate crime” because Omar Mateen was most likely gay himself, albeit in the closet.Likewise, this change in the story would also nullify much of the identity politics rhetoric currently being spun around this incident – like this statement released by Hillary Clinton within hours of the main event:
If it wasn’t strange enough to discover that the alleged shooter, Omar Mateen, worked as a contractor for the US Department of Homeland Security, then we learned that the elder Mateen is also standing to run for President of Afghanistan and is allied with the Taliban leadership – an absolutely ideal profile for a Washington-managed, CIA controlled-opposition political candidate.Seddique sates: “I order national army, national police and intelligence department to immediately imprison Karzai, Ashraf Ghani, Zalmay Khalilzad, Atmar, and Sayyaf.”

“They are against our countrymen, and against our homeland,” he added.

Image Credit: facebook.com/seddique.mateen

Afghanistan’s prospective “Revolutionary President” Seddique Mateen here with Republican Congressman and warhawk Ed Royce who happens to be Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

FACT: The father of this shooter is very well-connected. Too well-connected for this event’s narrative to be considered ‘normal.’ Watch this recent UK Column News episode that explains the vast CIA, ISI, and Al-Qaeda connections of both the shooter and his father too.

(Graphic: UK Column)

More on the father from Mad Cow…

Daniel Hopsicker
Mad Cow Productions

The father of the man who slaughtered 50 people in the Orlando nightclub shooting Saturday night is a longtime CIA asset, whose TV show receives funding from the Voice of America -Dari.   

Pictured below is Seddique Mateen with California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

Rohrabacher (R-CA) was initially elected to Congress in 1988, with the fundraising help of friend Oliver North.  Rohrabacher’s decades-long involvement in “all things Afghan” eventually earned him the nickname “Gunga Dana.” Today he chairs the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats.

This morning President Obama called him a “home-grown” terrorist.  In a series of phone interviews Monday morning, Donald Trump responded that  “there’s something going on” with the President’s  reaction to the Orlando shooting.

I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

“It’s like calling Blackwater XE”

Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s father said  his son was not motivated by Islamist radical ideology, but in a Facebook video posted early Monday he said, “God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality.”

My own suspicion was first awakened on Monday morning when U.S. news outlets uniformly reported that the father’s TV show aired on a  “U.S.-based Afghan satellite channel.”

That sort of circumlocution is typical when something is being hidden which the corporate media prefers we not ask questions about.

The name of the nameless Afghan satellite channel, Payam Afghan, is said to be widely-known in Southwest Asia as a CIA-Pakistani ISI construct, as this picture from Flicker shows.

The identification of shooter Omar Mateen also involved deception. He was said to work for a security company called G4S, which few have ever heard of. However, “G4S” is merely a re-branded “Wackenhut Corporation,” a name with a storied reputation for scandal in the U.S. and around the world.

Rohrabacher has stated that he sees radical Islam as the source of a major terrorist threat to the U.S. Calls to his office today to request comment on whether he views CIA assets relocated in the U.S. as a terrorist threat have not been returned.

Nearly one year has passed since Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet, a renowned physician known for his skepticism of immunizations (particularly the MMR vaccine) and his progressive autism research was found dead, floating in a North Carolina river with a single gunshot wound.

Leading up to his death, Bradstreet was working with a highly controversial molecule that occurs naturally within the human body and is believed to be capable of treating and reversing autism.

Researchers claim that GcMAF (Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor), which becomes the GC protein after combining with vitamin D in the body, is effective for treating HIV, diabetes and diseases of the liver and kidneys. More importantly, GcMAF experts predict that the natural molecule has the potential to be a universal cure for cancer. 

Due to the controversial nature of Bradstreet’s research, as well as the fact that his office was raided by officials with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the days leading up his death, the physician’s family hired a private investigator in hopes of finding the truth about Bradstreet’s untimely demise.

‘It is our 100 percent belief that Jeff did not commit suicide’

Finally, new details regarding Bradstreet’s death have been revealed through a recent interview conducted by the producer of the documentary VAXXED. Polly Tommey sat down with Bradstreet’s baby brother Thom and his lovely wife Candice at the AutismOne conference held towards the end of last month at the Loews Chicago O’Hare Hotel in Rosemont, Illinois.

Thom said that while the family knew in their hearts that Bradstreet was murdered, it wasn’t until they had the opportunity to review the case forensically that they realized the evidence supports their theory that his death was in no possible way a suicide, as has been reported by police and the mainstream media.

“People who knew him knew he would never take his own life,” said Thom, adding that information uncovered by a forensic scientist hired by the family validates that conjecture. After meeting with the medical examiner and reviewing case files and photographs, the private forensic scientist ruled that Bradstreet’s death was absolutely not a suicide.

“It is our 100 percent belief that Jeff did not commit suicide. Not only because of who Jeff was as a person, but because we looked at the science of it; we looked at the medical proof and it’s just not possible that Jeff took his own life,” commented Thom.

“Unfortunately, there’s an ongoing investigation so there’s not a lot we can share about the specifics. But the way the bullet entered into the body, it’s almost impossible for an individual to do that and it was far enough away that it left no tattooing, no significant burn marks or anything like that.”

‘Where would the world of autism be without Jeff Bradstreet?’

Bradstreet’s younger brother noted that while it would be easy to say the murder was a conspiracy due to his controversial (and highly effective) work, they can’t yet say for sure, adding that they must know for sure before reaching any conclusions regarding the perpetrator(s)’ identity.

The family said that while they are still overcome with immense sadness, they know that Bradstreet is in heaven because he was a “great man of faith” who loved God.

“The sadness is to know that there’s all these parents out here, existing patients of Jeff or recently diagnosed, where do they go? Where would the world of autism be without Jeff Bradstreet? [Without] his 20 years of knowledge and input and experience, where would we be?” asked Thom.

The Bradstreets asked the public for patience while they attempt to uncover who may have been behind their loved one’s death.

“Have patience. Be in prayer. Stay actively involved in the world of autism,” said Thom, adding that supporting projects like VAXXED is a great way to continue Bradstreet’s legacy.

(Photo credit: AutismOne/Facebook)

Notes:

HealthNutNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

With the Obama presidency in its final year, there is one central element of his foreign policy that has received little attention – the dramatic acceleration of lethal weapons exports by the U.S. military and defense contractors.

The Obama administration has approved more lethal weapon sales to more foreign countries than any U.S. administration since World War II. Many billions more than G.W. Bush’s administration, in fact. And some of these sales will likely result in unintended consequences i.e. “blowback” – especially as more than 60 percent of them have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf.

(After all, U.S. weapons supplied to the mujaheddin in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets were then used to help launch Al-Qaeda. Arms supplied to Iraqi security forces and Syrian rebels have been captured by ISIS. And “allies” from Bahrain to Egypt to Saudi Arabia have used U.S.-supplied weapons to defeat homegrown democracy movements.)

On May 23rd, President Obama announced at a press conference in Hanoi that the U.S. would be lifting its decades-long embargo on sales of lethal weapons to Vietnam. Such a reversal in U.S. foreign policy raises questions: How does the U.S. arms export market actually work? Which companies in the military-industrial complex profit from these sales? Who really ends up with U.S. weapons? And most importantly, how many of those weapons could eventually be used against us?

The stakes could not be higher. Not only the future of the BRICS, but the future of a new multipolar world is in the balance. And it all hinges on what happens in Brazil in the next few months.

A succession of appalling audio leaks has revealed that key sectors of the Brazilian military as well as selected Supreme Court justices have legitimized the coup against a President that has always protected the two-year-old Car Wash corruption investigation. Even Western mainstream media was forced to admit that Dilma did not steal anything but is being impeached by a bunch of thieves. Their agenda; to stifle the Car Wash investigation, which may eventually throw many of them in jail.

The leaks also unveiled a nasty internecine carnage between Brazilian comprador elites — peripheral and mainstream. Essentially the peripherals were used as lowly paperboys in Congress for the dirty work. But now they may be about to become road kill – along the illegitimate, unpopular, interim Michel Temer “government”, led by a bunch of corrupt-to-the-core PMDB politicians, the party that is heir to the sole opposition outfit tolerated during the 1960s-1980s military dictatorship.

Meet the vassal chancellor

An insidious character in the current golpeachment scam is the interim Minister of Foreign Relations, senator Jose Serra of the PSDB party, the social democrats turned neoliberal enforcers. In the 2002 presidential election – which he lost to Lula — Serra had already tried to get rid of peripheral Brazilian oligarchies.

Yet now he’s incarnating another role — perfectly positioned not only to retrograde Brazilian foreign policy to some point around the 1964 military coup, but mostly as the Beltway’s point man inside the coup racket.

Exceptionalistan’s key ally in Brazil is the oligarchy in Sao Paulo, the wealthiest state and home to the financial capital of Latin America. This is Brazil’s A-list. It’s from their ranks that an eventual “national savior” may eventually spring up.

Once the peripherals are history, then no holds would be barred to criminalize – and imprison – an array of leftist leaders, Lula included, as well as manufacture a fake election legitimized by a noxious Supreme Court justice, Gilmar Mendes, a PSDB stooge.

It all hinges on what happens in the next two months. The prosecutor general finally asked the Supreme Court to throw three top peripherals in jail; they are all accused of plotting to derail the Car Wash investigation — an extremely complex juridical-political-police network of myriad concentric/parallel circles.

Meanwhile, the final judgment of Dilma’s impeachment at the Senate is bound to happen on August 16 – 11 days after the start of the Olympic Games. The coup plotters suffered a heavy blow as they were trying hard to accelerate the proceedings. As it stands, the outcome is uncertain; after the leaks, four to five senators are already wavering, as the leaks also implicate Temer personally. The “leader” of a zero-credibility, corruption-crammed scam, he’s among the targets of several corruption investigations and has just been banned from running to political office for the next 8 years.

The Brazilian mainstream media monopoly (five families) – popularly referred to as PIG, the Brazilian acronym for Pro-Coup Media Party – has changed its anti-left tune and is now also going after selected members of the Temer racket.

According to the constitution, if both the Presidency and Vice-Presidency are vacated in the last two years of a given term, it’s up to Congress to elect the new President.

This implies two possible scenarios. If Dilma is not impeached, it’s increasingly likely she will call for new presidential elections before the end of the year.

If she is impeached, the PIG will tolerate the stooge-crammed Temer interim racket until January 2017 at the most. The next step would be what Serra and about-to-be-jailed Senate leader Renan Calheiros are campaigning for; the end of direct presidential elections and the onset of Brazilian-style parliamentarianism.

The man best positioned to be the national savior in this case is former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso – also former “Prince of Sociology” and a major star (during the 1960s and early 1970s) of the dependency theory, then metamorphosed into an avid neoliberal. Cardoso is a very close pal of both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The Beltway/Wall Street axis loves him. Cardoso would be “elected” mostly by the pack of Congress hyenas who got the Dilma impeachment rolling on April 17.

The hard node of golpeachment goes way beyond peripheral Brazilian elites. It is comprised of a political party (the PSDB); the Globo media empire; the Federal Police (very cozy with the FBI); the Public Ministry; most of the Supreme Court; and sectors of the military. Only the Beltway/Wall Street axis has the means and the necessary pull to regiment all these players – by hard cash, blackmail or promises of glory.

And that ties in with key unanswered questions regarding the recent audio leaks. Who taped the conversations. Who leaked them. Why now. Who profits from a nation in total political/economic/juridical chaos, with virtually all institutions totally discredited.

Neoliberalism or chaos

Those were the days when Washington could mastermind, with impunity, an old-fashioned military coup in its backyard – as in Brazil 1964. Or as in Chile during the original 9/11 – in 1973, as seen through crack Chilean film maker Patricio Guzman’s moving documentary about Salvador Allende.

History, predictably, now repeats itself as farce as the 2016 coup has turned Brazil – the 7th largest economy in the world and a key Global South player – into a Honduras or Paraguay (where recent US-supported coups were successful).

I have shown how the coup in Brazil is an extremely sophisticated Hybrid War operation going way beyond unconventional warfare (UW); four generation warfare (4GW); color revolutions; and R2P (“responsibility to protect”), all the way to the summit of smart power; a political-financial-judicial-mainstream media soft coup unveiled in slow motion. This is the beauty of a coup when promoted by democratic institutions.

When constitutional attributions are redirected to Congress that keeps the Executive under control while generating a culture of political corruption. Politics is subordinated to economics. Companies engage in campaign financing and buy politicians to be able to influence the political powers that be.

That’s how Washington works. And that’s also the key to understand the role of former leader of the Brazilian lower house Eduardo Cunha; he ran a campaign financing racket out of Congress itself, controlling dozens of politicians while profiting from proverbially fat state contracts.

The Three Stooges in what I called the Provisional Banana Scoundrel Republic are Cunha, Calheiros and Temer. Temer is a mere puppet while Cunha remains a sort of shadow Prime Minister, running the show. But not for long. He’s already been suspended as the speaker in Congress; he bagged millions of US dollars in kickbacks for those fat contracts and stashed the loot in secret Swiss accounts; now it’s a matter of time before the Supreme Court has the balls – it’s not a given — to throw him in the slammer.

NATO vs. BRICS, all across the spectrum

And that brings us once again to The Big Picture, as we proceed in parallel with an analysis by Rafael Bautista, the head of a decolonization study group in La Paz, Bolivia. He’s one of the best and brightest in South America who’s very much alert to the fact that whatever happens in Brazil in the next few months will drive the future not only of South America but the whole Global South.

Exceptionalistan’s project for Brazil is no less than the imposition of a remixed Monroe doctrine. The main target of a planned neoliberal restoration is to cut off South America from the BRICS – as in, essentially, the Russia-China strategic partnership.

It all comes back to the same, defining 21st century war; NATO against the BRICS; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); and ultimately the Russia-China strategic partnership. Smashing the “B” in BRICS carries with it the bonus of smashing Mercosur (the South American common market); Unasur (the political Union of South American Nations); ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance); and South American integration as a whole, compounded with integration with key emerging Global South players such as Iran.

The ongoing destabilization of “Syraq” fits the Empire of Chaos; when there’s no regional integration, the only other possibility is balkanization. And yet Russia graphically demonstrated to Beltway planners they cannot win a war in Syria while Iran demonstrated after the nuclear deal that it won’t become a Washington vassal. So the Empire of Chaos might as well secure its own backyard.

A new geopolitical framework had to be part of the package. That’s where the concept of “North America” fits in, backed by the Council on Foreign Relations and devised mostly by former Iraq surge superstar David Petraeus and former World Bank honcho Bob Zoellick, now with Goldman Sachs. Call it a mini who’s who of Exceptionalistan.

You won’t see it enounced in public, but the Petraeus/Zoellick concept of “North America” presupposes regime changing and gobbling up Venezuela. The Caribbean is seen as a Mare Nostrum, an American lake. “North America” is in fact a strategic offensive.

It implies controlling the massive oil and water wealth of the Orinoco and the Amazonas, something that would forever guarantee Exceptionalistan’s preeminence south of the border.

The Caribbean is already a done deal; after all Washington controls CAFTA. South America is a tougher nut to crack, roughly polarized by what’s left of ALBA and the US-driven Pacific Alliance. With Brazil falling to a neoliberal restoration, it’s over as a promoter of regional integration. Mercosur would eventually be absorbed into the Pacific Alliance – especially with a man like Serra as Brazil’s top diplomat. So, politically, South America must be annulled at all costs.

What’s left for South America would be its aggregation — as marginal players, part of the US-driven Pacific Alliance — to those NATO on trade deals, the TPP and TTIP. The “pivot to Asia” – of which TPP is the trade arm — is the Obama doctrine’s push for containment of China, not only in Asia but also across Asia-Pacific. Thus it’s natural that China (Brazil’s number one trade partner) should also be contained in the hegemon’s backyard, South America.

From the Atlantic to the Pacific, and beyond

It’s never enough to stress the geo-economic importance of South America. The only way South America can be fully integrated to the multipolar world is by opening up to the Pacific, boosting its strategic connection with Asia, especially China. That’s where the Chinese push to invest in a massive high-speed rail project uniting the Brazilian Atlantic coast with Peru in the Pacific fits in. That’s South American interconnectivity in a nutshell. If Brazil is politically annulled, none of this will ever happen.

So every coup is now literally allowed in South America; indirect attacks to the Brazilian currency, the real; bribing local comprador elites with the backing of the global financial system; a concerted attempt at the implosion, simultaneously, of the top three economies: Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela. SOUTHCOM went so far as to produce a report on “Venezuela Freedom” earlier this year, signed by commander Kurt Tidd, which proposes a “strategy of tension”, complete with “encirclement” and “suffocation” techniques and allowing to mix street action with a “calculated” use of armed violence. Echoes of Chile 1973 do apply.

South America is now arguably the prime geopolitical space where Exceptionalistan is laying the bases to restore its unrivalled hegemony — as part of a multi-dimensional, geo-finance war against the BRICS bent on perpetuating the unipolar world.

All previous moves have lead to this geostrategy of imploding the BRICS and reducing South America to an appendix of North America.

Wikileaks revealed how the NSA spied on Petrobras. In 2008 Brazil came up with its own National Defense Strategy, focused on two key areas; the South Atlantic and the Amazon. This did not sit well with SOUTHCOM. Unasur should have developed it to a continental level, but they didn’t.

Lula decided to award to Petrobras the prime exploitation of the pre-salt deposits – the largest oil discovery of the 21st century. Dilma’s administration gave a firm push to the BRICS’s New Development Bank (based on the Brazilian BNDES) and also decided to accept Iranian payments bypassing the US dollar. Anyone involved in South-South trade bypassing the US dollar enters a kill list.

Hillary Clinton is the presidential candidate of Wall Street, the Pentagon, the industrial-military complex and the neocons. She is the Goddess of War – and in a Bush-Obama-Clinton continuum she will go to war against any player in the Global South that dares to defy Exceptionalistan.

So the die is cast. We will know for sure by the time there’s a new US President — and arguably a new, unelected Brazilian President — in early 2017. The geostrategic game though remains the same; Brazil must fall so BRICS-led integration must fall, and Exceptionalistan may concentrate all its firepower in an all-out confrontation against Russia-China.

As more and more evidence emerges regarding the mass shooting in an Orlando gay club that resulted in the death of at least 52 people and many more injured, signs are increasingly pointing toward the possibility of a false flag operation.

Already, a number of points lend credence to those who might suggest that intelligence agencies more so than desert-dwelling terrorist organizations are responsible for organizing and directing the attacks. A number of questionable aspects regarding this shooting include:

1. The FBI knew about the shooter and investigated him prior to the attack.
2. The shooter had a connection to a known ISIS recruiter.
3. The shooter’s father was a former “Afghan presidential candidate” who supported the Taliban.
4. The FBI’s history in creating terrorism.

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen has now been revealed as the gunman in the Orlando club attack. According to mainstream reports, Mateen carried an AR-15 rifle and a handgun into the Pulse club around 2 a.m. and started shooting, killing 50 people and wounding 53. A stand-off ensued which lasted for about 3 hours before a SWAT team crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and killed Mateen.

Mateen had allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS before the shooting by calling 911 and stating allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi as well as mentioning the Tsarnaev brothers. Mateen was an American citizen born to Afghan parents from Port St. Lucie, Florida, about a 125 miles away from Orlando, a distance which he allegedly drove to commit the attack.

FBI Foreknowledge, ISIS Sympathies, Taliban Ties

What may at first sound like an instance of senseless violence, brings with it a number of other questions. For instance, the FBI was already well aware of Mateen and his connections to radical jihad and terrorism. According to CNN’s article, “50 Killed in Florida Nightclub, Shooter Pledged ISIS Allegiance,” two officials tell CNN that the FBI had investigated Mateen at some point for possibly having ties to or sympathizing with Islamic extremism. A law enforcement official said there were two cases opened involving Mateen but the probes didn’t result in enough evidence to charge him with anything.

The investigations were reported by a number of mainstream media organizations and later confirmed by the FBI itself during a press conference. The FBI admitted that Mateen had been interviewed by agents twice in 2013 due to comments made about radical jihad which were overheard by coworkers. He was interviewed for a third time one year later due to his connection to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American who had traveled from Florida to train in Syria and later to return to the United States in order to recruit other Americans to fight in the Western-backed terrorist brigades attempting to overthrow secular and legitimate government, Bashar Al Assad.

Salha allegedly returned to Syria and blew himself up in a suicide bombing. It is also interesting to note that Mateen’s father Seddique Mateen is a political personality in his own right having hosted a TV show and apparently declared himself a presidential candidate for Afghanistan. Seddique has denounced the Pakistani government and expressed support and encouragement for the Taliban movement.

Still, the question regarding the fact that Mateen was on the FBI’s radar is extremely important.One key aspect suggesting a false flag that should be looked for soon after the attack is anypossible connection the suspect or group of suspects may have had with intelligence agencies. A connection to any one of these organizations and institutions may go some length in explaining how the attack was coordinated, the motivation of the perpetrators, the actual involvement (or not) of the suspects, and who actually directed the operation. For instance, on 9/11, many of the alleged hijackers had previously had close contact with the FBI, CIA, and other high-level intelligence agencies (both home and abroad). Likewise, the Tsarnaev brothers who have been accused of masterminding and carrying out the Boston Bombing had ties to the FBI before the attack.

In many instances, connections to certain military agencies and communities should serve as the same red flag as connections to intelligence agencies since these institutions have largely been blended together.

The FBI’s sordid history of organizing terrorist attacks

Indeed, the FBI has had a long history in creating, organizing and facilitating terrorist attacks in order to bust them at the last minute and claim credit for stopping terror attacks. The FBI also has a long history of investigating, monitoring and interviewing suspects of high-profile terrorist attacks before those attacks were committed but doing nothing about them.

As Tony Cartalucci writes in his article, “US Law Enforcement Knew Florida Shooter BEFORE Shooting,”

A terror suspect armed to the teeth storming a public place and killing scores is actually a very familiar script. The FBI wrote several such scripts in 2015 alone, including entrapping and arresting a mentally-ill suspect after providing him with an arsenal of deadly weapons almost identical to the arsenal recently employed in Flordia.

The Intercept would report in its article, “Another “Terror” Arrest; Another Mentally Ill Man, Armed by the FBI,” that:

U.S. law enforcement officials announced another terror arrest on Monday, after arming a mentally ill man and then charging him with having guns.

ABC News quoted a “senior federal official briefed on the arrest” as saying: “This is a very bad person arrested before he could do very bad things.”

But in a sting reminiscent of so many others conducted by the FBI since 9/11, Alexander Ciccolo, 23, “aka Ali Al Amriki,” was apparently a mentally ill man who was doing nothing more than ranting about violent jihad and talking (admittedly in frightening ways) about launching attacks—until he met an FBI informant. At that point, he started making shopping lists for weapons.

The Intercept would also reference the FBI’s affidavit (.pdf), stating (emphasis added):

According to the affidavit, Ciccolo first talked to the FBI informant about attacking two bars and a police station. Later, he spoke of attacking a college campus with a homemade pressure-cooker bomb like the one used in the Boston Marathon terror attack; he also talked about using guns and a lot of ammo. Ciccolo, according to the affidavit, then “ordered the firearms from a confidential human source (“CHS”) working with the FBI.”

The list of weapons provided to the mentally-ill suspect by the FBI informant is shocking. Revealed in the official FBI affidavit (.pdf), the weapons included a 9mm Glock 17, a 10mm Glock 20, a .223 Colt AR-15 rifle, (referred to by the media as an “assault rifle”), and a 556 Sig Arms SG550 rifle (also often referred to as an assault rifle). Also included in the affidavit is the same hysterical rhetoric encouraged by FBI informants now evident in the recent actions of terror suspect Omar Mateen in Florida.

The FBI literally provided a mentally-ill man they helped plan a terrorist attack together with, an arsenal of deadly weapons – arresting him just before he committed his crime. The only factor that prevented the 2015 entrapment of Ciccolo from becoming a live Florida shooting-style attack was the fact that the FBI arrested Ciccolo before he carried out his planned attack – while those following Mateen did not arrest him.

The role of the FBI in Mateen obtaining his weapons will never be known since Mateen is now – conveniently – dead. Even if he purchased them “legally” at a gun store, it should be noted that in other FBI entrapment cases, suspects were encouraged to purchase weapons themselves, with the FBI arresting them only after they left gun stores with their newly acquired arsenal.

Interestingly enough, in the Ciccolo incident that Cartalucci refers to above, the plan which was fed to Ciccolo involved attacking bars, a target that was actually realized in Orlando. Of course, there will be many who will argue that the FBI, while entrapping unintelligent suspects, would never actually let the drill go live it is important to remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing where that is precisely what the FBI did.

Who Controls ISIS?

Lastly, one immensely important question must be asked: If ISIS is responsible for the attacks, who controls ISIS? For many, claims that the attacker belongs to ISIS is a deal breaker. For these individuals, ISIS is a shadowy terrorist organization that supports itself and has created a caliphate in eastern Syria and western Iraq that can scarcely be defeated (except when the Russians bomb it). However, the facts do not support such a shallow understanding of the ISIS terrorist organization. ISIS was entirely created, funded and directed by the United States, Britain, France and other NATO countries. Its actions have been coordinated by the Anglo-American Intelligence apparatus for geopolitical purposes all across the world both at home and abroad. For this reason, the declaration that ISIS committed a terrorist attack in Paris is by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Western Intelligence apparatus. Instead, it is the trademark of their handiwork. Please see these articles for more information on the nature of ISIS: here, here, here and here.

Conclusion

While the right-wing media blames Muslims and the left-wing media blame guns, perhaps it would be more effective if thinking individuals would examine the possibilities that this attack was a false flag incident designed to push an agenda that would benefit those in power in some way or other. Out of this attack we will no doubt see another push for the evisceration of the Second Amendment and other civil liberties as well as increased hype regarding ISIS as a threat to the American way of life and a greater attempt at justification for foreign adventures.

While the information presented above may not be enough evidence to prove in the court of law that the Orlando attack was a false flag attack, it is reason enough to question the official story thus far. If this attack is indeed placed in the lap of ISIS, however, all fingers should immediately point to NATO and the Atlanticist Intelligence apparatus. It is they who control ISIS and they who bear the responsibility for its actions. If the attack is attributed to a lone jihadist nut the FBI has some serious explaining to do since it appears that the agency itself is the greatest initiator of terrorist activity inside American borders and is either the most incompetent anti-terror fighter in the U.S. or it is complicit in the attacks that take place.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 650 articles on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. His website is BrandonTurbeville.com He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

The Ukrainian intelligence service that has been guiding the investigation of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down of July 2014 recently blocked a United Nations inquiry into alleged torture sites under Ukrainian government control.

The U.N. inspectors called off their torture investigation late last month because Ukraine’s domestic intelligence service, the SBU, denied the team access to detention facilities where human rights groups have found evidence of torture.

“The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) has suspended its visit to Ukraine after being denied access to places in several parts of the country where it suspects people are being deprived of their liberty by the Security Service of Ukraine, the SBU,”

a U.N. statement said, with Sir Malcolm Evans, head of the four-member delegation, adding:

“This denial of access is in breach of Ukraine’s obligations as a State party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. It has meant that we have not been able to visit some places where we have heard numerous and serious allegations that people have been detained and where torture or ill-treatment may have occurred.”

Image: A photograph of a Russian BUK missile system that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt published on Twitter in support of a claim about Russia placing BUK missiles in eastern Ukraine, except that the image appears to be an AP photo taken at an air show near Moscow two years earlier.

Ukraine’s deputy justice minister Natalya Sevostyanova said the U.N. team was denied access to SBU centers in Mariupol and Kramatorsk, frontline towns in the simmering civil war between the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-supported eastern Ukrainian rebels.

SBU director Vasyl Hrytsak said the reason for barring the U.N. team was to protect Ukrainian government secrets, adding: “If you arrive, for example, in the United States and ask to come to the C.I.A. or the F.B.I., to visit a basement or an office, do you think they will ever let you do it?”

But the relevance of this SBU secrecy to the MH-17 case, in which the airliner carrying 298 people was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, is that the SBU is an integral part of the Dutch-led multinational Joint Investigation Team that is trying to determine who was responsible for the attack.

The obstruction of the torture inquiry suggests that the SBU also would steer the JIT away from any evidence that might implicate a unit of the Ukrainian military in the shoot-down, a situation that would be regarded as a state secret which could severely undermine international support for the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev. Among the SBU’s official duties is the protection of Ukrainian government secrets.

A Breezy Report

Earlier this month, the JIT investigators published a breezy, notebook-style report on their progress, revealing how dependent they have become on information provided by the SBU and how they have grown to trust the Ukrainian intelligence service.

Image: Far-right militia members demonstrating outside Ukrainian parliament in Kiev. (Screen shot from RT video via YouTube)

According to the report, the SBU helped shape the MH-17 investigation by supplying a selection of phone intercepts and other material. But the JIT seemed oblivious to the potentially grave conflict of interest, saying:

“Since the first week of September 2014, investigating officers from The Netherlands and Australia have worked here [in Kiev]. They work in close cooperation here with the Security and Investigation Service of the Ukraine (SBU). Immediately after the crash, the SBU provided access to large numbers of tapped telephone conversations and other data. …

“At first rather formal, cooperation with the SBU became more and more flexible. ‘In particular because of the data analysis, we were able to prove our added value’, says [Dutch police official Gert] Van Doorn. ‘Since then, we notice in all kinds of ways that they deal with us in an open way. They share their questions with us and think along as much as they can.’”

The JIT report continued:

“With the tapped telephone conversations from SBU, there are millions of printed lines with metadata, for example, about the cell tower used, the duration of the call and the corresponding telephone numbers. The investigating officers sort out this data and connect it to validate the reliability of the material.

“When, for example, person A calls person B, it must be possible to also find this conversation on the line from person B to person A. When somebody mentions a location, that should also correlate with the cell tower location that picked up the signal. If these cross-checks do not tally, then further research is necessary.

“By now, the investigators are certain about the reliability of the material. ‘After intensive investigation, the material seems to be very sound’, says Van Doorn, ‘that also contributed to the mutual trust.’”

But would SBU turn over data that might reveal the role of a Ukrainian military unit in the shoot-down? Under the security agency’s secrecy mandate, could it even do so?

Further, the collegial dependence on the SBU has not led to a quick resolution of the MH-17 mystery, with the JIT’s investigative report now not expected until after the summer, i.e., more than two years after the shoot-down, and even then the report is to be kept secret.

In this month’s update, the JIT would not even endorse last fall’s finding by the Dutch Safety Board that MH-17 was likely brought down by a Buk anti-aircraft missile system fired somewhere in a 320-square-kilometer area in eastern Ukraine, territory that was then partly controlled by the rebels and partly by the government.

Nor does the JIT update address last October’s findings of Dutch (i.e., NATO) intelligence that the only operational anti-aircraft missile batteries capable of bringing down a plane at 33,000 feet on July 17, 2014, were in the possession of the Ukrainian military.

“For the investigation into the weapon system that was used, the well known seven questions need to be answered are: who, what, where, when, which, how and why,” the update said.

“In this investigation only the question of ‘when’ has been established irrefutably: flight MH17 crashed on 17 July 2014. The remaining questions require intensive investigation, according to Gerrit Thiry (team leader) and Susanne Huiberts (operational specialist) of the National Criminal Investigation Service.”

Punishing Russia

The MH-17 case also has relevance to the decision later this month by the European Union on whether to extend sanctions against Russia for another six months as the U.S. government wants. The E.U. imposed the sanctions amid a frenzied rush-to-judgment in late July 2014 blaming the Russians and the rebels for the deaths of the 298 people on MH-17 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

Image: Secretary of State John Kerry chats with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during an international conference in Malaysia on Aug. 6, 2015. (State Department photo)

Immediately after the shoot-down, the U.S. government sought to pin the blame on ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and their Russian government backers. However, after CIA analysts had time to evaluate U.S. satellite, electronic and other intelligence data, the U.S. government went curiously silent about what it had discovered, including the possible identity of the people who were responsible. The U.S. reticence, after the initial haste to blame Russia, suggested that the more detailed findings undercut the original claims.

A source who was briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me that the CIA’s conclusion pointed toward a rogue Ukrainian operation involving a hard-line oligarch with the possible motive of shooting down Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official plane returning from South America that day, with similar markings as MH-17. The source said a Ukrainian warplane ascertained that the plane was not Putin’s but the attack went ahead anyway, with the assumption that the tragedy would be blamed on the pro-Russian rebels or on Russia directly.

Officially, however, the U.S. government has not revised its initial claims that were made within five days of the shoot-down, fingering the rebels and the Russians. I have been unable to determine if the assessment of Ukrainian responsibility represented a dissident or consensus view inside the U.S. intelligence community.

Although Ukraine would have been an obvious suspect in the attack, the Ukrainian SBU was invited to play a key role in the investigation along with investigators from Australia and the Netherlands. Under the JIT agreement, participating governments, which also include Belgium and Malaysia, have the right to block the release of information to the public.

The recent JIT report hails the comradeship between the Australian and Dutch investigators and their Ukrainian hosts, despite some early difficulties.

“An incredible amount of research material; differing legal systems and initial unfamiliarity with each other. Despite this, both Australian and Dutch members working in the Field Office in Kiev have managed to build good relations with each other and with the Ukraine to effectively conduct the investigation into the MH17 crash,”

the report said.

“They are professionals who recognize each other’s love for the police work. They understand each other’s circumstances. And they are, regardless of their country of origin, motivated to do their utmost to uncover the truth. …

“‘The thing is to see how you can keep it workable”, says Van Doorn, ‘we like practical solutions. That means ‘poldering’ [the Dutch practice of policy-making by consensus].’”

Yet, the idea of “poldering” – or reaching consensus – with Ukraine’s SBU, an agency that has just thwarted a United Nations investigation into allegations that the SBU engages in the torture of ethnic Russian rebels, raises further questions about the objectivity and reliability of the MH-17 probe.

[For more background on this controversy, see Consortiumnews.com’s “More Game-Playing on MH-17.”]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com).

Author’s Note: Stokely Carmichael (1941-1998) changed his name to Kwame Ture during the late 1970s after living in Guinea-Conakry in West Africa for a decade. The name was adopted as a testament to his work with and admiration of the former president of Ghana and co-president of Guinea-Conakry, Kwame Nkrumah and Ahmed Sekou Toure, the former president of Guinea-Conakry. As a historical study this report uses his original name which he was widely known by during the 1960s. In the FBI documents examined within this study he is referred to as Stokely Carmichael. This article is being re-published (from 2006) in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the emergence of the black power movement in 1966. 

During the summer of 1966 the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) began to advance its position on black power and self-determination for the African-American people. Since 1960, SNCC had been in the vanguard of the civil rights movement and had maintained grassroots support in southern communities affected by the struggle for equal rights and universal suffrage. In addition, the uncompromising views and actions of SNCC had caused great concern among three American administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.

However, this concern grew considerably after the election of Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) as chair of SNCC on May 14, 1966. Carmichael had since the spring of 1965 worked in Alabama’s black belt building an independent political organization in Lowndes County. This group, known as the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO), registered thousands of people to vote and selected candidates to run in an election against the white supremacist dominated Democratic Party in Alabama. The LCFO used the black panther as its symbol and backed-up its independent political line with armed volunteers who guarded meetings and polling places in the county.

Later these organizing activities spread to other parts of the state resulting in the creation of the Black Panther Party of Alabama during the early months of 1966. As a result of Carmichael and other SNCC organizers’ work in Lowndes County and other areas of the state, he was a natural candidate to take control as chair of SNCC at its meeting in Kingston Springs, Tennessee near the capital city of Nashville. Yet it would take two elections to place Carmichael in the chair: one which renewed the chairmanship of John Lewis who had held the position since 1962.

Nonetheless, with the intervention of Worth Long, a revote was held citing Lewis’ resemblance to Martin Luther King as a national leader. According to Taylor Branch in his book entitled: “At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-1968:

“By dawn on Saturday, May 14, Lewis stood painfully isolated among those who stripped him of reelection. Julian Bond, who avoided the endless staff sessions whenever possible, publicly announced the result from Atlanta as ‘just a normal organizational change,’ and the shift in student leadership attracted modest press notice. One story found Lewis to be ‘obviously shaken by his defeat’ at the hands of those who favored ‘third party politics for Southern Negroes.’ The National Guardian disclosed that Stokely Carmichael had acquired the nickname ‘Delta Devil’ for his fast-driving getaways in Mississippi. A New York Times profile identified the new chairman as a twenty-four-year-old ‘organizer of Alabama’s all-Negro ‘Black Panther’ political party,’ and characterized his philosophy on a spectrum reserved for civil rights figures: ‘Mr. Carmichael does not advocate violence, but neither does he beleive in turning the other cheek.’” (Branch, p. 467)

It would be a tragic set of circumstances in early June of 1966 that would propel Carmichael into the national media spotlight, rivaling Dr. King in regard to notoreity within the civil rights movement. On June 5, James Meredith, who had integrated the University of Mississippi in September of 1962 amid tremendous opposition from segregationist Governor Ross Barnett, began what he called a “March Against Fear” to demonstrate the necessity of black people’s ability to walk unscathed through the state of Mississippi.

Meredith, who was no stranger to racial violence in Mississippi, was prevented from registering at Ole Miss in September of 1962. It would take two attempts, where he was blocked personally by the Governor, for the federal government under President John F. Kennedy to send in U.S. Marshals to escort the University’s first Negro student to the registrar’s office. The U.S. Marshals were met with gunfire outside the campus resulting in thirty-five of them being wounded. Kennedy was compelled to send in the military, prompting a full-blown riot by racists resulting in the deaths of a European journalist and an Ole Miss employee before order was restored. Meredith was registered that day and attended the University of Mississippi during the 1962-63 year, under the protection of the Army, where he completed his senior course work and graduated.

Some four years later little had changed in the overall security situation for African-Americans in the state of Mississippi. This was the state where two years before, 1964, three civil rights workers were kidnapped and brutality murdered at the beginning of the “Freedom Summer” campaign. During the summer of 1964, SNCC, the Congress on Racial Equality, (CORE) and the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), under the banner of the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), led a campaign which registered tens of thousands of black voters and brought about the formation of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). MFDP went to the Atlantic City Democratic National Convention in an attempt to unseat the official all-white delegation on the basis of their violation of the right of blacks to vote in the state. Although MFDP did not succeed in unseating the Mississippi all-white delegation, it changed the recognition process for state delegations to the DNC.

Meredith’s march began on Sunday, June 5 in Memphis, Tennessee right on the border with Mississippi. When he crossed over into Mississippi on Monday, June 6, he was gunned down with a shotgun in the back of the head by a white racist who was a resident of Memphis. A hastingly convened gathering of leaders from the main civil rights organizations took place in Memphis. They visited James Meredith at a Memphis hospital and then met to determine what course of action was warranted. Representatives from SNCC, CORE, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) of Dr. King, Roy Wilkins, Executive Secretary of the NAACP and Whitney Young, Director of the National Urban League (NUL) discussed a plan of continuing the march through the state of Mississippi to the capital of Jackson.

The leadership of the NAACP and the NUL decided against endorsement or participation in the march continuation plans because of the refusal of all parties to commit to non-violence as a principle. The concept of non-violence was under review within both SNCC and CORE. The dominant tendencies within both SNCC and CORE were calling for self-defense and black leadership within the civil rights movement. Consequently, when the march continued in Mississippi, only the leadership of SCLC under Dr. King, CORE under Floyd McKissick and Stokely Carmichael of SNCC were participants. When Carmichael came to the rescue of Dr. King who was pushed by Mississippi Highway Patrolmen, the SNCC chairperson declared that the purpose of the march was to expose the official structures of the state as racist and that the demonstration should be a clear expression of the black community.

During the course of the Meredith March the ideological and political differences arising within the civil rights movement became apparent. SCLC had remained committed to non-violence as both a principle and a tactic within the struggle for racial equality. SNCC, under the leadership of Carmichael and other supporters, began to redefine the overall struggle of Africans in America as one aimed at the acquisition of political power and self-determination. By the time the march reached Greenwood, Mississippi, a SNCC stronghold since 1962, Willie Ricks, a field organizer for SNCC, who had went ahead of the proposed march route to build support for SNCC’s efforts to shift the dominant focus of the civil rights movement from an emphasis on racial integration and equality to a strong push for self-determination, advised a skeptical Carmichael that it was time to raise the slogan calling for “Black Power.”

Carmichael, who in later years admitted that he did not believe Ricks was giving an adequate representation of the political mood in Mississippi, was stunned at the enthusiastic response that the shouts for Black Power received. Setting the stage for the this historic development was the arrest of Carmichael on the grounds of the Stone Street School when the marchers, then consisting of several hundred people, attempted erect tents for the demonstrators to camp overnight. Carmichael spent six hours in jail in Greenwood for attempting to erect a tent without a permit and was later bailed out in time for the nightly rally held by the marchers. The city had reversed its position to allow the school grounds to be utilized by the demonstrators. When Carmichael was brought to the stage by Willie Ricks he was urged to “drop it now” meaning the Black Power slogan that “the people are ready.”

When the SNCC chairperson climbed to the stage and faced the angry and discontented crowd of some six hundred people he stated that: “This is the 27th time I have been arrested and I ain’t going to jail no more!” He later made statements calling for Africans in America to refuse induction into the United States military to fight in Vietnam and instead join the fight for black power in Greenwood.

“We want black power! That’s right. That’s what we want, black power. We don’t have to be ashamed of it. We have stayed here. We have begged the president. We’ve begged the federal government—that’s all we’ve been doing, begging and begging. It’s time we stand up and take over. Every courthouse in Mississippi ought to be burned down tomorrow to get rid of the dirt and the mess. From now on, when they ask you what you want, you know what to tell ‘em. What do you want?“ The crowd shouted back “Black Power”. Willie Ricks jumped to the stage and lead the chorus of chants saying: “We Want Black Power!”

Although this represented a historical milestone in the civil rights struggle, others within the march, including Dr. King, were not prepared to pick up or endorse the slogan. Others continued to chant “Freedom Now” which had been the dominant slogan within the movement since the mass mobilizations of 1963 that culminated with the monumental marches in Detroit and Washington, D.C. that summer. The march continued towards the capital of Jackson stopping off in Philadelphia, Mississippi where the three civil rights workers: Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were kidnapped and murdered two years before. There were clashes in Philadelphia with the police and white mobs on June 21 during a rally and prayer service that was held in broad daylight. Some of the same police officers that were indicted and faced federal conspiracy charges related to the murders were instrumental in denying the marchers the right to peacefully assemble in Philadelphia.

Later in Canton, Mississippi, when the marchers attempted to erect tents on the school grounds of the segregated McNeal Elementary School, the same Highway Patrolmen who were supposed to be protecting the marchers, put on gas masks and took out clubs to force them off the premises with brute force. Both SCLC, CORE and SNCC members were assaulted during the melee. Carmichael was knocked unconscious by teargas canisters and was filmed being carried into a local church by Willie Ricks obviously overwhelmed by police violence. Dr. King’s request to the Johnson administration for federal protection was met with no effective response since the president had supposedly negotiated with the Mississippi Governor Paul Johnson to provide safe passage for the demonstration.

On Sunday, June 26, the marchers, having grown to 15,000, reached the capital of Jackson. Hundreds of highway patrolmen prevented the crowd from entering the front lawn of the state house directing them to the back where a mass rally was held. This event culminated the last major march of the civil rights movement. The three weeks of action from Memphis to Jackson marked a turning point in the African-American struggle against racism illustrating the growing debate within the movement over the character and direction of the efforts aimed at black liberation. These developments also resulted in an intensification of efforts by the federal government to restrain and crush this movement which had transformed the political landscape of the country over the previous decade.

Occurring simultaneously with the Mississippi “March Against Fear” and the rise of “Black Power” as a political slogan, was the escalation of the racial tensions in northern cities in the United States. Martin Luther King had moved into a tenement housing complex in Chicago earlier in 1966 as part of a SCLC campaign against segregated and inferior living conditions for African-Americans in that city. With the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, SCLC had grappled with the necessity of directing more attention to the mounting urban crisis taking place in northern and western cities. The August 1965 rebellions in the Watts section of Los Angeles represented a new mood of anger and militancy among the poor and working class sections of the African-American communities throughout the country. Rebellions erupted during the spring of 1966 in Cleveland’s Hough Section as well as other areas of the country. Consequently, there was a more aggressive focus placed on neutralizing the civil rights and black power movements by the White House through the efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Stokely Carmichael, SNCC and the FBI’s COINTELPRO Project

The FBI’s Counterintelligence Program was formed on March 8, 1956 at a meeting of the National Security Council during the administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in an effort to monitor and curtail the activities of the Communist Party, USA and other left-wing organizations in the country. However, after the impact of McCarthyism and the overall repressive atmosphere prevailing in the the United States during the post World War II period, the supposed threat of the Communist left was well contained by the late 1950s. Organizations such as the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) and the Council on African Affairs (CAA) had been liquidated under extreme pressure by the FBI, the United States Congress and the corporate media. Despite the imprisonment of left-wing leaders, radicals and the forced closure of progressive popular organizations, the FBI was still concerned about the influence of left-wing ideas and programs within the burgeoning civil rights movement.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been a prime target of the FBI under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, who hated the civil rights movement with a passion. In 1964, the Bureau attempted to blackmail King into committing suicide after tapes of wiretaps had been sent to the press and his wife allegedly proving infidelity and immorality by the leading civil rights figure in the country. Despite these efforts King had been able to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in late 1964 and to lead a successful voting rights campaign in Selma during early 1965 that created the conditions for the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

With the adoption of black power by SNCC and the shifting mood of youth within the African-American community, the FBI began to focus more attention on Stokely Carmichael and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. This attention was strongly encouraged by President Lyndon B. Johnson who was alarmed by the statements and activities of Carmichael in the aftermath of the Mississippi March. In a United States Government Memorandum dated June 20, 1966 “from Mr. M.A. Jones to Mr. Wick on the subject of: Stokely Carmichael Chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Interview on the ‘Face the Nation’ 6-19-66, Sunday,” the document indicates that the FBI was concerned about responses of the SNCC chairperson to questions asked by journalist on the nationally televised news program which reached millions of people across the nation.

The document reads in part that:

“Carmichael, for the most part, was questioned concerning recent inflammatory-type statements he made while participating in the ‘Mississippi March.’ He was specifically asked what he meant by ‘black power,’ and answered that he meant that the Negroes in various localities in the South, such as Lowndes County, Alabama, should be in control since they greatly outnumber the whites. When pressed as to how the Negroes should obtain control, Carmichael at first stated it should be by organizing themselves politically and registering to vote. However, in response to an inquiry as to whether he would use violence in obtaining control legally, they would have to obtain it in other ways. When pressed further, he stated that if all legal means were exhausted, then violence would be justified.”

The memo continues to report on the appearance by Carmichael on the “Face the Nation” program on June 19, 1966, just two days after the raising of the black power slogan in Greenwood, Mississippi, by attempting to point out contradictions in the SNCC chair’s position related to non-violence. This document says that:

“It was pointed out to him that the use of violence would be contrary to the actions implied in the name of the organization which he represents. Carmichael replied that ‘nonviolence’ is a ‘tactic’ of SNCC as an organization, but is not necessarily his, or the tactics of other individual members of SNCC.“

In the next paragraph the memo addresses SNCC position on the draft and the ongoing war in Vietnam:

“He was asked about a statement he had previously made that the Negro should not be fighting in Vietnam. He replied by stating that the black people should not be fighting in Vietnam for another people’s freedom when they (Negroes) do not have such freedoms at home. He declined to state that he would urge a mass desertion by Negro troops, but felt that this question would have to be decided by each individual.”

Carmichael, according to the memo, was then questioned about statements made relating to the destruction of public offices in the state of Mississippi. The document continues by saying: “In connection with his statement that all court houses in Mississippi should be burned down, Carmichael stated he meant this ‘literally’ and not ‘figuratively.’ By this he claimed he meant that the old ‘red neck sheriffs’ in Mississippi should be cleaned out.” In actuality the statement was just the reverse with Carmichael stating that the threat was figurative and not literal. However, this remains distorted in the Government document of June 19, 1966.

In the final paragraph of this government memorandum it points out that:

“The interview closed by Carmichael giving the reasons why he and SNCC representatives did not attend the recent White House conference on civil rights. He mentioned the following as some of his reasons: 1. Racism was being conducted by the whites in America and not the blacks and so there was no reason for Negroes to attend this conference. 2. President Johnson’s image was at it(s) lowest ebb and he, Carmichael, felt the President was just using them (Negroes). In reply to an inquiry concerning this last statement, Carmichael noted that this White House conference was a ‘phoney.’”

The White House conference on civil rights referred to in the government memorandum was held at the aegis of President Lyndon B. Johnson and according to records of the event cited by Taylor Branch in “At Canaan’s Edge’, was attended by 2,400 delegates. SNCC members had picketed the event decrying the character of the civil rights leadership that would attend such an event at this period in history. Despite SNCC’s minority position in relationship to other civil rights groups that did attend, the boycott of this event by the organization caused considerable discomfort among members of the corporate press as reflected in the “Face the Nation” interview with Stokely Carmichael.

President Johnson was concerned about the impact of the statements made by Carmichael during the summer of 1966. In a request for background information on Carmichael by the United States Secret Service on July 6, 1966, the FBI on July 13 sent out an eight page report giving detailed background information on the political history of the SNCC chairperson. In the document entitled: “Stokely Carmicahel Born: June 29, 1941 Trinidad, West Indies” it opens by stating that: “No investigation has been conducted by the FBI pertinent to your inquiry concerning the captioned individual. However, a review of the files of this Bureau reveals the following information which appears to relate to the subject of your inquiry.”

The document continues by compiling a chronology of the activities of Carmichael related to civil rights issues. It points out that in 1961“Carmichael was arrested for trespassing by the Jackson, Mississippi Police Department during the ‘Freedom Ride’ type demonstrations. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to four months in jail, which was suspended and fined $200.” It then goes on to describe the arrest of Carmichael that same year for “trespassing during an attempt to integrate Baltimore, Maryland restaurants with several other individuals.” The document cites the March 17, 1962 issue of the Washington Post on Page 2 which reports through an article entitled: ‘Three Evicted at R. Kennedy Office After Sit-In to Push U.S. Action,’ that one of the people removed was Stokely Carmichael. In another incident in 1962, the document reveals that records of the Bureau of Special Services (BOSS) of the New York Police Department “reflect that Stokely Carmichael, a staff member of SNCC, was arrested on June 24, 1962 and charged with being loud and boisterous during a labor dispute at Beth Israel Hospital, New York City, which was picketed by Local 1199, Hospital Employees Union.”

Apparently the FBI had access to student records at Howard University, Carmichael’s alma mater, because the document supplied to the Secret Service stated that “A review of a file maintained by the Dean of Students, Howard University, Washington, D.C., contained a recommendation for a ‘senior class humanity award,’ which stated in part that Carmichael had worked in voter registration in the State of Mississippi, ‘enduring many hardships for his people.’ He was a member of the Cultural Committee for Mississippi Negroes. The recommendations also indicated that he was active in racial demonstrations in Georgia; North Carolina; Danville, Virginia; and Baltimore, Maryland.”

Even going back to his high school days at the Bronx High School of Science where Carmichael graduated from in 1960, the FBI within this same document directed to the Secret Service, explained that

“On September 24, 1963, confidential sources who have furnished reliable information in the past advised that among those individuals at the Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, who in their opinion had been ‘devoted to left-wing activities’ was one Stokely Carmichael….”

At this point in the document there is a redaction, meaning the name or source of the information is blacked-out. The document continues by stating that: “According to these sources, Carmichael, a Negro, was a close friend to [redaction] of the former General-Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, Eugene Dennis, now deceased.”

This document then makes mention of another series of arrests of Carmichael for civil rights activity beginning on May 12, 1964 in Cambridge, Maryland during a demonstration in that city. Later there is a reference to a May 24 arrest of Carmichael along with other SNCC members by the Maryland State Police on traffic charges. Also there is mention of an August 4 arrest of Carmichael in Bolivar County, Mississippi on charges of “distributing handbills without a permit.” According to the same document “On October 14, 1965, Stokely Carmichael was arrested by the Fort Deposit, Alabama Police Department on charges of leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving. The disposition of these charges is not known.”

During 1966 the FBI document refers to a Chicago Sun-Times article of January 13 that “indicated that Stokely Carmichael of SNCC would be a featured speaker at a convention of the Committee for Independent Political Action at McCormack Place in Chicago, Illinois.” Directing the Secret Service to additional documents on the background of the organization which had invited Carmichael to speak in Chicago, the document says that: “You are requested to refer to memoranda dated January 14 and 17, 1966, at Chicago, Illinois, captioned ‘Committee for Independent Political Action’ Security Matter-Miscellaneous, Information Concerning,’ containing background information regarding this Committee, which were sent to your agency on January 24, 1966.”

As it relates to SNCC’s activities surrounding the American involvement in Vietnam, the FBI document directed to the Secret Service reports that

“On February 3, 1966 [redaction] Industrial Security, Plant Protection, United Technology Company (UTC), Sunnyvale, California, advised Agents of the FBI on that date that one busload and 35 carloads, comprising approximately 130 people appeared at the Coyote Plant of UTC with signs and leaflets. [redaction] noted the demonstration was sprearheaded by the Standford Committee for Peace in Viet Nam. At the demonstration, one Stokely Carmichael, who identified himself as an organizer for the Black Panther Party of Alabama, gave a short speech. He related that he belonged to the society of men and to no-one else. He went on to say that he did not love America or ‘uniformed America.’”

The FBI document then goes on to quote extensively from an article published in the daily “Independent Journal” on February 5, 1966. This newspaper, which was based in San Rafael, California, claimed that Carmichael made a series of statements related to violence and social change. The FBI report cites the paper as quoting Carmichael saying:

“Our country does not run on reason; it is run on violence. That’s the reality of how things are done here. It is to my benefit to get the Negro out on the streets to stop the machine which is keeping me from my rights. Whether they do it by marching or singing or dancing or fighting is irrelevant.”

In the next paragraph it cites another quote from the “Independent Journal” where Carmichael said that

“Being non-violent is a personal thing; I might be non-violent but I wouldn’t try to push that on to people I am trying to organize. If the people were out there, ready to fight for their rights, I certainly wouldn’t say that they should all be very nice and not hurt anybody. I’d tell them to get what they deserve.”

The document continues on this theme by recording additional quotes from Carmichael in the newspaper:

“When asked would he try to prevent the civil rights movement from breaking out into widespread violence, Carmichael retorted, ‘Of course not. This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic hang-up. I don’t see why people keep thinking about that. The violence is inevitable. I don’t try to stop the fight. I try to prepare the people I am organizing so that when the fight comes they will be able to win it.”

In relationship to the work of the Black Panther Party the FBI document directed to the Secret Service continues by pointing out that: “Our files also reflect that Carmichael is the founder and director of the Black Panther Party.” In the next paragraph they point the Secret Service to four additional documents related to this subject:

“Attached are four memoranda dated March 7, 1966, at Mobile, Alabama, captioned ‘Black Panther Party, Lowndes County Freedom Organization,’ May 6, 1966, at Birmingham, Alabama, captioned ‘Black Panther Party, Greene County, Alabama,’ May 6, 1966, Mobile, Alabama, captioned ‘Black Panther Party,’ and May 11, 1966, at Birmingham, Alabama, captioned ‘Lowndes County Freedom Organization, Black Panther Party Mass Meeting May 3, 1966,’ containing background information regarding the Black Panther Party.”

The following paragraph in this document makes reference to plans for additional organizing during this same period outside of the state of Alabama: “On May 23, 1966, a confidential source who has furnished reliable information in the past advised that Stokely Carmichael has stated that he will soon start a Black Panther Political Party movement in Southwest Georgia, similar to the one which was operated by SNCC in Lowndes County, Alabama, which urged Negroes to stay away from the polls particularly during the recent Alabama Democratic Primary.”

On Citizenship and the Draft

During the summer and fall of 1966 the United States Government through the White House, the FBI and elements within the Congress sought ways of neutralizing Carmichael and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. It was made mention by news commentators that Carmichael was born outside the United States in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad. Immediately officials sought information on his immigration status to determine if he was a legal resident or citizen of the country. Some of this interest was sparked by letters sent to the FBI by members of the legislative branch of government as well as private citizens incensed by the statements and activities of SNCC.

In a letter sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, dated August 21, 1966, the question of Carmichael’s immigration status is raised. The name of the person who wrote the letter is redacted, however, its origin was from Arlington, Virginia. It is not clear from the document whether this person was affiliated with the United States Government. The letter states that:

“Just finished viewing the special program of Meet the Press, on which were interviewed six civil rights leaders. Was shocked at the remarks of Stokely Carmichael. I considered it a threat of insurrection. Does this man have his American naturalization papers—or is he a subject of Trinidad? I consider him very dangerous, and if he is not an American should be deported.”

Another letter found in the FBI files was written by a Mr. Tyn Cobb, Jr. of Orlando, Florida on August 22, 1966. It was sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and also makes a request that Carmichael’s immigration status as well as his selective service standing be investigated by the Bureau. The letter says:

“Dear Mr. Hoover, Enclosed is copy of letter and night letter I sent Mr. Spivak, also 2nd letter I have written him. I believe if Stokely Carmichael was checked out, it would be found he is not a naturalized citizen and that he has not registered for the draft. I wish you could get a play back on his statements on the N.B.C. Broadcast at 3:30 last Sunday. What he said was enough, in my opinion, to have him deported. Respectfully yours, Tyn Cobb, Jr.”

Also included in this FBI file was a copy of the letter written by Mr. Tyn Cobb, Jr., dated August 16, 1966, to the moderator, Mr. Lawrence E. Spivak, of “Meet the Press” television show aired on the National Broadcasting Corporation Television Network (NBC). The letters states that:

“When you introduce Stokely Carmichael next Sunday, would it not be a good idea to tell the American public that he was born in Trinidad 25 years ago, and emigrated to the United States 14 years ago? He is not a native born American, but a foreign emigrant and should be labeled as such. His tirades against our government should lead to his deportation. Sincerely yours, Tyn Cobb, Jr.”

In a response to Mr. Cobb, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote the following on August 26, 1966:

“Your letter of August 22, with enclosures, has been received and the interest that prompted you to write is appreciated. You may like to know that matters involving naturalization and deportation do not fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your communication and enclosures to The Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice, 119 D Street, Northeast, Washington, D.C. Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover.”

A note attached to the letter to Mr. Cobb from Hoover states that:

“Bufiles disclose prior limited correspondence with Cobb, last outgoing 8-3-66, at which time he was addressed as above. He has been a member of the Florida State Legislature. Stokely Carmichael and Lawrence E. Spivak are well known to the Bureau. A copy of incoming sent to Immigration and Naturalization Service by routing slip.”

In a follow-up to this obsession with Carmichael’s immigration status, the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI’s Washington Field Office wrote to Director Hoover on August 25, 1966 on the subject of “COMINFIL SNCC,” meaning communist infiltration of the organization, “Stokely Carmichael IS,” meaning internal security, where the results of the investigation into this issue was discussed. The document states that: “’The New York Times’ newspaper, issue of 8/5/66, in an article captioned ‘Black Power Prophet Stokely Carmichael, set forth that Carmichael is an American citizen by derivation, both his parents having been naturalized. His father, Adolphus, reportedly died in 1962 and his [redaction] in the Bronx, New York.” The redaction presumably relates to his mother’s name and address at the time in New York City. The following paragraph in this same document states that: “Information from [redaction] Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C. disclosed Carmichael is registered with the Selective Service Board, 1910 Arthur Avenue, Bronx, New York.”

Later in a United States Government Memorandum dated September 19, 1966, Mr. Sterling B. Donahoe wrote to Mr. Deloach of the FBI on the subject of “Stokely Carmichael Internal Security Selective Service Act.” The Memorandum begins by stating that:

“The President has previously expressed an interest in the activities of Stokely Carmichael and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the organization in which he is active. Mrs. Mildred Stegall called from the White House at 10:40 a.m. this morning. She advised that it had been noted there that Carmichael was originally classified 1-A under Selective Service in December, 1964. In January, 1965, he was reclassified 4-F, apparently because he was not qualified physically. In February, 1966, he was reclassified 1-Y, which Mrs. Stegall understood to be that he would be qualified in the event of war.”

The next paragraph in this Memorandum further illustrates the degree to which the highest levels of the Johnson administration were concerned about the activities of SNCC’s chairperson:

“Mrs. Stegall said the White House was interested in determining precisely what the Selective Service status of Carmichael is and what were the facts which prompted the various changes in classification. She emphasized that under no circumstances was it desired that it be known the White House is interested and this should be handled most discreetly.”

It the next section of this Memorandum from the United States Government, under a section entitled “Action”, it states that:

“Our files should be reviewed to see if these data are already available. If not, the Special Investigative Division should endeavor to secure this information promptly as a normal Selective Service inquiry. In view of the need for discretion, the interest of the White House should not be disclosed in any instructions to the field.”

During this same time period Congressman L. Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.), who was serving at the time as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote on more than one occasion to then United States Attorney General Nicholas B. Katzenbach demanding that he prosecute Carmichael for selective service avoidance and sedition. In a United States Government Memorandum dated September 19, 1966 from M.A. Jones to Mr. Wick on the subject: “Stokely Carmichael, Sedition; Controversy Between Congressman L. Mendel Rivers and Attorney General Nicholas B. Katzenbach”, Mr. Jones attempts to give some background information on why Rivers was perturbed by the Attorney General for not indicting Carmichael on federal charges, even though there was no legal basis for such an attempt at prosecution.

The Memorandum states in part that:

“On 9-16-66, Ralph Marshall, Professional Staff Member of the House Armed Services Committee, contact SA (special agent) [redaction] and advised that Congressman Rivers, who is Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, currently is engaged in an exchange of communications with the Attorney General regarding possible prosecution of Stokely Carmichael for his recent remarks which the Congressman considers in violation of Section 12 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act (which in short, prohibits counseling of evasion or refusal of any provisions of the act, as well as hindering or interfering with administration of act.)

The Memorandum later states that:

“The Attorney General’s response of 8-22-66 avoided any definite answer to the Congressman’s question, and the Congressman on 8-25-66 again wrote the Attorney General seeking some specific statement. According to Marshall, no reply has been received to this last letter. He stated the Congressman is ‘deeply concerned’ over this entire situation and currently has members of the Committee legal staff conducting research on various court decisions relating to Selective Service and related laws for use in challenging the Attorney General’s inaction concerning Carmichael. He said the Congressman is seriously considering calling the Attorney General before the Armed Services Committee for testimony regarding this matter.”

In the next paragraph the Memorandum goes on to say that: “Mr. Marshall stated it would be most helpful to the Committee if they could obtain a transcript of Carmichael’s speech in Cleveland, Ohio, on 8-5-66. A copy of the transcript was furnished to him.” Then under the heading of “Recommendation” the Memorandum states:

“For information. We have furnished the Department with all material we obtained concerning possible Selective Service violation but they have declined to prosecute. Possible sedition violation has also been furnished to the Department. To date, Department has not indicated to us their opinion regarding this.”

Atlanta: Anti-Draft Actions and Urban Rebellion

What concerned the various sectors of the United States ruling elites in regard to SNCC’s position against the draft and the war in Viet Nam was that the organization was actively challenging the notion that Africans in America should fight in unjust wars overseas. In January of 1966, SNCC issued a detailed statement opposing the war in Viet Nam. In August of the same year there were picket lines set up outside a selective service induction center in Atlanta, Georgia by members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The demonstrations resulted in the arrest of numerous activists and drew the attention of the FBI.

In a confidential FBI report issued on September 7, 1966 entitled: “Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Stokely Carmichael”, the Bureau sought to provide a summary of recent activities of SNCC and its chairperson. Under the beginning section of the report entitled: “Picketing Activities Atlanta, Georgia,” it states that:

“Since August 17, 1966, a small group of Negroes, the majority of whom are members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, have been picketing the Twelfth Corps Headquarters, Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia, protesting United States action in Vietnam and United States Negroes fighting in Vietnam. A number of these individuals have been arrested by the Atlanta Police Department and charged with various offenses ranging from disorderly conduct to assault and battery. The activities of these individuals in connection with their picketing of the Twelfth Corps Headquarters are also under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation relative to destruction of Government property and possible violations of the Selective Service Act of 1948.”

The confidential report of the FBI continues by making reference to a speech made by Carmichael on September 3, 1966 and a rebellion which erupted on September 6 in Atlanta. According to the FBI report:

“A confidential source advised that the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee sponsored a rally in a predominantly Negro neighborhood in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 3, 1966. Stokely Carmichael made a short speech at the rally. He attacked the Atlanta Police Department on police brutality matters. According to the source, Carmichael stated Negroes should form vigilante groups to observe police and should any acts of police brutality be observed, a committee should be formed among the Negro element to follow such matters.”

After the arrest of the pickets at the Twelfth Corps Headquarters, a delegation of SNCC members including Carmichael went to the Atlanta City Hall to demand a meeting with Mayor Ivan Allen. The SNCC members asked that the Mayor release the people arrested at the induction center. The Mayor replied that it was a federal matter and was beyond the control of the city of Atlanta. Carmichael was reported to have insisted that the city do something to affect the release of the demonstrators. Nonetheless, the Mayor abruptly ended the meeting by suggesting that the delegation become registered voters in the city. SNCC later held a street rally that same day, September 6, in emergency response to the police shooting of an African-American youth who was supposedly a suspect in a car theft.

Mayor Ivan Allen, who went to the scene of the rally in an attempt to calm the growing angry crowd, was pelted with rocks and bottles while standing on top of a police car. When the crowd began to rock the police vehicle the Mayor fell off after the roof buckled under pressure. The crowd grew rapidly and began to fight police in the surrounding neighborhood of Summerhill. The Mayor sent in a thousand police officers utilizing teargas and other forms of force to quell the rebellion in Atlanta. Allen immediately blamed SNCC for the unrest in Atlanta’s Summerhill District. Carmichael had issued an appeal over radio station WAOK asking that people come to the sight of the shooting of the youth by the police. The first two people arrested on the scene were SNCC members Bill Ware and Robert Walton for inviting people to broadcast their eyewitness accounts of the shooting by the Atlanta police over a loudspeaker.

Two days later Carmichael was arrested and charged with incitement to riot. On that same day another disturbance erupted in the Boulevard Section of the city after a black youth was shot to death on his porch by a white parolee, who was later sentenced to life in prison the following year. Hosea Williams of SCLC then attempted to organize a demonstration in the city after the arrest of numerous SNCC members, however, he was detained himself for leading a peaceful procession in the area where the youth was gunned down on his porch. The disturbances in Atlanta gained nationwide coverage with the scene of Mayor Allen being pushed off the hood of a police car repeatedly shown over national television. Atlanta, a southern city that attempted to cultivate an image of being moderate and business-oriented, was exposed as a bastion of racism and police brutality as well as intolerance to peaceful protest and other forms of dissent.

In the same confidential FBI report mentioned above that was issued on September 7, 1966, the bureau provides its own interpretation of the events on September 6 in Atlanta. The report states that:

“The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee scheduled a rally at Capital and Ordman Streets, Atlanta, Georgia, on the afternoon of September 6, 1966, in protest of the arrest and shooting of a Negro male for auto theft earlier in the day. During the rally several unidentified Negroes talked to the group in a haranguing manner. Members of the group started throwing rocks and bottles at police officers and white spectators. Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor of Atlanta, was unsuccessful in quelling the disturbance. Several acts of violence occurred resulting in the arrest of seventy-two people by the Atlanta Police Department; however, specific charges are not known.”

In the aftermath of the demonstrations and rebellion in Atlanta, an FBI document reveals that a message was sent from the Director’s office to the Special Agent-In-Charge (SAC) in Atlanta under the heading of “Stokely Carmichael, IS-C” (possibly internal security communist). The document dated September 16, 1966 states that:

“In view of the antigovernment stand over the Vietnam situation and other issues by Stokely Carmichael together with his recent numerous inflammatory statements, you are requested to submit by return mail FD 122, recommending Carmichael for the Security Index. This form should be accompanied by a succinct summary of subject’s activities, and you should immediately begin preparations of a summary report.”

Chicago: Housing Struggles and Urban Rebellion 

After the Mississippi March in June of 1966, SCLC continued its focus on the campaign to expose poverty, racial discrimination and segregated housing patterns in the city of Chicago. On July 10 a huge rally was held at Soldier Field where Dr. King as well as Floyd McKissick, the executive secretary of CORE, spoke to a crowd of thousands of African-Americans and whites. The crowd later marched to the Chicago City Hall where King taped a list of fourteen demands on the door. Prior to the demonstration on July 10, Mayor Richard Daley had pledged to repair 102,000 apartments and over 9,000 buildings that had been cited for housing code violations. The Mayor also agreed to negotiate with King and other community leaders involving the demands put forward on July 10. After a meeting on July 11, Daley rebuffed suggestions that aggressive action be taken to breakdown employment and housing discrimination in Chicago.

That same evening, July 11, a series of events would lead to the eruption of another urban rebellion. On the west side of the city a group of children attempting to cool off in the sweltering heat by opening fire hydrants, were targeted by a ice cream truck operator who accused them of robbing his vehicle. When police intervened and shut off the hydrants, an argument ensued with adults pointing out that the swimming pools in the surrounding areas were not open to African-Americans and that the tolerance of the use of fire hydrants had been a long tradition in the city. Eventually Donald Henry, a local resident was arrested while appealing to the crowd saying: “Why don’t you do something about it?” Soon the crowd of youth became incensed and began to throw rocks at the thirty or more police cars that were summoned to the scene. The violence soon spread with the breaking of windows and the pelting of the police with rocks and bottles.

Dr. King, who was scheduled to speak to a rally at the Shiloh Baptist Church, later went to the 12th District police station to negotiate the release of some of the youth arrested in the initial hours of the rebellion. King later stated amid the surrounding sounds of the rebellion at Shiloh that “those who will make this peaceful revolution impossible will make a violent revolution inevitable. We have stood up for nonviolence with all our hearts…I need some help. I need some victories. I need some concessions.” Many young people at the rally stormed out into the streets in frustration and joined the violence against property and the police. All that evening members of the Chicago Freedom Movement coalition roamed the streets attempting to persuade the youth to go home and end the disturbances.

After a day of relative calm on July 12, that Wednesday, the 13th, saw the beginning of a new round of property destruction and clashes with police. Later snipers began to fire on police along Madison avenue while more widespread looting continued to cover larger areas of territory on the city’s west side. By Thursday night, July 14th, the rebellion had extended into the Lawndale and Garfield Park areas of Chicago. Looting came right to the streets outside King’s residence on Hamlin Avenue as his own children heard and witnessed the breaking of glass and the looting that swept the neighborhood’s business district. It was announced on Friday, July 15th, that two people had died as result of the rebellion, one being a fourteen-year-old pregnant girl and the other a visiting man from Mississippi who was shot in the back. Daley began to blame the rebellion on the civil rights movement and the presence of Dr. King in the city. He then requested the assistance of the National Guard which dispatched four thousand troops into the city by late Friday evening in an attempt to quell the rebellion.

In the aftermath of the rebellion in Chicago, the coalition built up around the SCLC campaign began to hold demonstrations at real estate offices on the city’s southwest side which were accused of blatant housing discrimination. These demonstrations brought thousands of white residents into the streets to attack the marchers as well as the police who attempted to prevent serious injury and fatalities. On August 5, Dr. King joined the marchers in an attempt to walk through Gage Park. The demonstration was met by five thousand white youth and adults who carried Confederate flags and Nazi emblems with the slogan “white power” emblazoned on them. The crowds of white racists chanted: “We Want King”, and when the SCLC leader did arrive and emerged from a vehicle, he was immediately struck in the head with a brick amid the surrounding explosions of cherry bombs. Later a knife was flung at King which struck a white heckler missing its initial target. Mayor Daley decried the street riots by the white residents, many of whom were of Italian, Lithuanian and Polish origin. Daley felt that the whites should ignore the marchers and allow them to dissipate their energy.

King spoke later that evening at the New Friendship Baptist Church where he attempted to console the shocked and injured rally participants who had risked their lives in the march through Gage Park. In a press conference after the rally King stated that: “I have never in my life seen such hate. Not in Mississippi or Alabama. This is a terrible thing.” The marches continued for the next few days when the city officials requested a moratorium on demonstrations to allow a cooling off period. The Mayor’s office would eventually win a court injunction to limit the marches to one per day. These developments set off a fierce debate among movement leaders in Chicago, some of whom felt that they should defy the injunction. At the same time negotiations continued between the Chicago Freedom Movement, the Chicago Real Estate Board and the Daley administration. By Friday, August 26, a deal had been reached to bring reforms to the housing industry in Chicago. The “Open Housing Summit Agreement” was a source of further controversy because it led to the departure of Dr. King from the city while other community leaders, including the young Jesse Jackson of SCLC, along with CORE and SNCC, vowed to remain and continue demonstrations in segregated neighborhoods and the suburban enclave of Cicero.

Carmichael visited Chicago during the summer of 1966 to carry out speaking engagements as well as a much publicized meeting with Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. In an FBI Memorandum dated August 19, 1966, from Mr. W.C. Sullivan to F.J. Baumgardner, entitled: “Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Stokely Carmichael Internal Security”, it states that:

“Carmichael met with Elijah Muhammad on August 7, 1966. Although items discussed are unknown, a source stated Carmichael will not obtain any cooperation from Muhammad. The source stated Muhammad is always the dominant figure and the only way Carmichael can cooperate with him is to become a member of the Nation of Islam and be subservient to Muhammad. Carmichael refused to do this, although they parted amicably. Carmichael, however, through Nation of Islam officials in Atlanta on the approval of Muhammad, will be invited to attend a Nation of Islam rally in Chicago on August 28, 1966.”

The FBI document continues under a section interestingly entitled “Recommendations” saying:

“That copies of the enclosure be forwarded by routing slips to the Honorable Marvin Watson, Special Assistant to the President; Mr. John Stewart, Legislative Assistant to the Vice-President; the Attorney General; the Deputy Attorney General, and Assistant Attorneys General, Yeagley, Doar and Vinson. Also that copies be forwarded to Secret Service and the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force.”

Consequently, this document clearly indicates that the prospects of a broader dialogue among black groups in the United States during this period in 1966 raised the concern of the highest levels of the government. Additional attention was also paid to the potential of a national summit of African-American leaders in Washington, D.C. in September of 1966. The summit idea never materialized although Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell convened a meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern on September 3.

In a letter written by someone, whose name has been redacted in the FBI documents, from Chicago, Illinois on August 2, 1966, that was directed to “J. Edgar Hoover; Atty. Gen. Nicholas Katzenbach, Senator Abraham Ribicoff and Rep. James Martin”, this angry individual states that:

“Enclosed is a letter sent to the respective men mentioned in regards to the Housing Bill now in Washington. In addition, I would like to state, that Stokley Carmichael, head of SNCC was born in Trinidad, West Indies, and as far as I know, he is a non-American. The FBI should have a complete investigation on him and his activities, because as a Peace Corps Trainee in 1963 at the University of Maine, we studied the West Indies Culture. This area is a stepping stone for the communist to infiltrate into the Western Hemisphere, to promote unrest here in the states.”

The letter continues by advancing other racist and distorted views on Carmichael:

“He has made statements in the Chicago Sun-Times that are unbecoming, such as; ‘We don’t have to obey any law we didn’t participate in making.’ ‘We want the cities,’ in regard to the Chicago teenage gangs, he said, ‘You are cutting up the wrong people on weekends, you should cut up the white people.’ These statements are towards an insurrection, and a complete revolution and civil war, which the communist would very well welcome. How in the world can the FBI allow a person who comes from another part of the world, a non-American, to be head of this organization, travel thru the states on lecture tours and make derogatory remarks to the populace, and stir their emotions to a point of an inevitable riot and possible civil war. It is beyond my comprehension that these people are allowed to conduct themselves as they are. “

In conclusion, the writer goes on to stress that: “Furthermore, Rep. Adam Clayton Powell and other leaders endorse Stokely Carmichael. I and many more law-abiding free Americans are very concerned, and something should be done to curb activities such as this. It is imperative that a complete investigation be conducted by the FBI or other persons in relation to Stokely Carmichael of the West Indies. The pendulum is swinging too far in the wrong direction. Your’s truly [redacted} Chicago, Illinois, 60617.”

Conclusion

These assorted documents found in the FBI files of Stokely Carmichael from 1966 provide a glimpse of the degree to which the federal government under the Lyndon B. Johnson administration sought to curtail and liquidate the advancing civil rights and black power movements of the time period. Despite the passage by Congress under pressure of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the ruling elites in the United States were only attempting to create the conditions to effectively silence the self-directed struggle of the African-American people and their allies. A fair housing bill put forward in 1966 failed in the aftermath of the rise of black power and a the summer campaign in Chicago which illustrated the hardening views by working class and middle class whites committed to preserving the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.

Pressures mounted against SNCC throughout 1966 resulting from its positions on black power, the draft, self-defense, urban rebellion and the escalating war in Viet Nam. With the release of selected FBI documents of Stokely Carmichael since his death in 1998, the unclassified records of American intelligence and the White House have provided clearer insights into the role of not only the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program COINTELPRO, but the direct involvement of the Johnson administration and the United States Military in efforts aimed at the destruction of the civil rights and black power movements that were in strong evidence during 1966.

Editor’s Note: The FBI documents utilized in this article can be found on the Bureau’s web site: https://vault.fbi.gov/Stokely%20Carmichael . The files have been divided into five parts and are published without comment or interpretation. These documents by no means represent the totality of FBI and other government agencies’ surveillance activities directed at Stokely Carmichael and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating (SNCC). However, the examination of these records illuminate the thinking of the Johnson administration, the Department of Justice, the Secret Service, local police agencies and municipal and county governments in regard their efforts designed to stifle and eliminate the civil rights and black power movements of the time period.

In response to reading this report Michal Ravnitzky, an attorney and investigator, wrote on the Pan-African News Wire website that:

“The FBI has described approximately 19,000 pages of investigative files on 1960s Black Panther leader Stokely Carmichael, later known as Kwame Ture. Ture died at the age of 57 in November, 1998. Before he died, Ture was in the process of requesting his FBI files, a lengthy process that had not been completed by the time he had died. Since then, for reasons too lengthy to describe here, most of the files have been reviewed for release by the FBI.”

Ravnitzky continues saying:

“There are three FBI HQ main files. The largest main file relates to Racial Matters: -Internal Security investigation, comprising 92 volumes: 18,400 pages. There are also four Sub-A volumes containing 558 pages of public source documents (such as newspaper clippings). A second main file reflects a Civil Rights violation and contains about 60 pages. A third file concerned a draft violation, but it was destroyed by the FBI in November 1997. There are also other files at FBI Field Offices.”

About the Author: Abayomi Azikiwe is the founder and editor of the Pan-African News Wire. His articles have appeared in numerous newspapers, journals, magazines, websites and listserves throughout the international community. As a broadcast journalist he has hosted and produced news programs on at least five radio stations in North America over the last seventeen years.

News coverage over the past 48 hours of the Orlando nightclub attacks has shown how corporate media use specific vocabulary to manipulate public perceptions and perpetuate harmful stereotypes and xenophobia.

In the early hours of June 12, as reports poured in about a shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, news outlets were reluctant to characterize the incident beyond calling it an act of violence.

With little information beyond “a shooting has left a number of people of dead in a nightclub,” the Twitteraccounts of major media outlets used the contextually neutral language of “shooting” to describe the situation:

• ABC News, 4:34 AM, June 12: “NEW PHOTO: Multiple injuries following shooting at Orlando nightclub, say police”
• Boston Globe, 6:06 AM, June 12: “UPDATE: Orlando police call the scene of a nightclub shooting a “mass casualty situation”
• Wall Street Journal, 8:45 AM, June 12: “Orlando police: shooting at gay nightclub kills 20, wounds 42”
• Reuters, 9:50 AM, June 12: “FBI briefing on Orlando nightclub shootingsthat killed 20, wounded 42 delayed.”

Typical news media tweet before shooter’s ethnicity known.

It’s important to note, however, that early in the morning law enforcement had already alerted the media and the public to the fact that they were treating the event as an act of terror. ABC News reported as much at 7:42 AM, tweeting, “Police: Investigating Orlando nightclub shooting as an ‘act of terrorism.’” Yet there was no move to label the event as such by mainstream media sources until the shooter’s ethnicity was revealed—at which point the language began to change.

Typical news media tweet after shooter’s ethnicity known.

Once the shooter was identified as Omar Mateen, a US citizen of Afghan descent, the narrative changed. After this South Asian ethnicity was revealed, news media began calling the attack an act of terror. At 9:01 AM, CBS News tweeted: “JUST IN: Orlando nightclub shooter ID’d as Omar S. Mateen, law enforcement sources tell@CBSNews.” Just ten minutes later, the way CBSwas discussing the crime hadchanged: “Authorities ‘leaning towards Islamic terrorism’ as motive,@CBSNews‘ Pat Milton reports:”

Over the next couple of hours, the new descriptor spread throughout corporate media:

• CNN, 9:57 AM, June 12: “Authorities say they consider the Orlando mass shooting an act of domestic terror”
• New York Post, 10:10 AM, June 12: “‘Radical Islamic terrorism’ is being eyed in the Florida gay nightclub rampage”
• Orlando Sentinel, 10:28 AM, June 12: “50 dead in nightclub terrorism attack, state of emergency declared”
• New York magazine, 10:41 AM, June 12: “Suspected terrorist attack on Orlando gay club leaves 50 dead, 53 injured”
• Fox Nation, 11:42 AM, June 12: “’An Act of Terrorism‘: As Many As 50 Shot Dead, 53 Wounded in Possible Islamic Terror Attack at Nightclub”

Glenn Greenwald asserted in June 2015 that “terrorism” is “a completely malleable, manipulated, vapid term of propaganda that has no consistent application whatsoever.” Greenwald was writing in response to the Charleston church massacre and the news media’s unwillingness to call that event an act of terror.

But it’s quite obvious that for today’s news media, the vocabulary of “terrorism”does have a consistent application: It means, overwhelmingly, acts of violence committed by Muslims and seen as targeting the West—as many media confidently portrayed the nightclub attack, although that narrative may become more complicated as details of Mateen’s life and the massacre itself emerge.

For an example of that double standard of terminological application, consider the events that unfolded only hours after the Orlando attack.

Heavily armed white man described as “planning to attend Pride parade.”

As the nation reeled from the nightclub shooting, law enforcement in Santa Monica arrested a heavily armed Indiana man headed to the LA Pride parade. James Wesley Howell was quickly identified as a white man, distanced from the Orlando attacks, and treated very differently by the news media:

• The LA Times reportedthat “Santa Monica police spokesman Saul Rodriguez said detectives are “not aware of what the suspect’s intentions were at this point.”
• The Daily Mail said that while Howell’s car was filled with “three rifles, a substantial amount of ammunition and 5 lb of mixed Tannerite powder, which can be used to make a pipe bomb,” and while Howell was “on the way to the LA Pride event to meet a friend, and ‘wanted to harm’ people there,” authorities “were still trying to establish Howell’s motives.”

In fact, Howell’s ethnicity and lack of ties to the Orlando shooting and Islam made his potential attack a non-story, despite him being heavily armed and ready to cause the same levels of carnage as Mateen. Social media accounts for major news organizations outside of LA almost exclusively referred to Howell as a “heavily armed man,” and most organizations mentioned his arrest only once on social media, if at all:

• Wall Street Journal, 2:36 PM, June 12, only mention: “Man with weapons, explosive material arrested in LA, said he was planning to attend Pride parade”
• ABC News, 5:02 PM, June 12, only mention: “Heavily armed manarrested in LA tells police he was in the area for city’s gay pride parade”
• Reuters, 6:53 AM, June 13, only mention: “Heavily armed man arrested on way to LA gay pride parade”
• Boston Globe, 4:13 PM, June 12, one of two mentions: “Heavily armed man arrested in California was headed for pride parade”

When those who wish to use violence against innocent people are unidentified, they are referred to as “shooters” and their attacks as “attacks” or, in the case of Orlando, as “shootings.” It’s not until the perpetrators are identified as non-white people with an otherized cultural background that the media uses the word “terror.”

This manipulation of language by news media has shown quite clearly that the term “terrorism” refers not to the acts themselves, but rather to the ethnicity and specifically defined ideology of the perpetrators of the attacks.

Eoin Higgins is a journalist and historian from Western Massachusetts. You can find more of his work at eoinhiggins.com and follow him on twitter at@EoinHiggins_.

“I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those (rainbow) flags in God’s face if I were you. …this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor. — Rev Pat Robertson, Christian Fundamentalist tele-evangelist, predicting – and perhaps inciting – violence against the LGBT community in Orlando, Florida. The homophobic Robertson was critical of LGBT organizers who were putting up rainbow flags around the city in celebration of the city’s stance on diversity issues. (Quote from The Washington Post, 06-10-98)

The 2016 Democratic primaries have been frustrating for many progressives who have had their political juices awakened and energized by the nonviolent political revolution of Bernie Sanders, his New Deal/Fair Deal politics, his democratic socialist candidacy and his support of oppressed and discriminated-against minorities (including Latinos, African-Americans, Native Americans, Palestinians, Muslims and the LGBT community, among others).

But the Democratic Party, once the mortal enemy of fascism, governmental rule by wealthy elites and fraudulent elections, has sabotaged, through any number of backroom deals (and with the willing help of the corporate-controlled media), Sanders’ highly respected, altruistic candidacy. The Democratic national leadership has unfairly denied him the well-deserved candidacy of the party. Because of the intransigency of their pro-Wall Street, pro-War Street, wealthy insiders in the party hierarchy, they will soon regret what they have done as much as the GOP will soon be regretting the choice of the xenophobic, paranoid, narcissistic megalomaniacal Donald Trump as their party’s leader.

Both political parties have had their agendas shaped by corporate and militaristic billionaire plutocrats and Wall Street tycoons who have purchased large numbers of mercenary lobbyists, lawyers and federal and Supreme Court judges and also the loyalties of the vast majorities of elected legislators (both at the state and national levels) via massive amounts of campaign cash.The classic truism of “whoever pays the piper, calls the tune” still holds in 2016.

It is truly rare to find altruistic politicians in America who are capable of igniting the imaginations and hopes of millions of folks, especially the younger generations, who have been obviously “feeling the Bern”.

The Wall Street/War Street NeoCons (now tragically in total control of the GOP and in positions of majority power in the Democratic Party) have been somehow allowing a small minority of idealistic politicians to exist in America, I suppose partly for window-dressing. As Rush Limbaugh once proclaimed (after the GOP started feeling its oats in DC in the mid-90s): “I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus—living fossils—so we will never forget what these people stood for.”

But there have been other American idealists throughout history that have also felt something resembling “the Bern”. Such people-power movements have happened only a handful of times over the past American century. Each movement’s progressive leadership has been disappeared, snuffed out, either by intimidation, assassination, smear campaigns or some other political intrigue such as imprisonment (as in the case of democratic socialist and labor union leader Eugene Debs who was convicted in 1918 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for his antiwar activism [where he ran for president on the Socialist Party ticket in 1920, garnering nearly a million votes]).

History tells us about the brief appearances of past progressive movements that promised to benefit the “common man”, like “Fighting Bob” LaFollete’s Progressive Party era, Eugene Debs’s persecuted Socialist Party, FDR’s New Deal era, the antiwar, liberal efforts of JFK, RFK and MLK, Eugene McCarthy, Paul Wellstone’s people’s campaign, Ralph Nader’s Green Party candidacy, Occupy Wall Street’s efforts, the disappearing democratic wing of the Democratic Party and, most importantly, all those millions of eager progressive-minded college-age Bernie supporters who so clearly see the dire need for a true political revolution.

The Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot by rejecting the idealism of America’s energetic, progressive youth.

Those clear-headed American youth know that there must be a sea-change in American politics and economics before they and their planet are “disappeared” down the rat hole of perpetual war, the hopelessness of perpetual predatory educational loan repayments, unstoppable environmental degradation and enslavement by the many amoral, entrenched elites who are refusing to give them a break or a hand up because such merciful actions might endanger their personal investment portfolios.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the heart and soul of America may or may not be over, but there is information regarding the Democratic Party’s voter suppression and election fraud that has not been reported on. Inquiring minds need to know about it.

To find out more about the backroom deals that occurred during the Democratic primary season, watch:

https://youtu.be/MoGeDGHmwJU

or click on https://youtu.be/MoGeDGHmwJU

(the website of Election Justice USA) or http://trustvote.org/ (the website for the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity).

I end this column with an expose of the sabotage of the Sanders campaign, written by my favorite Floridian writer Bill Annett, who has summarized the issue better than I am able. Bill has been writing “A Bernie Sanders Newsletter” for most of the past year. You can get on his contact list to receive his incisive political and economic commentaries by emailing your request to him at: [email protected].

*      *      *

Extinguishing The Bern… and A Phoenix Proposal

By Guest Columnist Bill Annett

from the last edition of Bill’s A Bernie Sanders Newsletter

Amid the current media orgasm over the wonderment of a woman achieving something or other (not quite the Presidency), the corporate media are gratuitously admitting that Bernie Sanders did a wondrous thing in overcoming big money and the status quo.Good show, as the British say.

First of all, big deal. The mountain of America after 229 years has succeeded in bringing forth a mouse, compared to Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, all of whom many years ago actually pulled it off -something Hillary has yet to do. Hell, closer to home, Kim Campbell was Prime Minister of little old Canada in the 1990’s, and Senator Therese Casgrain won the vote for the women of Quebec 80 years ago, both without the benefit of a $100 million foundation or a sack of gold from Goldman Sachs.

What none of the flacks or jaundiced politicians mention is that Bernie Sanders did infinitely more than that. He took on (and possibly, truthfully won against) the entire Democratic Party, its manipulative arm, the DNC, every senior Democratic bigwig, Congressman and Senator (with the exception of a handful of free thinkers) and the President they rode in on. He, Bernie, overcame the American corporate media and their scandalous partisanship and all of their bias and blatant rigging of public opinion.

How did they burn the Bern? As Smutty Bill sonnetized, let me count the ways:

(1) Debbie (the Washerwoman) Shultz, chair-thing of the DNC, from the outset proceeded to handicap Bernie in the debates, supposedly impartial, by delimiting the number of debates to eight (8?), knowingly fearful that more rather than fewer encounters would allow more people to learn about Bernie and how he has labored in the vineyards for 30 years for all of us, whereas Hillary and her geriatric, formerly cuckholding husband have been boring us for 25 years while parlaying the Presidency into a $100 million personal fortune.

(2) Next, the debates were artfully staged on (a) dates with lots of media opposition – heavy stuff like “Everybody Loves Raymond” and NFL games – or, (b) just as negatively, picking low viewership times. She, the Washerwoman, even pulled off an additional coup by staging one debate on a Saturday, when devout Jews wouldn’t be watching because of their Sabbath. (Both she and Bernie are Jewish.)Bernie’s request that the more debates the better was ignored.

(3) Moving on to the happy hunting grounds of the Primaries, Iowa – where Bernie began as an underdog and rapidly closed the gap– was actually a wash, in fact it was so close that in several precincts the results were a dead heat. Here they used that sophisticated modern technique of resorting to a coin toss. In six out of six precinct coin tosses, magically, Hillary won all six, which must set a Guinness Book of World Records record. Hillary was announced as the winner in Iowa, which nobody among the Iowan burghers contested because they were too busy gearing up for the Bix Jazz Festival.

(4) New York State was an even bigger boff for the Democratic establishment and their complicit reporters – the most concentrated crowd of media machinery in the world. Here, independents were not allowed to vote, but magnanimously they – who probably amounted to 40% of Bernie’s followers – were informed that, had they re-registered as Democrats eight months earlier, although they were not so advised eight months earlier, they would have been able to vote for Bernie. Bernie of course was creamed in New York State. And this strategy was fine-tuned and compounded in California, as we shall see.

(5) With the approach of the final Super Tuesday, it became apparent that to release the results in New Jersey polling at 8:00 P.M. EST might influence the voters in California not to bother, where the results would be released at 11:00 EST. What happened? Hillary won New Jersey and that result was released just as Californians were being subjected to a tougher voting process than even the Republican Governors could have devised in voter suppression.

In California, an Independent voter was required to jump through this series of hoops, which would require a Philadelphia lawyer to navigate: first, application had to be made in advance for a registration card stipulating “no party preference.” This card next had to be taken to the polling place, where it could be exchanged for a Democratic provisional ballot, and these “ballots” werethen tossed into cardboard boxes at each polling place, the contents of which have still not been fully tabulated, according to some precincts. Sound like an election in Rwanda or the most politically sophisticated country on earth?

(6) Even worse than that, the California Primary itself was a nightmare in this, supposedly the most progressive and diverse State in the Union. There is a distinct possibility that as many as 1.5 million California primary votes either disappeared or have still not been counted. You didn’t hear a single word about this in the popular media, although Huffington Post did produce a widely ignored report on California’s messed-up system.

Writing in Dissident Voice and Counterpunch (“Where Are The Missing California Votes”), Rick Sterling reported:

As of noon the day after the election, the total count is shown to be 1.94M for Hillary and 1.50M for Bernie for a total vote count of 3.44 Million votes. This contrasts with a total vote count of over 5 Million in the 2008 California primary election. Where are all the missing votes?How many provisional votes have not yet been counted?

…given the huge excitement over the Sanders campaign and high interest in the election race, it’s hard to explain such a large decline when the population has increased.One might argue that news reports that Hillary Clinton had already won the race, broadcast on the eve of the election, reduced participation. This is evidence of media bias and spin but it’s hard to see it suppressing the participation of Sanders’ supporters who came out in tens of thousands day after day in cities throughout the state.Huge crowds of Sanders supporters waited for hours to participate enthusiastically in Stockton, Vallejo, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Diego and beyond. It’s hard to see them being fooled or dissuaded from voting by a dubious AP story possibly promoted by the Clinton campaign.(And repeated by MSNBC, all of which just happened to occur the night before the California Primary. –Ed.)

(7) And semi-finally, like Hamlet’s marriage table coldly setting forth the funeral meats, President Obama’s gratuitous hosting of Bernie on the Thursday following the California Primary on Tuesday was inconsequential.. Although Bernie graciously acknowledged that Obama and Biden had withheld support for Hillary during the Primaries (they actually did provide support, although obliquely), but before Bernie and his wife Jane had reached the Rose Garden on his way out of the meaningless meeting, the President had already released a lovely video that had been filmed on the previous Tuesday, extolling the virtues of old Dimple Cheeks, the standard bearer for what is arguably the Obama Third Term.

I don’t know, perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but I think there’s something greasy and immoral (even though it may be legal and politically correct) for an incumbent President to support and campaign for a member of his party when he’s supposed to be supporting and equally treating ALL Americans.

(8) And finally, to complete the anvil chorus of Hillary supporters, Senator Elizabeth Warren finally got off the fence, admitting that while her views were closer to Bernie’s than to Hillary’s, she added her endorsement to all the other right-thinking Democrats (Obama is after all a great act to follow). What Clintonesque reward may result isn’t too hard to imagine. In fact, a day later, Hillary mused nationally that Warren “is fully qualified” to be Vice-President.

What is also tempting to imagine is what might have resulted had Warren joined Bernie earlier, and had none of the DNC and Democratic establishment atrocities that we’ve listed taken place.

Instead, the total campaign to extinguish the Bern makes Al Gore’s screwing-over by Florida’s Republican Attorney General and a biased Supreme Court in 2000 look like a cheating game of mumble-peg. And THAT was done by the bad guys.

The year-long hatchet job done on Bernie Sanders is now being sublimated by everybody from Rachel Maddow to Joe Biden, crooning a bygones-be-bygones libretto that Bernie should “work for party unity,” i.e. that all of the 11 million of us should lick the hand that flogged us. As former State Senator Nina Turner (perhaps Bernie’s staunchest surrogate) said on California’s Tuesday night, they screwed us over by blocking independent voters, and now they’re whining to those same independent voters to vote for Hillary.

Not this kid. Regardless of what Bernie does, I’d rather vote for Spongebob Squarepants than the Lilly Maid of Wall Street.

Anybody for a Sanders-Jill Stein ticket? (Imagine what a Sanders-Stein Administration would do to the oriental fish market that is contemporary Washington.) With 11 million voters added to Jill’s current probable 6% following, we might just disrupt the Hillary coronation ceremony.Would we be helping the lunatic in Trump Tower? I doubt if he’ll still be around, the way he’s been alienating the Republicans lately. Maybe Gary Johnson and his Libertarian candidacy will take care of that.

A four-party system. Now wouldn’t that begin to make a little sense?

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

A horrific attack unfolded this week when Omar Mateen entered a nightclub in Orlando, Florida before allegedly opening fire killing 50 and injuring scores more. Mateen would eventually be gunned down himself by police.

At face value it appears to be another “extremist” attack – an extension of America’s ongoing “War on Terror.” In reality Mateen is instead an extension of America’s use of terrorism as a geopolitical tool to fight its enemies abroad and maintain paralyzing fear, division, and hysteria at home.

Mateen, the Latest in Long Line of Known Terrorists West Failed to Stop

The London Guardian’s article, “Orlando gunman known to FBI shows difficulty of ‘lone wolf’ cases,” would cite Erroll Southers, a former FBI counterintelligence and terrorism agent:

“What this illustrates is the difficulty in trying to identify people who would do things like Mr Mateen did today,” Southers said. “There is no profile.”

However, Southers is wrong. There most certainly is a profile to which each and every high-profile “terrorist” attacking targets across the West from North America to Europe adheres. Each and every suspect has been known to Western law enforcement and intelligence agencies before carrying out their deadly attacks.

The Boston bombing suspects were on FBI and CIA watch lists months before their deadly attack in April 2013 according to the US State Department’s own Voice of America news service. The Paris attack suspects were known to European security agencies and tracked for years save for the final 6 months before the attacks were finally carried out. Two of the Brussels attackers this year had been arrested for violent crimes including terrorism before being inexplicably released.
Considering these most recent examples and many others, it is not a matter of the West being blindsided by terrorism – but rather Western security agencies either incapable or disinterested in stopping militants from carrying out attacks which are then shamelessly and very intentionally exploited for political gain both at home and abroad.

What’s more alarming is that the recent case in Florida appears to be a textbook case of a US FBI entrapment case gone wrong. Quite literally every aspect of the case, from Mateen’s background, to how he gained law enforcement’s attention before the attacks, to aspects of his personality including allegations that he was mentally ill, mirrors almost identically two FBI entrapment cases which unfolded last year.

Inspired by Islamic State or by the FBI? 

The Intercept would report in its 2015 article, “Another “Terror” Arrest; Another Mentally Ill Man, Armed by the FBI,” that (emphasis added):

U.S. law enforcement officials announced another terror arrest on Monday, after arming a mentally ill man and then charging him with having guns.

ABC News quoted a “senior federal official briefed on the arrest” as saying: “This is a very bad person arrested before he could do very bad things.”

But in a sting reminiscent of so many others conducted by the FBI since 9/11, Alexander Ciccolo, 23, “aka Ali Al Amriki,” was apparently a mentally ill man who was doing nothing more than ranting about violent jihad and talking (admittedly in frightening ways) about launching attacks—until he met an FBI informant. At that point, he started making shopping lists for weapons.

The Intercept would also reference the FBI’s affidavit (.pdf), stating (emphasis added):

According to the affidavit, Ciccolo first talked to the FBI informant about attacking two bars and a police station. Later, he spoke of attacking a college campus with a homemade pressure-cooker bomb like the one used in the Boston Marathon terror attack; he also talked about using guns and a lot of ammo. Ciccolo, according to the affidavit, then “ordered the firearms from a confidential human source (“CHS”) working with the FBI.”

The list of weapons provided to the mentally-ill suspect by the FBI informant is shocking. Revealed in the official FBI affidavit (.pdf), the weapons included a 9mm Glock 17, a 10mm Glock 20, a .223 Colt AR-15 rifle, (referred to by the media as an “assault rifle”), and a 556 Sig Arms SG550 rifle (also often referred to as an assault rifle). The AR-15 rifle and Glock are the same weapons allegedly used by Omar Mateen in this most recent massacre.

Also included in the affidavit is the same hysterical rhetoric encouraged by FBI informants now evident in the recent actions of terror suspect Omar Mateen in Florida. The FBI quite literally moved Ciccolo from A-Z up to and including placing weapons into his hands before finally arresting him.

In Mateen’s case, it is alleged that he legally purchased his firearms. However, another 2015 FBI entrapment case includes a suspect the FBI was similarly cultivating, and instead of providing the suspect with weapons, he was allowed to purchase them on his own – two M-15 5.56 semi-automatic rifles.

NBC Cincinnati affiliate WLWT5 would report in their 2015 article, “FBI: Cincinnati man bought rifles, planned to attack U.S. Capitol,” that (emphasis added):

Agents said that on Tuesday and Wednesday Cornell met with the informant the final time to plan their trip to D.C. to execute their plan. He purchased two Armalite M-15 5.56 mm semi-automatic rifles Wednesday morning, along with 600 rounds of ammunition, and was arrested.

Cornell bought the rifles at the Point Blank gun store on Harrison Avenue in Colerain Township. He passed a background check and paid $1,900 in cash, $700 for each rifle and about $400 for the ammunition.

The gun store owner, John Dean, said FBI agents notified him that Cornell was going to come in to buy the guns about 10 minutes before he entered the store.

Dean said the agents told him to allow the purchase and agents would stop Cornell after he left the store.

Upon reading the FBI’s own affidavits, it appears the only difference between Ciccolo, Cornell, and Mateen is that the former two were arrested before committing mass murder while Mateen was allowed to carry out his attack. Whether or not FBI informants were handling Mateen before the attack remains a mystery. But it should be noted that the FBI is conducting – according to the New York Times – hundreds of such entrapment cases.

The NYT in its article, “F.B.I. Steps Up Use of Stings in ISIS Cases,” claims that (emphasis added):

The F.B.I. has significantly increased its use of stings in terrorism cases, employing agents and informants to pose as jihadists, bomb makers, gun dealers or online “friends” in hundreds of investigations into Americans suspected of supporting the Islamic State, records and interviews show. 

Undercover operations, once seen as a last resort, are now used in about two of every three prosecutions involving people suspected of supporting the Islamic State, a sharp rise in the span of just two years, according to a New York Times analysis. Charges have been brought against nearly 90 Americans believed to be linked to the group.

It is now revealed that the FBI had interviewed Florida shooting suspect Omar Mateen twice and investigated him on at least two separate occasions in 2013 and 2014. This was also reported by the NYT in their article, “Omar Mateen: From Early Promise to F.B.I. Surveillance,” which stated:

…the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called in after reports from Mr. Mateen’s co-workers that he, the American-born son of Afghan immigrants, had suggested he may have had terrorist ties. The F.B.I. interviewed him twice, but after surveillance, records checks and witness interviews, agents were unable to verify any terrorist links and closed their investigation. 

Then, in 2014, the F.B.I. discovered a possible tie between Mr. Mateen and Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who had grown up in nearby Vero Beach and then became the first American suicide bomber in Syria, where he fought with the Nusra Front, a Qaeda-aligned militant group. Again, the F.B.I. closed its inquiry after finding “minimal” contact between the two men. 

Considering NYT’s report regarding the vast scale of the FBI’s entrapment cases targeting possible “Islamic State” sympathizers, it seems highly improbable that undercover informants were not also working on Mateen. With hundreds of cases ongoing and with many of the cases involving the transfer of real weapons to suspects who have been encouraged sometimes for months by informants to carry out deadly attacks – could the FBI have lost control of such a case – in Florida perhaps?

The FBI Has “Accidentally” Allowed its Own Ops to go Live Before  

Has the FBI ever lost control of such operations? The answer to that question is also provided by the New York Times which in its 1993 article titled, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,” reported (emphasis added):

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast. 

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said. 

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York City’s tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars.

The decision by the FBI supervisor eventually led to the successful detonation of the bomb by  terrorists known to the FBI and subject to an undercover investigation. The explosion would kill 6 and injure hundreds more.

At the very least there is a strong possibility that the FBI’s tactics of entrapping suspects and its practice of peddling toxic rhetoric and even placing actual weapons into the hands of mentally unstable individuals led to the tragedy in Florida just as it did in New York City in 1993. At worst – it was intentionally done as a means of using terrorism domestically to manipulate the American people just as the US uses terrorism abroad to fight its proxy wars.

The “Islamic State” Operates Out of NATO Territory

The recent attack in Florida comes at a time when Syria’s border with Turkey is now nearly sealed. While alternative media sources have been reporting for years that the Islamic State has been resupplied and reinforced from NATO territory via Turkey, it is now a fact being reported by prominent Western news services as well.

The London Telegraph in a recent article titled, “US-backed Syrian opposition forces surround Isil in key city and cut off main supply route,” admits that (emphasis added):

…Syrian opposition forces have completely surrounded the Islamic State-held stronghold of Manbij and cut off the group’s main route to the outside world….. 

The loss of Manbij will be a huge loss to the group. It had been a waypoint on an Isil supply line between the Turkish border and the extremist group’s de facto capital, Raqqa.

Also recently, the Washington Times article titled, “Turkey offers joint ops with U.S. forces in Syria, wants Kurds cut out,” would quote the Turkish Foreign Minister himself admitting (emphasis added):

Joint operations between Washington and Ankara in Manbji, a well-known waypoint for Islamic State fighters, weapons and equipment coming from Turkey bound for Raqqa, would effectively open “a second front” in the ongoing fight to drive the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from Syria’s borders, [Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu] said.

The Foreign Minister of Turkey admits that “Islamic State” forces – fighters, weapons, and equipment – are pouring out of Turkey’s own territory “bound for Raqqa,” but never explains how the most notorious terrorist organization of the 21st century could move enough men and materiel through a NATO-member state to wage an entire war with, without being stopped before reaching Syria. Also not explained is where the “Islamic State” is procuring the weapons that it is moving through Turkey.

While the US claims to fight the “Islamic State” as well as pose as a victim of its violence, its NATO partner Turkey is quite literally the source of the terrorist organization’s fighting capacity, with US forces permanently stationed in Turkey for decades and Turkey having been a NATO member since the 1950s. Despite open acknowledgments that the “Islamic State” is operating out of Turkey, the US has used the presence of the terrorist organization inside Syria as a pretext for intervening in the war directly.

If Omar Mateen was “inspired” by the “Islamic State,” he was inspired by a terrorist organization that at any time the US and its NATO allies could crush – but who have intentionally allowed to operate within NATO territory itself.

It seems that both in Syria and at home in America, the special interests running Washington have found in the “Islamic State” a perfect tool with which to advance its various political agendas.

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

The unthinkable has become reality. The global humanitarian and legal entities are now officially in the hands of genocidal psychopaths.

Today Israel, illegal state of extremist settlers built upon the bones of an imprisoned, colonized Palestine, has been elected to the chair of the UNGA.  The United Nations General Assembly sixth committee or legal committee.  This legal committee oversees management of international law.

The lawbreaker has become the lawmaker in one fell swoop, ransacking the regulatory halls of justice and laying waste to what remnants of delusion we had left regarding the efficacy of international law.

“I am proud to be the first Israeli elected to this position,” Israel U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon said in a statement.

“Israel is a world leader in international law and in fighting terrorism,” he added. “We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our knowledge with the countries of the world.”
~ Danny Danlon

This report from Reuters:

Israel on Monday won an election to chair the United Nations’ legal committee, the first time that it will head one of the world body’s six permanent committees since joining the U.N. in 1949.

While it is a largely symbolic and procedural role, chairing the committee will give Israel a chance to have a higher profile in routine affairs at the United Nations.

The so-called Legal Committee, or Sixth Committee, oversees issues related to international law. The General Assembly has six standing committees that report to it, on: disarmament, economic and financial issues, human rights, decolonization, the U.N. budget, and legal issues.

“I am proud to be the first Israeli elected to this position,” Israel U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon said in a statement.

“Israel is a world leader in international law and in fighting terrorism,” he added. “We are pleased to have the opportunity to share our knowledge with the countries of the world.”

Israel was a candidate for the regional Western European and Others Group (WEOG) and received a comfortable majority of votes – 109 out of 175 valid votes cast in the 193-nation assembly. Sweden was runner-up with 10 votes.

Normally committee heads are elected by consensus without a vote. Opponents to the Israeli candidacy called for a vote, prompting a sharp reaction from the deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., David Pressman.

“Even a chair from (former leader Muammar) Gaddafi’s Libya was elected by acclamation,” he said in a statement. “A vote should not have been called today.”

“We need a United Nations that includes Israel, that brings Israel closer, not one that systematically pushes Israel away,” he added.

Israel was originally part of the Asia-Pacific Group along with other Middle Eastern and Asian nations, the majority of which are cool or openly hostile toward the Israeli state. Its transfer to WEOG gave it a chance to get elected to leadership posts and play a more active role at the U.N.

The chief Palestinian delegate at the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, complained about the results of the election, saying Arab and Muslim countries had tried to prevent an Israeli victory.

Speaking to reporters, Mansour described Israel as “the biggest violator of international law” and predicted that Danon’s election was “threatening the work of the Sixth Committee.”

He said the Arab League and 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation had opposed Israel’s election.”

The 71st session of the UNGA Sixth Committee will be held in October 2016.  The following is  part of the proposed programme:

Statement by Dr Ashrawi, PLO Executive Committee Member, prior to Israel’s election:

Commenting on the Western European and Others Group’s (WEOG) decision to nominate Israel for the chairmanship of the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee, PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi condemned the move and said:

“It is ironic that Israel, a state that continues to breach international law and conventions, international humanitarian law and countless UN resolutions, is being nominated to head a legal committee that aims to promote international law and protect basic human rights and freedoms.

With such a decision, the WEOG is making a mockery of the international legal system and rewarding Israel for its flagrant violations of international law and acts of collective punishment and violence, including Israel’s continued theft of Palestinian land and resources, the expansion of its illegal settlement enterprise, the demolition and ethnic cleansing of entire Palestinian communities and villages, the use of live ammunition and the extra-judicial killing of innocent Palestinians, the revocation of Jerusalem IDs, and the increasing use of administration detention against Palestinian men, women and children.

We call on the WEOG to do what is right, withdraw its nomination of Israel for the chairmanship of the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee, and hold it accountable for its persistent violations of international law and human rights.  As a people under occupation, we will remain steadfast and undeterred in our efforts to pursue all diplomatic and legal channels to counter Israeli violations and safeguard our people’s right to self-determination, justice and freedom.

Even a full ban on all guns of every kind for all private US citizens would not have prevented this tragedy.

In the wake of the tragic Orlando shooting, many have reacted not with objectivity, logic, and courage, but with fear, hysteria, anger, and hatred. Some have also reacted with shameful opportunism – among these many people which includes racists, bigots, and warmongers, is also the gun control lobby.

It should be pointed out that the Orlando shooting suspect was working as a professionally trained and armed security guard at Federal facilities for private security contractor G4S. Omar Mateen also applied to study at the Indian River State College Police Academy – according to the Daily Mail’s article, “How surly Orlando shooter was booted out of police academy LAST YEAR .”

He was also investigated twice by the FBI, including a 10 month long undercover investigation involving FBI “informants.” Yet was still able to keep his job as an armed security guard.This means that even a full ban on all guns of every kind for all private US citizens would not have prevented this tragedy. The suspect was an armed security guard with access to firearms and had been thoroughly investigated, interviewed, and watched by multiple agencies and institutions throughout his career and would have still been able to perpetrate his act of armed mass murder

And it should be remembered that while the Orlando shooting is the largest mass shooting in American history at 50 dead – it is most certainly not the largest act of single-day mass murder.

The ignominious titled for that goes to the attacks on September 11, 2001 which left nearly 3,000 dead. The weapon of choice? Box cutters.

Violence is not a matter of access to weaponry – it is a matter sociopolitical and economic stability, inequality, and an unraveling culture. America is basting in socioeconomic disparity, political injustice, economic instability, and a culture of hatred, fear, and intentionally cultivated ignorance and division.

That’s the problem driving violence in America, and one must start there to reduce senseless violence driven by it.For those simply afraid every time they see a gun, have never touched one, and fear the thought of ever firing one – stop letting irrational fear drive your politics – politics no better than any other fueled by fear, hatred, and ignorance.

Further reading: “How to End the “Gun Debate” Forever.”

From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, October 2011 as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be ending:

“There are those on the American political scene who are calling for us not to reposition [to Asia], but to come home. They seek a downsizing of our foreign engagement in favor of our pressing domestic priorities. These impulses are understandable, but they are misguided. Those who say that we can no longer afford to engage with the world have it exactly backward — we cannot afford not to…. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership. The Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us to secure and sustain our leadership abroad.”

President Obama’s recent journey to Japan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, beyond visiting Hiroshima and being welcomed by crowds in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, was primarily aimed at strengthening his administration’s most important foreign policy objective — the political, commercial and military encirclement of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Now that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Obama may rest assured that if she defeats Republican Donald Trump in November, as expected, his “rebalance” to Asia will continue apace. Indeed, a Clinton administration may move faster and more decisively.

Clinton was a strong advocate of the rebalance and thoroughly agrees with Obama that Beijing must never be allowed to diminish Washington’s global hegemony, even within China’s own South Asian region, and, like Obama, she always uses the code words “American leadership” in place of “American domination.”

Obama announced what he first termed a “pivot” to Asia in the fall of 2011 just after a 5,500-word article by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton titled “America’s Pacific Century” appeared in Foreign Policy magazine. It began:

As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region.” The “otherwise” meant military.

While in Japan, Obama told the newspaper Asahi Shimbun May 26:

Renewing American leadership in the Asia Pacific has been one of my top policy priorities as President, and I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve made. The cornerstone of our rebalance strategy has been bolstering our treaty alliances — including with Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Australia — and today each of these alliances is stronger than when I came into office. We’ve forged new partnerships with countries like Vietnam, which I just visited, and with regional institutions like ASEAN and the East Asia Summit. With the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the highest-standard trade agreement in history, we have the opportunity to write the rules for regional and global trade for decades to come. I believe that America’s position in the region has never been stronger, and I’m confident that the next U.S. President will continue to build on our progress.

A week later in San Diego Clinton delivered a foreign policy speech. Its purpose was to show that she would be much better than Republican Donald Trump in furthering America’s global interests. Accusing Trump of not understanding that Russia and China “work against us,” she declared:

If America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum — and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety — and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit. Now Moscow and Beijing are deeply envious of our alliances around the world, because they have nothing to match them. They’d love for us to elect a president who would jeopardize that source of strength. If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.

Instead of defining the November election as a contest between the right/far right Republicans and the center right Democrats, Clinton depicted it as a choice between “a fearful America that’s less secure and less engaged in the world [under Trump], and a strong, confident America that leads to keep our country safe and our economy growing.

Clinton has thus committed herself to a continuation of Washington’s decades-long imperial foreign/military policies, replete with cold war rhetoric, the notion of an indispensible America, the commitment to “lead” the world, and targeting China and Russia as virtual enemies. There was no hint of making any efforts to reduce world tensions peacefully. As a result of Obama-Clinton policies the relationship between Beijing and Moscow has become considerably closer in recent years.

Meanwhile the Bush-Obama Middle East wars are expected to continue indefinitely, at least throughout the next administration and maybe much longer. If Clinton gains the White House she is expected to intensify U.S. involvement in these conflicts, particularly in Syria and Libya. Her primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, is significantly to Clinton’s left in domestic politics but only moderately less hawkish in foreign affairs. Trump is a dangerous enigma, correctly identified by Clinton as “temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.”

U.S. arms for Vietnam

President Obama was warmly received by the Vietnamese Communist Party, the government and it seems by the people as well during his three-day visit starting May 22. A number of U.S. news articles marveled at the fact that Washington appeared to be totally excused for its brutal two-decade intervention to prevent the unification of temporarily divided North and South Vietnam. After all, some to 3.8 million Vietnamese people died from the American air and ground war, as did nearly two million in Cambodia and Laos combined due to U.S. led attacks on suspected North Vietnamese trails and hideouts in these neighboring countries. U.S. war deaths were 58,193 between 1955-1975.

Part of the reason Vietnam doesn’t hate the U.S. is that it won the long war against the world’s most powerful military state following Hanoi’s victory against French colonialism and the earlier Japanese invasion and occupation. Vietnam was exhausted and in economic difficulty after 30 years of continual conflict when the Americans finally fled South Vietnam in April 1975.

Another reason for cautiously partnering with the U.S. is the existence of China on Vietnam’s northern border. Chinese dynasties dominated Vietnam for over 900 years between 111 BCE and 1427 CE. Both Russia and China supported Vietnam in the fight against U.S. aggression but grave tensions and even the possibility of an armed conflict between the two giant nations was an additional worry for Hanoi, which needed their material support to pursue the war. On Dec. 25, 1978,Vietnam invaded and occupied adjacent Cambodia in order to drive out the ultra-left Khmer Rouge government after a number of border clashes between them. In February 1979, China — which had supported the Khmer Rouge — invaded northern Vietnam in a brief but bloody one-month war, with both sides claiming victory. Several short skirmishes took place until 1989 when Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia. Since then relations between the two neighboring countries with governments that seem to share the same socialist ideology have been peaceful but distant.

During his stay in Vietnam, Obama was publicly critical of what he considered Vietnam’s human rights shortcomings, as though killing five million people in Indochina, millions in the contemporary Middle East, and uncritically supporting dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia gave Washington the international standing to wag its finger in Hanoi’s face.

But Obama’s criticisms of the country were primarily for show, paving the way for him to announce the ending of he 41-year ban on lethal arms sales to Vietnam. In Hanoi, Obama told a press conference that “we already have U.S. vessels that have come here to port [at Cam Ranh Bay and] we expect that there will be deepening cooperation between our militaries.”

According to The Diplomat May 31: “Uncorroborated Vietnamese sources in Hanoi [state that] prior to Obama’s visit, U.S. officials proposed to their hosts the possibility of raising their comprehensive partnership to a strategic partnership [an important upgrading]. Vietnamese officials reportedly got cold feet at the last minute and politely left this proposal for future consideration. At the same time, although U.S. officials, including the president, described bilateral relations as entering a new phase, no new adjective was placed in front of comprehensive partnership in the official joint statement issued by the two presidents to indicate that relations had advanced significantly since 2013.”

China’s Global Times, a party daily tabloid that tends to speak directly, argued May 26 in reference to the U.S. decision to sell arms to Vietnam: “This is a new move by the U.S. to advance its rebalance to the Asia-Pacific strategy, displaying Washington’s desire to reinforce military cooperation with China’s neighboring countries…. Now, Washington is ironically trying to manipulate Vietnam’s nationalism to counter China. U.S. Senator John McCain, a prisoner in the Vietnam War and now Chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, plays a key role in rescinding the ban on the sale of lethal arms to Vietnam, believing it will rope in Hanoi to counter China’s rise.”

In the same issue of Global Times, Nguyen Vu Tung, acting president of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam in Hanoi, wrote an op-ed that expressed his “personal” views, stating: “In July 2013, Vietnam and the U.S. agreed to elevate their relationship to a ‘comprehensive partnership’ designed to further promote bilateral ties in all fields. 

It is noteworthy that the enhancement of Vietnam-U.S. relations ran parallel with Vietnam’s forging its relations with China, a big neighbor that is of increasing importance to Vietnam’s peace, stability and prosperity….  Vietnam-U.S. relations are not developing at the expense of the links between Vietnam and China. Instead of choosing sides, Hanoi tries its best to promote relations with both China and the U.S. and sees its relations with them in positive-sum terms…..

The independent posture of Vietnam’s foreign policy applies especially to Vietnam’s defense policy where Vietnam strictly follows a ‘three-no principle.’  Vietnam will not enter any military pact and become a military ally of any country, will not allow any country to set up a military base on its soil, and will not rely on any country to oppose any other country. Recently, Hanoi has been under some domestic pressure to review this principle. Yet, adhering to it is still the policy mainstream.

With the arms sales Vietnam is now considered an allied member of the informal U.S. coterie of East Asian and Southeast Asian nations, six of which are contending with China’s claims to most of the South China Sea, with Washington’s backing. Beijing says it is willing to negotiate with the six on a one to one basis but the U.S insists on multilateral talks. In addition to Vietnam the countries involved in the claims include Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Japan.

China’s claim is based on two points: 1. Implicitly, its long history — about 4,000 years, nearly all of it under Chinese dynastic imperial rule until 104 years ago. 2. Explicitly, the 1947 “nine dash line” map produced by the Chinese Nationalist government in 1947, two years before the success of the Chinese communist revolution replaced the semi-capitalist/semi-feudal Nationalist enterprise called the Republic of China with the People’s Republic of China. The Nationalist government, army and many civilians fled to Taiwan, an offshore province of China that still maintains that the nine dash line is absolutely legitimate, as does the PRC. The U.S. — which supported the Nationalists to the extent of keeping Taiwan in China’s permanent Security Council seat until 1971 — did not question China’s claims until fairly recent years. U.S. support for the six claimants is an important political part of the containment of China by increasing the number of regional allies and dependencies that will support Washington’s political goals.

There are military and commercial aspects of the rebalance to Asia in addition to using allies to strengthen opposition to China.

The U.S. has militarily dominated the East Asia region since the end of World War II in 1945 but it has been significantly increasing its military might since launching the pivot to Asia. More Army and Air force units have been ordered to existing bases in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Guam, and other nearby locations, as well as a new base in Australia. Up to 90,000 U.S. military personnel are in the vicinity. Navy aircraft carriers, other warships and submarines have been shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. An aircraft carrier battle group is patrolling the East China Sea. Some U.S. ships navigate extremely close to small Chinese islets that are being upgraded — a practice that could inadvertently spark an armed confrontation.

The principle commercial element of the effort to contain China is the corporation-dominated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — Washington’s neoliberal free-trade proposal for 12 Pacific Rim countries that is intended to enlarge U.S. economic influence in the region at the expense of China, which has not been invited to join. The 12 signatories to the TPP agreement in 2010 included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States and Vietnam.

Ratification of the trade pact the may not happen, not least because recent political developments in the U.S. may bury this major Bush-Obama initiative. Hillary Clinton, once a strong advocate as secretary of state, turned against the TPP during the Democratic primary in order to opportunistically convey the impression she was as radical as Sanders in order to attract his constituency. She also wanted to retain the support of the AFL-CIO, which strongly opposes the pact. Trump rejects the TPP because many working class supporters believe that such trade deals take away American jobs, which they do. Some commentators suggest Obama may be able to get it passed after the elections and before the new president assumes office, but it’s a long shot.

Vietnam supports the TTP because its economy stands to gain from increased trade. It is of interest that China is Vietnam’s biggest trading partner and will remain so, as is true of most regional nations aligning with the U.S. superpower. Beijing’s rise over the last 20 years has benefitted all these states, not to mention the transfer of reasonably priced reliable goods throughout area.

U.S. President visits Hiroshima

Obama arrived in Japan May 25 to attend a Group of Seven meeting and to further strengthen Japan’s commitment to help in the effort to surround China, but the international media focused entirely on the first American presidential visit to Hiroshima in the 71 years since the United States obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons.

He didn’t apologize to Japan because that would be unpopular with many Americans and also with Korea and China, countries that suffered woefully from the vicious and racist Japanese invasion and occupation. They believe Japan hasn’t sufficiently atoned for its numerous wartime atrocities.

Instead Obama delivered a quite moving speech: “We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in the not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are….”

His address was hypocritical, particularly when he declared: “We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil. So nations and the alliances that we formed must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them. We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics. And yet, that is not enough, for we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mindset about war itself.”

In reality Obama is not only slower than his three predecessors in reducing nuclear weapons but he has initiated a trillion dollar effort to upgrade America’s entire nuclear arsenal and delivery systems.

In his Asahi Shimbun interview Obama also said: “I believe that we’ve substantially enhanced America’s credibility in the Asia Pacific, which is rooted in our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies. We continue to modernize our defense posture in the region, including positioning more of our most advanced military capabilities in Japan. As I’ve said before, our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute. With our new defense guidelines, American and Japanese forces will become more flexible and better prepared to cooperate on a range of challenges, from maritime security to disaster response, and our forces will be able to plan, train and operate even more closely. I’m very grateful for Prime Minister Abe’s strong support of our alliance.”

Abe is a hawk about China. “No one country is more enthusiastic than Japan to advocate containing China,” according to a May 19 commentary by Zhang Zhixin, the head of American Political Studies at China’s Institute of American Studies. He continued:

The strategic competition between the [U.S. and China] is becoming more apparent. In economic and trade areas, the EU and U.S. denied granting market economy status to China. In the South China Sea, where China is trying to secure its maritime sovereignty and rights, the U.S. believes China is challenging its regional hegemony and military dominance in the area. As deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said, the U.S. is intensely focused on China’s ‘assertive and provocative behavior.’ Therefore, the U.S. Navy is pushing for a more aggressive policy of patrolling close to Chinese-fortified islands and caused more dangerous encounters between the U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and Chinese jet planes.

What makes the situation more complicated is that Japan, as an outsider in the South China Sea issue, is trying to insert itself into the conflict. At the end of last year, the Japanese Foreign Minister talked about the possibility of joint patrol with the U.S. Navy in the [South China Sea] area. This year, Japan is becoming increasingly aggressive in charging that China’s a threat in the Asia Pacific region. It is understandable for the Prime Minister Abe to do so to the domestic audience to sell his proposal of revising the pacifist Constitution, but when he was selling his viewpoint to the EU countries, that’s too much. Japan is allied with the U.S., but the latter never restrained Japan’s anti-China rhetoric. Furthermore, Japan actively sold advanced weapons to countries around the South China Sea, participated in more multilateral military exercises, and conducted more port calls in the area, which just made the regional situation more tense.

Another area of sharp Chinese-Japanese contention is in the East China Sea. Both countries claim rocky, uninhabited protuberances known as Senkaku by Tokyo and Diaoyu by Beijing. China scrambled jets to meet Japanese military aircraft in disputed airspace May 21. Japanese officials said it was the closest Chinese jets had flown to their planes. It came as China was holding air-sea naval exercises with Russia in the region. Tokyo officially protested to Chinese ambassador Cheng Yonghua June 9 about a “Chinese and three Russian warships” that entered what Japan called the “contiguous zones” near the disputed Islands. The Chinese Defense ministry responded June 9 calling the navigation legal and reasonable, insisting “China’s naval ships have every right to navigate in waters under its jurisdiction.” The reply came a day a before the beginning of a large-scale eight-day joint military drill in the western Pacific involving the U.S., Japan and India.

According to Stratfor in a June 10 analysis: “Japan under Abe has upset Beijing by broadening the geographic and functional scope of the operations of the Japan Self-Defense Forces, which Japan’s postwar pacifism long limited. Perceptions of Chinese expansionism have prompted Japan to prioritize responding in the South China Sea. In 2015, Japan announced the start of talks with the Philippines on a Visiting Forces Agreement that would permit Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force personnel to rotate through Philippine bases. Later that year, Japan secured an agreement with Vietnam to allow Japanese warships to make port calls at Cam Ranh Bay, which they did in April of this year. Even more ambitiously, Japan has responded that it might be amenable to U.S. calls for regional powers to join freedom of navigation operations in waters far beyond the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s traditional domain in Japan’s near seas. Though these steps are incremental, they represent slow and steady progress toward a clear endpoint most unwelcome in Beijing — the routine presence of Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force operations in the South China Sea.”

The 42^nd G7 summit meeting in Japan May 26–27 accomplished little. It was “an opportunity lost” according to Montreal Star columnist Thomas Walkom, who wrote June 1: The leaders of seven important countries had a chance to do something that would rekindle the sputtering global economy. Some, including Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Canada’s Justin Trudeau urged their fellow leaders to foreswear austerity and, among other growth-inducing measures, spend money to stimulate the world economy.

They failed. Italy’s Matteo Renzi was on side with Canada and Japan, as were France’s François Hollande and U.S. President Barack Obama. But Germany’s Angela Merkel and Britain’s David Cameron insisted that debt and deficit control were more important than fiscal stimulus. The final communiqué from the session said essentially that each nation would continue to do what it thought best. So what do we make of the G7? In some ways, its time has passed. It no longer represents the world’s major economies. China is conspicuously absent. Russia, briefly a member of what was then called the G8, was summarily expelled in 2014 for annexing Crimea.

The importance of India

As soon as President Obama returned home he put aside time to work out plans for ensnaring rising India more deeply into Washington’s informal anti-China coalition. He met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the White House June 7. This was their seventh meeting in the two years since the Indian leader was elected in May 2014, which must be some kind of record. Modi addressed Congress the next day and his speech was received with great applause. Earlier Indian governments, while friendly to the U.S. were closer to Russia (and the USSR in earlier days) and nonaligned countries than to America.  Modi is campaigning for a much closer relationship with Washington, which is exactly what the Obama administration wants.

The Economist noted June 11: “China worries about signs that Western countries are cozying up to its giant neighbor. It fears that Modi will exploit better ties with America as a source of advantage. For years the Pentagon has pursued India as part of an effort to counterbalance growing Chinese strength, but only in recent months have Indian military officials begun to show eagerness for co-operation. This month the two countries will hold their annual naval exercises not in Indian waters, but in the Sea of Japan, with the Japanese navy, near islands claimed by both Japan and China. In a wide-ranging speech before a joint session of Congress on June 8 Modi said that America was India’s “indispensable partner.” An outright military alliance between India and America remains unlikely, but even the remote prospect of one will concentrate Chinese minds.

In her pivot to Asia article referred to earlier, Clinton foresaw intense U.S. involvement in the region “stretching from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas…. Among key emerging powers with which we will work closely are India and Indonesia, two of the most dynamic and significant democratic powers of Asia, and both countries with which the Obama administration has pursued broader, deeper, and more purposeful relationships.” India and Indonesia are second and fourth ranking countries in population. (China is first, U.S. third.)

According to the Center for International Studies “Washington has made it clear that Jakarta is central to the U.S. rebalance, toward the Asia Pacific, both in its own right and as a leader in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN.)” It is also the largest Muslim country by far.

India, however, is the big prize. As a result of U.S.-Indian talks after the Modi government took power India has been designated a “Major Defense Partner” by Washington, although it is not entirely understood what this unusual title obligates India to do. For its part the U.S. is supplying India with technology, loans, equipment, and other means of enhancing India’s economy and military.

Commenting on the Obama-Modi meeting June 7 the Associated Press reported “The two governments said they had finalized the text of a defense logistics agreement to make it easier for their militaries to operate together. The U.S. and India share concern about the rise of China, although New Delhi steers clear of a formal alliance with Washington.

In an article published by the Cato Institute April 29 and titled Persistent Suitor: Washington Wants India as an Ally to Contain China, Ted Galen Carpenter wrote:

A growing number of policymakers and pundits see India not only as an increasingly important economic and military player generally, but as a crucial potential strategic counterweight to a rising China…. Strategic ties have gradually and substantially deepened. President Barack Obama has characterized the relationship between the United States and India as ‘a defining partnership of the 21st century,’ and Indian Prime Minister Modi has termed it ‘a natural alliance.’” Perhaps more significant, India has contracted to receive some $14 billion in supposedly defensive military items from the United States in less than a decade. Washington has now edged out Moscow as India’s principal arms supplier.

Bilateral strategic ties received an additional boost in mid-April 2016 with the visit of U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to Delhi. That trip generated considerable uneasiness in China, where opinion leaders noted not only was it Carter’s second trip to India during his relatively brief tenure as Pentagon chief, but that he cancelled a previously scheduled trip to Beijing so that he could make this latest journey. That move, they feared, suggested a rather unsubtle tilt against China in favor of one of its potential regional geostrategic competitors. The agreement that came from Carter’s visit would do nothing to reassure the Chinese….

Moreover, India maintains an important economic relationship of its own with China.  Indeed, according to most calculations, China has now emerged as India’s largest trading partner. Trade between the two Asian giants topped $80 billion in 2015. In addition to the economic stakes, there are bilateral security issues, primarily unresolved border disputes, as well as security issues throughout Central Asia of concern to Delhi that could be exacerbated if relations with Beijing deteriorated. Shrewd Indian policymakers may well conclude that the best position for their country is one of prudent neutrality (perhaps with a slight pro-American tilt) in the growing tensions between the United States and China.

U.S.-China Relations

The contradiction between Washington’s words and deeds is no better exemplified than in its relations with China. U.S. rhetoric rarely includes threats, except occasionally regarding the South China Sea. Most though not all its multitude of discussions with Chinese leaders are soft spoken and civil. From time to time the U.S. speaks of China as a “partner.” Never stated openly is the fact that Washington will continue pressuring Beijing until it learns how to behave in a fashion acceptable to the world’s only military and economic superpower. Part of that pressure consists of continual exaggerations of China’s military power, which is far behind that U.S.

The Beijing government never threatens the U.S. It is well aware of the meaning behind Washington’s friendly words because it is surrounded by U.S. military power and Washington’s obedient allies in the region, by exclusionary trade deals, the rejection of its claims in the South China Sea and innumerable efforts by the White House to undermine China in all the political and economic associations and coalitions in the East Asia region.

Beijing rarely mentions this publicly and works to develop a cooperative “win-win” relationship with Washington. China clearly recognizes the U.S. as the world’s great power and occasionally appears slightly deferential.

The following June 6 report from Xinhua news agency about the annual China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue held in Beijing that day is typical example of the Chinese approach:

President Xi Jinping urged China and the United States to properly manage differences and sensitive issues and deepen strategic mutual trust and cooperation at a high-level bilateral dialogue. The differences between China and the United States are normal, Xi said.

As long as the two sides tackle differences and sensitive issues in the principle of mutual respect and equality, major disturbances in bilateral relations can be avoided, Xi said, adding that China and the United States should strengthen communication and cooperation on Asia-Pacific affairs.

The broad Pacific Ocean, Xi said, ‘should not become an arena for rivalry, but a big platform for inclusive cooperation. China and the United States have extensive common interests in the region and should maintain frequent dialogues, cooperate more, tackle challenges, jointly maintain prosperity and stability in the region, and “cultivate common circles of friends’ rather than ‘cultivate exclusive circles of friends.’

The Chinese president also called on the two sides to expand mutually beneficial cooperation, uphold the win-win principle, and raise the level of bilateral cooperation…. [He] stressed that China will unswervingly pursue the path of peaceful development and promote the building of a new model of international relations with win-win cooperation at its core.

At the same time, as we have written at length [1], China openly rejects in principle the existence of a unilateral global hegemon — a position the U.S. has occupied for the last quarter century since the implosion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Beijing advocates a form of shared global leadership. Washington is convinced that it deserves the right to in effect rule the world and has no intention of dismantling its shadow empire. This is the principal contradiction between the U.S. and China.

Beijing is doing what it can to avoid a major clash with the United States, short of appearing to kowtow to Washington. The U.S. does not want a clash as well.  Both sides fear the possibility of war and each is aware that one may eventually take place. That is certainly one of the reasons the Obama administration has launched its decades-long program costing a trillion dollars to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal.

China, for all its progress since the 1980s, is still a developing country and behind the U.S. in many ways, but is destined to become a major power in a few decades at most. The U.S. cannot but accept China’s inevitable growth. At issue is whether Beijing will eventually subordinate itself to the U.S. as have other powers, such as Germany, UK, France and Japan, have done, or in any other acceptable fashion.

There are current and historical reasons why China will not do so. At this point the U.S. is drawing upon all its resources to contain and surround the growing giant. This can only lead to big trouble in time, for both countries and the world.

Unfortunately, both U.S. neoliberal capitalist political parties are absolutely dedicated to world domination and ultimately to the use of terrible violence to defend American “leadership.” Unless this changes substantially imperialism eventually will lead to global calamity. This is a matter that goes far beyond the Hillary, Donald, and Bernie political preoccupation of the moment. None of them would substantially transform the existing foreign/military policy. Only a genuinely left wing mass movement in the U.S. has a chance of changing direction.

Note

[1] For article “The Hegemony Games — USA v. PRC,” click on 5-31-15 Newsletter Hegemony Games

Russia says Turkey’s military advisers are commanding Daesh terrorists operating around Syria’s northwestern city of Aleppo, which has been the scene of fierce fighting over the past few weeks.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters on Friday that up to 2,000 militants are taking part in the Aleppo battle based on mass media reports.

“Journalists say Turkey’s military advisers are commanding them,” she said.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova

An intensive traffic of trucks accompanied with armed guards was spotted in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib while “carrying weapons and ammunition” from Turkey, Zakharova added.

“This looks like another stab in the back of the Syrian army,” she stated.

Zakharova further said al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front terrorists have launched another offensive against Syrian army positions to the north and south of Aleppo in a bid to surround the area.

She said the situation in Syria remains tense, with “provocations” continuing in breach of a ceasefire regime in the Arab country.

The nationwide cessation of hostilities, brokered by Moscow and Washington, was introduced in February, but renewed violence, particularly around Aleppo, has left the truce in tatters.

Meanwhile, a Russian ceasefire monitoring center in Syria said that constant attacks on government-controlled regions indicate that militants have abundant ammunition.

“The frequent attacks and mortar shelling show that terrorists have no shortage of ammunition and have a possibility to supply them with arms and ammunition,” said a representative of the center.

Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for stopping the flow of terrorists and weapons to Syria via Turkey.

Turkey is said to be among the main supporters of the militant groups active in Syria, with reports saying that Ankara actively trains and arms the Takfiri elements there and facilitates their safe passage into the violence-wracked state.

Syria has been the scene of a foreign-backed crisis since March 2011. According to a February report by the Syrian Center for Policy Research, the conflict has claimed the lives of over 470,000 people in total since March 2011.

The United Nations has stopped counting the death toll in Syria, citing widespread violence across the country as well as complexities in checking the credibility of the statistics provided by the government and other sources.

Rational Voters and Irrational Experts

Large swaths of the US electorate are voting for rational choices against a system controlled by an economic and political oligarchy.

Rational choice is based on their experience with political leaders who have pursued policies leading to a trillion dollar financial crisis and bank bailouts while impoverishing millions of mortgage holders and working families – the US tax payers.

Their rejection of the established leadership of both major parties is rational.  It reflects  an understanding that campaign promises are worthless.

They want rational commitments to address growing inequality and end the series of overseas wars which have weakened America.  They identify with the slogan to ‘make America strong again’, emphasizing a dramatic transformation of the domestic economy and security system.

An army of political pundits have ignored the rational socio-economic and political choices exercised by the American electorate and repeatedly turn to psycho-babble, pontificating that contemporary voters are really reacting out of ‘anger’ and ‘irrational emotionalism’ or even ‘racism’ in their preference for non-establishment political figures like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  The experts deny the objective bases for popular voter choice.

Sanders and Trump:  Appeals to the New Rationality?

The woeful and wilful blindness of political experts is a product of their own arrogance and hostility to the emergence of two Presidential candidates: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who challenge the established party and economic leadership.

The Sanders campaign has proceeded along the lines of a political polarization between big business and the working class; demanding higher taxes for the wealthy and greater social spending for public health and education for the working class.

Sanders has sought to unify racial and ethnic minorities and majoritarian workers with progressive gender, religious and environmental movements.

The Trump campaign, on the other hand, has sought to mobilize the white American majority among workers, small businesspeople and professionals, who have seen their living standards decline over the decades and have been marginalized by globalization and the ‘politics of identity’.

Sanders emphasizes a refurbished class identity.  Trump promotes new nationalist symbols.  Yet in many ways the establishment opposition, the parties, mass media and the economic elite, are far more hostile to Trump’s ‘nationalist politics’ than Sanders’ democratic socialist program and class appeal, which they view as weak and easily manipulated – like the huge anti-war movement was manipulated during the Bush and Obama Administrations.

Sanders apparent willingness to come to terms with the Democratic Party elite and back Clinton’s candidacy when he loses the nomination is far more acceptable to the establishment than Trump.  As in all previous presidential campaigns, the Democratic Party will allow progressive candidates to propose advanced socio-economic campaign platforms in order to secure working class and middle class votes, and drop the progressive façade in favor of  corporate-warmonger policies once in office.

Trump’s initial nationalist-anti-globalist rhetoric has aroused greater animosity from business, liberal and militarist elites than Sanders occasional critical comments.

Trump’s nationalism was rooted in popular and reactionary sentiments.  On the one hand he would speak of relocatingmulti-national corporations back to the US.  On the other hand, he would demand the expulsion of over ten million Mexican immigrants from the US labor market.

His anti-globalization-business relocation strategy is vague and lacks several essential ingredients:  He did not specify which multi-nationals would be affected and he did not describe what policies he would implement to force the trillion-dollar corporate return.

In contrast, Trump was brutally clear about which immigrants would be expelled and his methods of expulsion and exclusion leave no ambiguities.  ‘Build the Wall!’, has become his rallying cry to keep out migrant workers from the southern border.

Trump’s Electoral Victory and Neoliberal Right Turn 

Trump’s unorthodox, controversial and successful campaign to secure the nomination for the Republican Party’s candidate for president has led him to appeal to the big donors for campaign funding and endorsements from Republican neo-liberal establishment leaders like Congressional Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.  This quest for ‘respectability’ has caused Trump to shed his anti- globalization rhetoric and economic nationalist politics, and focus on his more chauvinist ethno-racist appeals.

Trump’s current electoral strategy seeks to unify the hard neo-liberal political elite with the ‘patriotic’ white working class.

Trump’s ideological road to the Presidency is no longer paved with economic-nationalist attacks on globalization.   Instead he relies on arousing public support by stigmatizing minorities as ‘anti-American’ and targeting Clinton’s personal ‘corruption’ and lies, rather than her domestic and foreign policies.

Trumps’ “Make America Strong” rhetoric ties in neatly with President Obama’s tariff wars against China’s steel exports to US markets.

Trump’s “Make America Strong” proposals mirror Obama’s systematic assault on the World Trade Organization’s role in negotiating trade agreement and the recent imposition of Washington’s dictates of the WTO’s settlement process.

Obama blocked the reappointment of an objectionable (read independent) South Korean lawyer who opposed Washington’s blatant violation of WTO rules.  Trump would endorse Obama’s promotion of US business lobbies against the WTO.

Trump also echoes Obama’s policy of favoring globalization only insofar as Washington maintains control of the key international institutions controlling the global economy.  Trump would continue Washington’s policy of packing global institutions with its vassals.

Trump in the Footstep of Sanders

Trump’s embrace of the neo-liberal business elite mirrors Sanders submission to the Democratic Party bosses.  Trump seems to believe that his mass base of supporters will be fooled by his increasing provocations against immigrants accusing them of stealing jobs while spreading crimes and drugs…and not notice his new embrace of the establishment economic elites.

Trump’s mass meetings are composed almost exclusively of white working and middle class voters – especially in parts of California and the Southwest with huge Hispanic and immigrant populations.  These are clearly designed to provoke violent protests.

Trump gains nationalist support by circulating videos of NBC, CNN and ABC reports depicting his peaceful white supporters being ‘terrorized and beaten up by mobs of (Mexican-American) protestors waving Mexican flags and sporting gang insignia.’

Trump calls on his American supporters to ‘stand strong’ against demonstrators who grab and burn the Stars and Stripesand stomp on his “Make America Great” campaign hats.

Conclusion

Trump’s turn to the neo-liberal Republican elite means he will intensify his repressive and anti-immigrant rhetoric.  Trump’s appeal will be aided by mindless violent protestors and provocateurs as they conveniently “overwhelm the police” at anti-Trump rallies.  He effectively promotes in the “propaganda of the deed”: linking disloyal immigrants who wave the Mexican and not the US flag.

The recent realignment of the Republican Party will bring Trump into the arms of the hardline neo-liberal Congressional-Wall Street elite.  This shift means Trump’s ideological and mass base will focus on ‘domestic enemies’ – Mexicans, Muslims, women and ecologists rather than the economic elite and the devastating foreign policies of previous administrations.

Trump expects a wholesale incorporation of the Sanders support machine into the Clinton campaign.  In this scenario, marginalized White workers and downwardly mobile middle class voters will confront the real face of Wall Street’s darling warmonger Mme. Clinton and be less likely to reject Trump’s opportunism with the rightwing Congressional business alliance.

Any working class opposition to his embrace of the neo-liberal Congressional Republicans will be deflected by revelations of Clinton’s big business dealings and covert operations with foreign leaders.  If pursued by the FBI, Clinton’s blatant violation of federal security regulations, her ‘private’ and illegal system of communication and liaison with foreign officials while Secretary of State could blow up her campaign and hand the presidency to Donald Trump.

Trump has gained working class voter support in West Virginia, Ohio and many other rust-belt states because of Clinton’s free trade and anti-working class history, which has shattered any residual illusions about the Democratic Party.

Trump’s electoral victory will hinge on his capacity to mask his turn to the neo-liberal elite and to focus voter attention on Clinton’s militarist, pro-Wall Street politics, her corrupt conspiratorial behavior and her anti-working class policies.

The Orlando shooting which left 50 dead and 53 injured is an American tragedy of momentous proportions. America with its gun culture and the dominant, vociferous and influential gun rights advocates, Orlando was a tragedy waiting to happen. Let’s mourn the victims. More than that let’s take it as a moment to make sure that no such tragedy happens in the future.

Is that what’s happening right now? I doubt. The CNN headline screams “Orlando shooting: 50 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance”. Within hours of the tragedy President Obama addresses the nation and says “We know enough to say this was an act of terror and act of hate”.

Let’s take Obama’s statement first. How does he know, that too within hours of the shooting, with the alleged shooter shot dead by the police “enough to say this was an act of terror”? Well, the public doesn’t know ‘enough’ to know that it was an act of terror. How did the police gather ‘enough’ information within hours and pass on to Obama to say that it was an act of terror? According to police sources, as reported by the media, the alleged shooter is Omar Mateen a 29-years-old of Afghan descent. Is that enough to say that it “was an act of terror”? Does Obama has more information on the alleged shooter that he doesn’t want to share with the public? Now that the alleged shooter is dead isn’t it in public interest that he shares that information with the world so that we should avoid any such tragedy in future?

Obama further said that there was no definitive judgment on the killer’s motives, including whether he was affiliated with any terrorist groups. “What is clear is he was filled with hatred”. Filled with hatred? How did Obama read the mind of a dead shooter? This speech of Obama is irresponsible and is deliberately fanning hatred. This is only going to raise further the tempo of Islamophobia in American society and elsewhere which Donald Trump raised to a crescendo in his campaign speeches.

Now coming back to the CNN headline “Orlando shooting: 50 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance”. All that one can say is that ‘how convenient’! It’s like so many similar ‘terror attack’ stories where the alleged ‘terrorist’, in 99.99% cases a Muslim, leaves his I.D in the spot for the investigative agencies just to pick up and prove the identity of a Islamist terror network behind the attack. In the Pulse Night Club Omar Mateen didn’t leave an I.D card, but called 911 to ‘pledge allegiance to ISIS’. It was a very kind of the shooter to have called 911 while he was busy shooting down people at random, holding at least 50 people hostage and being surrounded by hundreds of police men firing at him.

The same CNN report says,

Omar Mir Seddique Mateen was born in 1986 in New York. Most recently he lived in Fort Pierce, about 120 miles southeast of Orlando. Fearing explosives, police evacuated about 200 people from the apartment complex where he lived while they looked through his residence for evidence.

Mateen’s parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he’d expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami, but they didn’t consider him particularly religious and didn’t know of any connection he had to ISIS.

He was married in 2009 to a woman originally from Uzbekistan, according to the marriage license, but he filed documents to end the marriage in 2011.

Sitora Yusufiy, interviewed by CNN in Boulder, Colorado, said she and Mateen were together about four months, though it took a long time to complete the divorce because they lived in different parts of the country after separating.

Mateen was a normal husband at the beginning of their marriage but started abusing her after a few months, she said. She said Mateen was bipolar, although he was not formally diagnosed. She also said Mateen had a history with steroids. He was religious but she said she doesn’t think his religion played in to the attack.

The same CNN report further says,

At a Sunday afternoon news briefing, FBI Assistant Special Agent Ronald Hopper said the agency was aware of Mateen. The FBI interviewed him in 2013 and 2014 after he expressed sympathy for a suicide bomber, Hopper said.

“Those interviews turned out to be inconclusive, so there was nothing to keep the investigation going,” Hopper said.

Well, the NSA which keeps a tab on our every fart, as revealed by Edward Snowden, couldn’t keep track on a potential ‘terrorist’! Does it sound credible?

To conclude, it’s the responsibility of President Obama and FBI to make their story credible and not put a whole community under suspicion.

Binu Mathew is the editor of www.countercurrents.org and can be reached at [email protected]

IOI – one of the largest palm oil companies in the world – is having a difficult time right now.

Not only has it recently lost its sustainability certification, but as a result its customers are leaving in droves. And with good reason: a new report from Greenpeace International shows how IOI’s operations have led to the destruction of forests and peatlands in Borneo, despite repeated promises to protect these areas.

Since the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) withdrew IOI’s sustainability certification in March, its share price has tanked and its credit rating has been placed under review. Most damning of all, every one of the major brands featured in our recent palm oil scorecard that was buying palm oil from IOI is in the process of cancelling their contracts.

The most recent of these is General Mills which, after receiving tens of thousands of emails from Greenpeace supporters, announced last week it will be phasing out its purchases from IOI. General Mills also stated that it won’t consider renewing its custom until the palm oil giant demonstrates real progress in protecting and restoring the areas it has damaged.

A Greenpeace investigator documents the devastation of a company-identified ‘No Go’ area of peatland in the PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera (IOI) oil palm concession in Ketapang, West Kalimantan. This area of the concession suffered extensive fires in 2015.

This aspect is key because IOI has made many commitments to good environmental management but has failed to carry them out on the ground.

The new report lists a string of broken promises, most notably a commitment in January 2014 to refrain from draining all areas of peat on its land. But there is clear evidence that since then canals have been dug to drain peat in PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera (PT BSS), one of IOI’s concessions in West Kalimantan, part of Indonesian Borneo. Dry peat is extremely flammable, and it’s no surprise that large parts of this concession went up in smoke in both 2014 and 2015.

Drone footage documents a primary drainage canal cutting through an identified ‘No Go’ area of buffer forest in the PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera (IOI) oil palm concession in Ketapang, West Kalimantan.

The impacts of this drainage extend far beyond the boundaries of the PT BSS concession. Surrounding areas also drain and dry out, making them more vulnerable to fire and subsidence as the peat collapses in upon itself. Yet IOI fails to recognise the damage being inflicted on the whole landscape.

IOI has also ignored efforts by the Indonesian government to prevent a repeat of last year’s devastating fires, including ministerial instructions to block drainage canals and refrain from planting oil palms in burnt areas. Field investigations in April revealed that in PT BSS, canals still flow freely and the green fronds of newly-planted palms wave above the scorched earth.

An oil palm sapling brushes against the charred remains of a tree in the PT Bumi Sawit Sejahtera (IOI) oil palm concession. 

IOI is clearly concerned about loss of its RSPO certification and the customers it’s losing hemorrhaging as a result. It has even resorted to legal threats, launching a case against the RSPO itself, despite being a founding member with a seat on the board.

Earlier this week, it dropped the case raising the distinct possibility that it hopes to use today’s RSPO European Roundtable in Milan as an opportunity to lobby for its suspension to be lifted so it can woo back its customers.

IOI has produced a new action plan which it claims addresses the RSPO complaints. Yet it’s little different from existing policies and plans. It’s lacking on many levels, including: weak proposals for mapping peat and forest areas; no measurable goals or timelines; no plans for ending peat drainage and restoring drained areas; and no plans to publish maps of all its concessions.

Young Orangutan hanging on a liana at Nyaru Menteng Orangutan reintroduction project near Palanga Raya, Central Kalimantan.

Many of the customers IOI has lost are also insisting that if it wants their business again, IOI has to go beyond the comparatively weak standards of the RSPO. Given its track record, many are deeply suspicious of any new commitments or policies produced by IOI, so it needs to demonstrate it can put words into practice and make changes on the ground – blocking canals, restoring drained peatlands, and producing public maps of the forests and peatlands in its concessions.

Until that happens, the RSPO should keep IOI’s suspension in place and buyers should definitely beware of any claims IOI makes about its commitments to protect Indonesia’s forests.

Annisa Rahmawati is a Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace Indonesia.

On June 12, the ISIS terrorist group launched a major assault on the government-controlled Badr Base at the southeastern countryside of Syria’s Dumayr city. Dumayr is a city located 40 kilometers north-east of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The Syrian Arab Air Force Al-Dumayr Military Airport is located there. By the end of the day, Syrian Arab Army units repelled an ISIS advance and, following a series of intense firefights, ISIS militants had been forces to retreat. 11 terrorists were killed as result of the clashes.

Near the ancient city of Palmyra, pro-government forces have liberated the seized of Arak and the T-3 Military Airport, opening a way on the village of Al-Sukhanah, located along the highway to the Deir Ezzor province.

In the province of Raqqa, the SAA, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, have gained more ground, advancing on the strategic Rusafeh crossroads. On June 12, the main loyalist forces were in 6 km from the strategic area while their forward detachments entered it. Separately, there were controversial reports that the government forces were deployed in only 5 km from the strategic Tabaqa Military Airport. Nonetheless, it hasn’t been confirmed.

On June 10, the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), supported by the US-led coalition air power, encircled the ISIS-controlled city of Manbij in Syria’s Aleppo province. The SDF also killed the ISIS governor of Manbij, Osama al-Tounsi. His convoy was exiting the western gate of the city, heading towards al-Bab, when it was targeted by SDF units.

On June 11 and 12, there were no reports yet about attempts to storm the Suni-populated city while an ISIS counter offensive was ongoing in the area of the al Bab-Manbij road. In turn, SDF units were attempting to keep the encirclement and advancing further in Northern Syria. The main direction of the SDF military efforts was the city of Al Bab.

Earlier in June, Christopher Garver, the official spokesman for the US-led coalition against ISIS promised that Kurdish forces won’t advance further in Northern Syria when Manbij is liberated. However, Manbij hasn’t been liberated and Kurds show an intention of advance to the North. And this is a big problem for the US amid the tensions over the “Kurdish issue” with Turkey.

1966 proved to be a turning point in the African American liberation struggle

On June 16, 1966, the recently-elected chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Stokely Carmichael, later known as Kwame Ture, was arrested and taken to jail in Greenwood, Mississippi for refusing to obey an order given by local police.

Law-enforcement officers had told marchers that they would not be able to erect tents at an elementary school where activists planned to stay overnight during the course of their journey from Memphis, Tennessee to the State Capitol in Jackson. During the early evening of Thursday, June 16, 1966, when the marchers arrived in Greenwood, and tried to set up a temporary camp at the segregated Stone Street Elementary School, Carmichael was arrested ostensibly for trespassing on public property. He was taken into custody for several hours and later rejoined the marchers at a local park, where they were able to establish a camp and hold an evening rally.

At this rally, Carmichael went to the podium and said “We been saying ‘freedom’ for six years. What we are going to start saying now is ‘Black Power.’”

Stokely Carmichael Calling for Black Power, June 16, 1966

The “March Against Fear” had been moving through the state from Memphis after the shooting of James Merideth, the first African American student to enter and graduate from the University of Mississippi at Oxford. On the second day of Merideth’s journey, he was approached and shot in the back of the head with a shotgun by James Aubrey Norvell, a white man.Merideth fell bleeding on Highway 51 and was latter rushed to a hospital in Memphis. Unable to continue the march he would remain hospitalized for another two weeks only returning to the demonstration as it neared Jackson.

Leaders of SNCC, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), headed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Floyd McKissick of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), pledged to continue the march at a press briefing the day after Merideth was wounded.From Freedom NOW to Black Power

Willie Ricks, a SNCC field organizer, had informed Carmichael that the masses in the Delta Mississippi region were ready for the new more militant slogan and program advancing self-defense, self-determination and opposition to the war in Vietnam. Carmichael had only recently been elected as Chairman of SNCC with a clear objective of moving the organization towards a more radical nationalist political position.

Ricks had been using the slogan as he traveled ahead of the March Against Fear building support for the protest and mobilizing SNCC supporters throughout the region. SNCC had worked in Mississippi since 1961. In 1964, the organization spearheaded the Mississippi Summer Project that brought hundreds of youth into the state to work on voter registration and the building of an independent Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP).

After the Selma to Montgomery March in early 1965, Carmichael on behalf of SNCC went to the majority African American Lowndes County, Alabama to initiate another independent party. By late 1965, in cooperation with local activists, the Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCFO) had been established utilizing the Black Panther as its symbol.Although Lowndes County was majority African American, almost no Blacks were allowed to register and vote. The Democratic Party of Alabama was a white supremacist organization even stating so on its emblem.

As a result of the national attention brought to Lowndes County, Carmichael along with his close comrades in SNCC was able to take control of the organization. The March Against Fear, which received broad media coverage on all of the major networks, catapulted Carmichael into the world spotlight.

Carmichael was initially resistant to raising the slogan but after the unjust arrest took the podium in Greenwood and said “We Want Black Power!” The enthusiastic response would usher in a new era in the African American liberation struggle impacting the political discourse for at least another decade.

Even prior to the March Against Fear, the work of SNCC and LCFO had prompted others to form Black Panther organizations in several regions of the country including Cleveland and Detroit where there had been rebellions in the Hough section and later on Kercheval Street on the eastside of the motor city. The August 1966 mini-rebellion in Detroit would be a precursor to the largest urban uprising nearly one year later beginning on 12^th street on July 23, 1967.

Many African American youth and their counterparts within the Latino, Native American, Puerto Rican, Asian and white communities would form similar organizations as SNCC and the Black Panther Party (BPP). University and high school students supported by their parents demanded reforms in educational curriculums as well as community control of the police. What is the Significance of Black Power Today?

Five decades later many of the gains made during the Civil Rights and Black Power movements have been reversed by the courts, the federal government and corporate community. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been eviscerated stripping the law of its enforcement provisions.

Cities in Michigan with majority African American populations were put under emergency management where large-scale theft of public resources, educational services and basic bourgeois democratic rights have been carried out with the tacit support of the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama.

African Americans and other oppressed groups are brutalized and killed by law-enforcement agents and vigilantes on a weekly basis. During 2015, anywhere between 900 and 1200 people had fatal encounters with the police. In most cases these crimes go unpunished where the judiciary, prosecutors, the U.S. Justice Department and the corporate media claim that there is insufficient evidence to try and convict the perpetrators.Jobless rates among African Americans still remains twice as high as whites. Poverty rates among the oppressed far exceed those of the broader majority white population.

U.S. foreign policy continues on its imperialistic path with wars of occupation and regime-change taking place throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America. The Pentagon budget is larger than all other states combined while the Obama administration is launching a renewed nuclear weapons program amid growing poverty and desolation inside the cities, suburbs and rural areas of the country.What Can Youth and Workers Learn From the Black Power Movement?Can any lessons be learned for the contemporary period in light of 2016 presidential elections amid a renewed struggle against racist violence, economic exploitation and poverty? Is there a direct relationship between the “Black Lives Matter” movement and the revolutionary upsurge of 50 years ago?

The lack of historical memory has been a major impediment in the present situation. Even though there was a president of African descent elected twice to the White House, fundamentally there has been no change in the power structure and economic relations of production within U.S. capitalist society.Consequently, a revolutionary movement encompassing various organizational expressions is necessary to address the current crisis. The limitations of spontaneous demonstrations and rebellions has been illustrated since 2013 when public sentiment against the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Grey, Sandra Bland and others sparked mass protests and unrest.

Nonetheless, obviously absent from the present political landscape are organizations such as SNCC and the BPP which places people on the ground in communities and on the campuses to mobilize and agitate for revolutionary change. This is the major challenge of this period and it can only be addressed by the newer generation drawing upon the best in the social traditions among the oppressed and the working clas

Universities have become bastions of managerial madness.  The trends began some time ago, when money became the ultimate pursuit, and Mr Dollar became chancellor and chief.  The obsession with obtaining grants, the panjandrums awarding grants, the siphoning off funds, underwriting projects, have all made the academy a sad state.  Since universities now obsess about having a “marketing unit”, the idea of making education a matter of commercial viability rather than educational worth has become all important.

There is another aspect to this development.  Gone are the days when academic exposure was confined, left to the irate letters to the editor section or the occasionally controversial scribble. The great academics of history also doubled up as intellectuals, revolutionaries and, as A. J. P. Taylor showed so well, teledons.They wore many hats in the pursuit of learning, refusing to be holed up as scholar squirrels. Now, the scholar squirrels are everywhere, and more vulnerable. University establishments watch with eagle attentiveness to see that appropriate behaviour in the public eye is observed.

In such an environment, opinions must be carefully expressed.  It is one thing to go through the coddling set of such a publication as The Conversation, where academics are managed by journalists through the minefield of implications an article might involve.  Suggestions of slander, sauciness and political inappropriateness are culled. Bland outcomes are preferable.

The use of social media to express opinions, a system of communication that has given verbiage a good name, bypasses such control. It keeps managers at arm’s length.  Technological universality is taken to assume that a personal view becomes a global one.  This stance is erroneous, but it is something that corporations or universities accept with religious conviction.  Content is suggestive; view points, dangerous.  There are no concessions to be made to private accounts, be they on Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. Tweet and be damned.Australia, having a constipated regime when it comes to freedom of expression, tends to be concerned with policing opinion of all shades.  If views are deemed racially suggestive, the Racial Discrimination Act intervenes to cut off and punish opinions that do not match the regulated order.  If the topic is considered by institutions to be unduly sympathetic to ultra-left, gendered ideals, or suggestive of the views of the right, it is permitted only in so far as market ideals are not jeopardised. This is the overall management dogma.

The Roz Ward case, which exploded across the Australian university sector in May, suggested the extent university managerialism will go to remove an academic for something as simple as a Facebook posting in a private capacity.  There was nothing suggestive in what was posted in by Ward, an irate comment, fuming at the Australian flag as “racist”.  (Are there any flags that are not?  Was she being punished for the obvious?)  “Now we just need to get rid of the racist Australian flag on top of state parliament and get a red one up there and my work is done.”

Ward’s jab could hardly have been a problem.  But Ward is known as being one of the architects of the Safe Schools Coalition, a program run in schools to combat bullying of LGBTI individuals.  With little surprise, it has been attacked by Christian groups and conservative politicians as unacceptably transforming.

In the alarmist words of a very noisy Australian Christian Lobby, such a program should not be funded as it promoted “radical sexual experimentation” by accepting people of diverse gender and sexuality.Not all the criticisms of the program were virulently insensible   ACL’s Queensland director Wendy Francis had a more than valid point that teachers, in accordance with the program’s aims, had to “work out ways to integrate gender diversity and sexual diversity across your curriculum” irrespective of subject.[1]  Some people do see sex and gender in everything, and Francis evidently did not.  But such views belong to the cut and thrust of academic argument.

As for Ward, fearing that such a figure might be, if not actually, affecting potential revenues, or the brand label, the La Trobe University establishment rounded up on her. We are not to know at this stage if her initial suspension was cover for naked vengeance, a form of assassination by means of censorship.The letter from the university sent to Ward claimed that she had been suspended from work for “engaging in misconduct”.  In all likelihood, it was the sense that Ward was attracting undue attention, and being harassed by such Murdoch outlets as The Australian for her Marxist and pro-LGBTI stance.  What followed was scandal, union action, and the eating of humble pie.  Ward was back before the cock had crowed.  Legal action against the university is being considered.

This police state reflex suggests stupidity as much as clumsiness. The institutional brain frays and frazzles in desperation before intense debate and discussion, confusing it with unwarranted controversy.  In the war of ideas, it is best not to flinch.  Unfortunately, such struggles are taken to be dangerous to the dull suits running the modern university.The modern university needs to be reformed.  Not least of all, a return to basic roots, the true radical sense that it be an educational, not a business institution. The corporates have the upper hand at the moment. The first step in making sure that management’s hand, with its cold grip, is lessened by letting academics, at least the good lot of them, speak out. Some of their ideas will be on the daft side, but the only market place permitted should be one stocked with the currency of ideas.

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

Note

[1] http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/acl-says-school-antibullying-program-encouraging-cross-dressing-20150728-gimhz4.html#ixzz49rTmIGDx

Credit downgrades, trade war and terrorist threats strain relations with Washington

A nationwide election for local offices in 278 municipalities across South Africa will take place on August 3.

South African officials recently announced the formation of an Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC) which is making preparations for the fourth of such elections since 1994 when the first non-racial vote was held on a national level bringing the African National Congress (ANC) to power.

The IMC is led by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister, Des van Rooyen, who is in charge of facilitating these tasks. The Committee is responsible for monitoring the efficient conducting of the elections and guaranteeing that all registered voters are able to fully participate in an atmosphere that is safe and impartial.

An Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is responsible for providing information on the terms of the ballot and to ensure that the necessary materials are printed and distributed to various centers across the country. Candidates running on behalf of political parties and as individuals will be contesting for seats in councilor bodies and mayoral offices.

Baloyi says of the South African government: “We are now left with less than two months to ensure that we have free and fair 2016 local government elections. Whilst we are awaiting an important Constitutional Court decision on the clarification of the challenges relating to citizens and households without formal addresses.” (South African Government Statement, June 10)

More than 200 different political parties and nearly one thousand independent candidates will appear on the ballots in the coming municipal elections according to the (IEC). The IEC has already announced that the number of participants in the August poll represents an increase of 69 percent in comparison to the last of such elections in 2011.

A report from the Rand Daily Mail said “South Africa has seen a relatively steady growth in the number of political parties contesting municipal elections since 2000. In that year‚ there were a total of 79 political parties which contested the various municipalities. Six years later that number grew 23% to 97 — and it grew a further 25% between 2006 and 2011.” (June 8)

This same report continues noting “The 2016 Municipal Elections will see a record number of political parties contesting the eight metropolitan municipalities‚ 205 local municipalities and 44 district councils. A total of 204 political parties submitted candidate lists by last week’s deadline — almost 69% more than the 122 which contested in 2011. The Western Cape will have the highest number of parties contesting (77) followed by Limpopo (56)‚ Gauteng (45) and the Eastern Cape (43). The smallest number of parties will contest in the Northern Cape (18).”

ANC Campaign Escalates

The ruling African National Congress (ANC) is facing challenges from the largest opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), and the smaller Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

On June 4 the ruling party held a rally at the FNB Stadium in Soweto to launch its manifesto for the upcoming elections mobilizing tens of thousands of supporters.

ANC Women’s League is calling upon the party to run at least 50 percent women candidates on August 3. A list of mayoral candidates will be released by June 17. (Eyewitness News, June 13)

Gauteng provincial African National Congress (ANC) Chairperson Paul Mashatile during the manifesto launch stressed to supporters to conduct peaceful campaigns, adhering to the IEC rules on avoiding violence.  Mashatile said during his speech to the crowd that the concerns of youth would be high on the party agenda.

Mashatile also said he was confident that all Gauteng metropolitan areas would be taken by the ANC. The provincial leader pledged to those in attendance that the delivery of municipal services will be improved in the weeks and months to come.

There has been an upsurge in violence surrounding demonstrations over concerns involving municipal services. These actions have created a potentially volatile atmosphere which could impact the character and outcome of the elections.

Bloomberg reported on June 6 that “The lead-up to South Africa’s local elections in August has turned increasingly violent as poor communities use the campaign as leverage to demand better living standards and politicians vie for control of the 278 municipalities. Communities staged 70 protests against a lack of decent housing, education and other services in the first four months of the year, up from 44 in the same period last year, according to Municipal IQ, which monitors the municipalities. Perceptions that the authorities only respond to grievances when demonstrations turn violent is fueling the unrest, according to Kevin Allan, the research company’s managing director.”

In KwaZulu/Natal Province violent clashes occurred between supporters of the ANC and the rival EFF, headed by expelled ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema. Stones were thrown at Malema when he attempted to speak at a rally at Richards Bay, north of Durban, during May.

Police fired rubber bullets and teargas to disperse ANC and EFF supporters who fought at the location. EFF leaders said the ANC was attempting to prevent their organization from campaigning in KwaZulu-Natal — a charge the ruling party rejected.

Economic Crisis Continues

This election is taking place amid an economic decline inside the country exemplified through a recent credit evaluation by Standard & Poor designating the country just one level above junk bond status.

In a statement published on the ANC website on June 3, the party sought to place a positive spin on the recent S&P evaluation, stressing “The decision is a reward for the collective efforts of all South Africans doing everything to put South Africa first in placing our case before the rating agencies. The President and the Minister of Finance have been working with a number of CEOs and the labor movement in trying to turn the economy around and building confidence on the economy. This comes shortly after Moody’s confirmed confidence in our economy.”

Unemployment is rising throughout the country and the value of the national currency, the rand, slipped 0.2 percent during the first week of August.

Worsening Relations with Washington

This uncertainty was fueled over the last few days after the United States embassy issued a warning saying South Africa could be a target for an attack by the Islamic State.  The ANC government refuted the security advisory saying there were no credible threats.

Relations between Washington and South Africa have been strained since late last year when the Obama administration temporarily suspended Pretoria from a preferential trade agreement based on the African Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA). Earlier this year the ANC Secretary General accused the U.S. of plotting regime-change inside the country.

These sentiments have been shared as well with neighboring states where in the state-run Zimbabwe Herald newspaper on June 10, correspondent Christopher Farai Charamba wrote “one must be critical of these alerts. The South African government has labelled the information ‘dubious and unsubstantiated.’ Should this be the case then what motive would the U.S. have to issue this second alert?”

Charamba went on saying “In 2013 there were reports that the Botswana government, member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), had given the American military permission to start construction of facilities inside the Thebephatshwa air base in Gaborone. This was seen as the first step in plans to relocate the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) from Stuttgart, Germany to the Southern African country.”

This same journalist emphasized that “Under the guise of the war on terror the USA has invaded countries, disposed governments, established military bases in a number of countries. With these new alerts in what is arguably one of the most peaceful regions in the world, SADC countries should be skeptical of U.S. intentions.”

Técnico del Olympique de Marsella durante la temporada 2014-2015, Marcelo Bielsa obsequió al campeonato de Francia el fútbol más bello de los últimos veinte años.

Marcelo Bielsa sólo se quedó un año a la cabeza del Olympique de Marsella (OM) pero marcó para siempre la historia del club. La proeza es aún más notable dado que no consiguió ningún título, contentándose con clasificar al equipo para la Liga Europa obteniendo el cuarto lugar al cabo del campeonato. No obstante el rosarino logró la unanimidad entre los hinchas del club más popular de Francia, quienes se identificaron con el estilo de juego propuesto y la personalidad del carismático entrenador argentino.

Llegada a Marsella

La llegada de Marcelo Bielsa a la cabeza del Olympique de Marsella tardó en concretarse. Erudito del fútbol, analista fino, perfeccionista hasta la obsesión, minucioso en los menores detalles, intransigente con los principios, trabajador incansable, el entrenador argentino deseaba tomar en cuenta todos los parámetros del club así como el potencial de los jugadores antes de dar su respuesta. Así, visionó varias veces todos los partidos del Marsella de las dos temporadas anteriores haciendo fichas técnicas de cada jugador. También asistió a varios partidos antes de dar su acuerdo definitivo.

La ciudad de Marsella sedujo a Marcelo Bielsa. Apreció particularmente el estadio Vélodrome: “Uno de los motivos por los cuales vine a trabajar aquí era para ver lleno, por lo menos una vez, el estadio Vélodrome. Es uno de los espectáculos más hermosos que pueda ofrecer el deporte.[1] […] Es un estadio único, muy bello. Vacío es majestuoso. Lleno es emocionante”.[2] Por su parte los habitantes de la ciudad más popular y exuberante de Francia sólo podían apreciar a un personaje con semejante carácter, apodado El Loco.

La oficialización de la firma del contrato suscitó la alegría de los aficionados, que le reservaron una calurosa acogida digna de los más grandes jugadores. En la historia del Olympique de Marsella ningún entrenador desató semejante pasión entre los hinchas. Samir Nasri, mediocampista de Manchester City formado en Marsella, se acuerda del entusiasmo extraordinario que generó la llegada del argentino: “Cuando llegó Bielsa parecía que hubiéramos fichado a Cristiano Ronaldo”.[3] Daniel Bravo, antiguo jugador del Marsella, también expresó su entusiasmo: “Un coach como él es la mejor cosa que le pueda suceder al OM”.[4] Carlos Valderrama, leyenda del fútbol colombiano que jugó varios años en el campeonato de Francia, se alegró de la llegada del técnico rosarino, “uno de los mejores entrenadores del mundo”.[5] Por su parte Jean-Michel Larqué, antiguo internacional francés, aclamó “la llegada de un crack”.[6]

Situación del club y plantilla

Marcela Bielsa encabezó un grupo que acababa de terminar la temporada 2013-2014 en un laborioso sexto lugar, con un total de 60 puntos. Con un balance de 16 victorias, 12 empates y 10 derrotas, el equipo había marcado 53 goles con 40 goles en contra, consiguiendo una modesta diferencia de goles de +13. Sin estilo de juego, los aficionados que aspiraba a ver un espectáculo más atractivo no tenían interés en ir al estadio.

El técnico argentino asumió entonces un plantel disminuido por una confianza mermada que salía de una temporada difícil. Pero Marcelo Bielsa también tuvo que enfrentar otro obstáculo de envergadura. Mientras que había elaborado una lista de doce jugadores que fichar, la presidencia del club no reclutó a… ninguno. “Yo propuse doce opciones y ninguna se pudo concretar. Yo pedí a Manquillo, a Isla, a Montoya, a Coke, a Ocampos, a Rekik, a Tello, a Medel, a Alerweireld y a Stambouli. Y de esos no vino ninguno”, señaló el coach argentino.[7] Peor aún, la dirección procedió a la venta de importantes jugadores de la plantilla tales como Mathieu Valbuena y Lucas Mendes, canceló los contratos de Benoît Cheyrou y Morgan Amalfitano y prestó a Jordan Ayew, sin ni siquiera dignarse a consultar al entrenador. La constatación de Bielsa fue contundente: “Me enteré de la venta de Mendes cuando faltó su primer día de entrenamiento por estar viajando a Catar. […] La dirección del club me engañó”.[8]

Valbuena se acuerda de este episodio y de su última conversación con Marcelo Bielsa, la víspera de su salida hacia el campeonato ruso: “Bielsa me dijo: “Quisiera que supieras que todos los que dicen que no formabas parte de mis planes son unos mentirosos. Fuiste el mejor jugador del equipo de Francia durante el Mundial. Estaría loco si no quisiera incluirte en mi grupo.’ Tuvo palabras gentiles conmigo y me deseó buena suerte”[9]. El internacional francés, obligado a marcharse a causa de una lógica económica que adoptó el club en detrimento del imperativo deportivo, lamentó no haber podido jugar bajo las órdenes del técnico argentino: “Me habría gustado trabajar con él. Es un gran entrenador con métodos que pueden parecer duros, pero bien vemos lo que aporta a los jugadores”.[10]

Por otra parte el club procedió al reclutamiento de cuatro jugadores (Michy Batshuayi, Romain Alessandrini, Abdelaziz Barrada y Matheus Doria) sin solicitar la opinión del rosarino. “Ninguno de los jugadores que llegaron al Olympique de Marsella fue una iniciativa mía”, recordó Bielsa. El caso de Doria es emblemático. En efecto, la presidencia decidió reclutarlo en los últimos momentos del mercado… contra la opinión del entrenador. El técnico se expresó al respecto: “Me opuse a la llegada de Doria. […] A mí analizar la llegada de un jugador me lleva veinte partidos […]. La decisión de sustituir a Mendes por Dorio no mejora el potencial del equipo. Sale sorpresivamente un jugador como Mendes que tenía dos años en el club, un año de titularidad, una ambientación y todo eso se pierde. […] Un jugador confirmado e instalado en el fútbol francés por una gran promesa de 19 años con todo el proceso que tiene por delante y con el agravante que yo no pude ni manifestarme […]. Fue el mismo presidente quien me dijo ‘No pensemos en futbolistas extranjeros porque no tenemos la estructura necesaria para evaluar futbolistas juegan fuera de la liga francesa”. El tiempo dio la razón a Bielsa. En efecto, Doria no jugó ni un solo minuto en el Olympique de Marsella y su préstamo al club español de Granada fue un fracaso completo.[11]

Apegado a los principios y a la palabra empeñada, Marcelo Bielsa expresó su descontento durante una memorable conferencia de prensa, fustigando el comportamiento de Vincent Labrune, Presidente del club, y lamentando las promesas no cumplidas. Cuando se firmó el contrato, el Olympique de Marsella prometió un plantel de 22 jugadores con dos jugadores por posición y una inversión mínima de 35 millones de euros para fortalecer al grupo.[12] El argentino sólo pudo constatar la diferencia entre las promesas hechas y la realidad: “[Debía] tener un grupo de 22 jugadores de nivel similar para tener emulación. […]. La cifra pasó luego de 22 a 20. Después comprendí que ni siquiera llegaríamos a 18. Y ahora apenas tenemos 16”.[13] Su conclusión fue contundente: “Ha finalizado el periodo que permite definir el plantel y las conclusiones son negativas. […] El presidente asumió conmigo compromisos que él sabía que no iba a cumplir cuando los tomó. Las realidades que me toca afrontar si me son planteadas sinceramente las acepto. En caso contrario me genera rebeldía”.[14]

Criticado por una parte de la prensa por expresar públicamente su descontento, una leyenda del fútbol tomó la defensa de Marcelo Bielsa. En efecto, Zinedine Zidane brindó su apoyo a su colega argentino: “¿Acaso yo habría reaccionado como Bielsa? Sí. Porque si elaboras ejes de trabajo y grandes líneas con tu presidente y que al final todo no se desarrolle como estaba previsto, obligatoriamente, estás en tu derecho de pedir explicaciones”.[15]

Así Marcelo Bielsa empezó la temporada con un plantel limitado y jugadores no elegidos. El obstáculo era entonces de primera magnitud y los observadores no dejaron de declarar su escepticismo en cuanto a las probabilidades de éxito del entrenador argentino con un grupo tan restringido. Eric Di Meco, antiguo jugador del club con el cual ganó la Champion’s en 1993, señaló los recursos limitados puestos a disposición del técnico: “Si tiene éxito con este plantel ¡Será un mago!”. Esta opinión se emitió antes de las salidas de Valbuena, Mendes, Amalfitano, Cheyrou y Ayew, las cuales debilitaron considerablemente al grupo.[16] Jean-Michel Larqué, ahora comentarista deportivo, también señaló el nivel de los jugadores puestos a disposición de Bielsa: “Si consigue resultados con Mendy, Lemina, Imbula, lo felicitaré. Pero hoy, con estos jugadores, tiene más probabilidades de fracasar que de triunfar”.[17] Daniel Riolo, el comentarista radial más popular de Francia, también declaró sus reservas: “¿Qué puede hacer con Dja Djédjé, Mendy? La mitad del equipo me parece muy débil y poco importa quién lo dirija”.[18] Fue entonces, en esas condiciones adversas, que el técnico argentino tuvo que cumplir su misión.

Juego ofensivo y fútbol total

A pesar de este hándicap demostrado, Marcelo Bielsa se refugió en el trabajo y fiel a su filosofía de juego y sus principios futbolísticos elaboró un equipo generoso y valiente con vocación ofensiva, que ejerce un pressing alto y constante, con líneas cerradas y transiciones defensa/ataque rápidas. El bello juego que propuso el Olympique de Marsella sedujo rápidamente a los amantes del fútbol. El primer partido oficial de la temporada 2014-2015 contra Bastia terminó con un espectacular resultado final de 3-3. Claude Makelele, antiguo internacional francés que ganó dos veces la Champion’s y jugó la final del Mundial 2006, entonces entrenador del equipo corso, declaró su admiración: “Nos tocó un entrenador muy bueno que supo elaborar un sistema que nos causó muchos problemas”. Makelele lanzó luego una advertencia: “Marsella va a causar problemas a muchos equipos”.[19]

Acertó el técnico del Bastia. Tras una derrota contra Montpellier, el equipo de Marcelo Bielsa realizó una serie de ocho victorias consecutivas y gracias a su fútbol “heroico” encabezó el campeonato de Francia hasta la tregua invernal, dominando incluso al poderoso Paris-Saint-Germain catarí con sus innumerables estrellas. El Olympique de Marsella ocupó el primer lugar durante catorce jornadas. Ningún otro equipo permaneció tanto tiempo a la cabeza de la clasificación, ni Lyon, ni el Paris-Saint-Germain. Más allá de estos espectaculares resultados, el rendimiento colectivo y la belleza del juego del equipo de Bielsa impresionaron al mundo del fútbol, como lo ilustran numerosos testimonios.

Christophe Dugarry, antiguo jugador del Olympique de Marsella, ganador del Mundial y de la Eurocopa, aclamó el rendimiento extraordinario el técnico argentino a pesar de un plantel limitado: “Lo que hace Bielsa es tan impactante a la escala de la Liga 1 que puede suscitar vocaciones, pues, si miramos bien, tiene buenos jugadores pero ¿cuántos con nivel internacional? Tres, quizás cuatro. Lo que selecciono de la primera mitad del campeonato es el OM de Bielsa. No sólo por los resultados. […] Nunca he visto a un entrenador dejar su impronta en el equipo de modo tan rápido. Es apasionante porque es casi un caso de manual: cómo, con un equipo similar, un puedo hacerlo jugar de modo tan distinto y con un rendimiento ampliamente superior”.[20]

Zinedine Zidane, impresionado por el trabajo de Marcelo Bielsa, decidió realizar su práctica de observación en Marsella. Su testimonio es instructivo: “Bielsa es un apasionado. Es alguien que llega a las 8 de la mañana y se va a las 8 de la noche. Se pasa todo el día en jogging. Es un hombre que adora lo que hace, que es meticuloso. Eso lo notamos”.[21]

Laurent Blanc, antiguo internacional francés que ganó el Mundial y la Eurocopa y entrenador del Paris-Saint-Germain con el cual realizó dos cuádruples consecutivos (Campeonato, Copa de Francia, Copa de la Liga y Trofeo de los Campeones), resultó seducido por el estilo de juego que propuso Marcelo Bielsa. Se expresó al respecto y declaró su admiración por su colega: “Es un técnico que propone juego y ello sólo me puede gustar.[22] […] Lo que me gusta de él es que tiene ideas y no las reniega […] Pienso que su método puede adaptarse a la Liga 1 y yo quisiera que se quedara.[23] Es un entrenador muy bueno con carácter fuerte. Tuvo resultados con Bilbao y tiene resultados con Marsella. Lo felicito”.[24]

Willy Sagnol, entrenador de Burdeos que realizó una brillante carrera de futbolista, resultó encantado por el técnico argentino, de quien alaba las virtudes: “Uno sólo puede sentir admiración por lo que trae a Francia pues ningún otro entrenador lo había hecho antes de él. Como jugador y amante del fútbol, le digo gracias”.[25]

Hubert Fournier, entrenador de Lyon, también aclamó el trabajo de Bielsa a la cabeza del Olympique de Marsella: “Transformó al equipo. Es el principal responsable de la recuperación deportiva. También hubo una responsabilización individual de los jugadores claves del plantel como Gignac. Trajo rigor y voluntad de poner a trabajar a todos”.[26]

Daniel Casanova, entrenador de Toulouse, también rindió homenaje al rosarino, alabando su propuesta futbolística generosa y la transformación del grupo: “Este equipo no se parece para nada a lo que era el OM los últimos dos años. Es un equipo que tiene principios y que domina muy bien tácticamente todos los partidos. Este equipo está preparado para ir lejos con todos los ingredientes necesarios. Todos los jugadores admiten y entienden el rigor y la disciplina que exige el entrenador”.[27] También declaró su respeto por su homólogo suramericano: “Lo sigo desde hace mucho tiempo. Es alguien que ha sabido imponer un estilo agradable y eficiente en todos los lugares donde ha estado, con una metodología muy distinta a la que se suele usar. Siempre le he tenido aprecio sin conocerlo personalmente. Es un técnico que tiene ideas y que conoce muy bien el fútbol. Es capaz de sacar lo mejor de su equipo, de darle un estilo y de tener resultados”. Casanova lo considera un modelo: “Trato de inspirarme de los buenos y él forma parte de ellos. Me identifico con muchos de sus principios, con sus ideas, con el juego que quiere que practique su equipo. La posesión del balón, la reacción cuando se pierde la pelota, el pressing alto: ello forma parte de mi filosofía de entrenador y del juego que quiero practicar.[28] Pienso que es un gran entrenador que tiene mucha influencia sobre los jóvenes entrenadores como nosotros. Hay mucho que aprender del funcionamiento de sus equipos”.[29]

Robert Herbin, leyenda del AS Saint-Etienne que ganó cuatro campeonatos como entrenador, enalteció a su colega argentino Bielsa y alabó su trabajo: “Marcelo Bielsa está transformando profundamente al Marsella, un equipo irregular que había caído en la monotonía. Es un entrenador exigente y riguroso. El OM se compromete cabalmente en todos los partidos. Con los mismos jugadores que el año anterior, el cambio es bastante extraordinario. Bielsa coloca al colectivo encima de todo. Transformó a once jugadores en un equipo”.[30]

René Girard, entrenador de Lille y miembro del cuerpo técnico de la selección francesa que ganó la Eurocopa 2000, expresó su opinión sobre el argentino: “Bielsa es una gran figura del fútbol. Es una persona que conoce bien el fútbol y saca lo máximo de su equipo. Es una visión distinta del fútbol. El OM es líder y realiza un campeonato admirable”.[31]

Raymond Domenech, seleccionador del equipo de Francia finalista del Mundial 2006, también alabó la obra de su colega suramericano: “El trabajo que está haciendo, sobre todo en Marsella, es bueno, por sus resultados. Tiene un método muy claro y exige mucho a sus jugadores. Tuve la suerte de asistir a los entrenamientos con mi formación de técnico. Es alguien que pasa mucho tiempo con sus jugadores, hace mucho trabajo individualizado y pienso que es un método bueno […]. Si vemos lo que hace con el mismo plantel que el año pasado, es algo extraordinario. Es admirable”.[32]

Didier Deschamps, exjugador y entrenador del Olympique de Marsella y actual técnico de la selección francesa, destacó la acción del rosarino: “Si el OM ocupa ese rango es porque se lo merece […]. El OM tiene un gran entrenador y obviamente ello influye en el comportamiento del equipo y en los resultados. […] Actualmente los resultados dan toda la razón a Bielsa”.[33]

Por su parte Eric Gerets, exentrenador del Marsella muy popular entre los hinchas, expresó su admiración por su homólogo argentino: “Bielsa tiene un nombre fantástico en el fútbol. He leído y oído comentarios sobre él, de Guardiola por ejemplo o de otros. Todos dicen que es una persona extraordinaria”.[34]

Guy Roux, mítico entrenador francés que tiene el record de partidos dirigidos en el campeonato de Francia, expresó su admiración por Marcelo Bielsa: “Este equipo desarrolla por ahora un juego excepcionalmente bueno. Y único, porque ningún otro juega como él y no sólo a nivel del ritmo, sino sobre todo en la elaboración de la recuperación. Los marselleses son irresistibles. […] Bielsa demuestra grandes cualidades profesionales”.[35]

Bernard Lacombe, antiguo entrenador de Lyon y actual asesor de su presidente Jean-Michel Aulas, destacó la obra del técnico argentino a la cabeza del Olympique de Marsella: “Lo descubrí cuando entrenaba al Bilbao. Bielsa es una gran figura. Lo criticaron mucho al inicio, pero siguió con sus ideas y no las abandonó. Hizo un trabajo enorme en todos los clubes donde estuvo. […] Es la persona más influyente del club”.[36]

Rudy García, entrenador del AS Roma, se alegró de la llegada de Bielsa en el campeonato de Francia: “Estoy muy feliz de ver lo que hace en Marsella, gracias a todas sus ideas, sus convicciones, sus principios”.[37]

Albert Cartier, técnico del FC Metz, aplaudió la visión del fútbol de Marcelo Bielsa y el aire nuevo que trajo al campeonato de Francia: “Los verdaderos competidores se reconocen en Bielsa. Criticaron al señor Ancelotti, y digo ‘señor’ para expresar mi respeto. Para el señor Bielsa es lo mismo. ¡Son personas que ayudan al fútbol! Bielsa va a marcar a los jugadores del OM como Ancelotti marcó a los del PSG. Son dos entrenadores que aman apasionadamente su profesión. Regalan felicidad a la gente, a los espectadores”.[38]

Frédéric Antonetti, antiguo técnico de Rennes, es un gran admirador de Marcelo Bielsa. Expresó su opinión: “Adoro al entrenador del OM, su comunicación y sus principios. Es atípico y tiene mucho que dar al fútbol francés. Lo vimos contra París. Acepta que su equipo esté desequilibrado. Y este desequilibrio engendra hermosos partidos. Que tenga resultados con esta visión del fútbol es algo sumamente positivo para nuestro campeonato”.[39]

Jean-Pierre Papin, elegido jugador del siglo del Olympique de Marsella y ganador del Balón de Oro, destacó el aporte del técnico argentino y militó a favor de su mantenimiento a la cabeza de equipo: “Trajo algo especial. Tener a semejante entrenador en nuestro campeonato es un privilegio. […] Hay que conservarlo”.[40]

Carlos Mozer, defensor emblemático del club en los años 1990, se alegró de la llegada del técnico de Rosario a la ciudad sureña: “Espero que Marcelo Bielsa se quede el año próximo porque a él se deben los progresos. Tiene una buena mentalidad y quiere un equipo concentrado, agresivo y ofensivo. Me gustaría que permitiera al Marsella subir más alto”.[41]

Eric di Meco, otra figura legendaria del club, no pudo contener su admiración frente al “juego vertical, rápido en la transición y siempre dispuesto a ir hacia el campo del rival”. Incluso confesó lo siguiente: “Cuando veo los ataques de los dos laterales, a veces me digo ‘¡Cuánto me habría gustado jugar bajo sus órdenes!’”.[42]

Enzo Francescoli, leyenda uruguaya que hizo la gloria de Marsella en los años 1990, se mostró elogioso con el argentino: “Bielsa es un grandísimo entrenador, muy querido en Argentina. Hablamos muchas veces de él con el técnico de River, Marcelo Gallardo. Jugó con la selección argentina y estuvo bajo las órdenes de Bielsa. Guarda buenos recuerdos. Es un entrenador que ama el juego y que es ofensivo. Hizo grandes cosas en Argentina. Francamente, es una buena cosa que esté dirigiendo el OM”.[43]

David Trezeguet, exinternacional francés de origen argentino, campeón del mundo y de Europa, expresó su entusiasmo hacia su compatriota de quien alabó “el trabajo extraordinario […] con un equipo y recursos incomparablemente inferiores a los del PSG, Mónaco y Lyon”, enfatizando el mérito del rosarino. “Su juego suscita la alegría [y] el público lo adora porque es un apasionado”, apuntó.[44]

Opinión de los jugadores del Paris-Saint-Germain

Los jugadores del principal club rival, el Paris-Saint-Germain, observaron con mucho interés el trabajo de Marcelo Bielsa, particularmente Silva, Maxwell, Pastore, Matuidi y Aurier. Thiago Silva, capitán del PSG, se mostró impresionado por la transformación del equipo: “Marsella tiene los mismos jugadores que el año pasado. Pero el coach ha construido un equipo muy fuerte. Pienso que ha dado mucha confianza a los jugadores”.[45]

            Maxwell también destacó el aporte del rosarino: “Yo sabía que era el hombre idóneo para cambiar la intensidad de juego de Marsella. Lo demuestra cada semana. Físicamente el OM está muy fuerte ahora, diferente del año anterior. Bielsa trabaja mucho y desarrolla una táctica particular. Siempre es difícil jugar contra sus equipos. Cuando vemos los partidos de los marselleses, sea en la intensidad, en la agresividad, ya no son los mismos”.[46]

            El argentino Javier Pastore compartió este punto de vista: “Es un gran entrenador. Hizo cosas buenas en todos los equipos que dirigió. Todos mejoraron con él. Y es el caso con Marsella. Va a ser muy difícil vencer al OM este año”. Reconoció su influencia en el campeonato de Francia: “La Liga 1 no lo olvidará de pronto”. Pastore también expresó su consideración hacia su compatriota: “Es una persona muy famosa y muy respetada. Tiene verdaderos valores e hizo un trabajo excelente en todos los clubes y en todas las selecciones que dirigió. Desafortunadamente nunca me entrenó […]. Sé que es alguien que trabaja mucho, con una precisión por el detalle. Es un verdadero especialista. Personalmente, yo admiro a Marcelo Bielsa”.[47]

            El mediocampista Blaise Matuidi también destacó la labor de Bielsa: “Hace un buen trabajo. Con su método logró cambiar a los jugadores. Veo ahora a marselleses que ha recobrado la plenitud de su talento”.[48]

            El lateral Serge Aurier también se mostró impresionado por el OM de Bielsa: “Siempre he dicho que era el equipo que había que seguir atentamente este año. Es un equipo que juega, juega y juega, con jugadores que multiplican los esfuerzos y que practican un fútbol hermoso. Lo vimos contra nosotros. Ganamos el partido 2-0 pero tuvieron mucho mérito con todas las situaciones de gol que se crearon. Sigue siendo un equipo fuerte y hay que tomarlo en serio”.[49]

Unanimidad en torno al fútbol de Marcelo Bielsa

Hasta Frédéric Thiriez, Presidente de la Liga Profesional de Fútbol, no pudo dejar de expresar su admiración hacia el argentino, olvidándose del tradicional deber de reserva que exige el cargo: “¡Bielsa es el talento y el genio en estado puro! Es genial que el OM ocupe el primer rango”.[50]

Gérard Gili, exjugador y famoso entrenador del Olympique de Marsella bajo la era de Bernard Tapie, resume bastante bien el impacto de Bielsa en la ciudad sureña: “él, apenas en tres meses, ha logrado formar parte de la historia del club”.[51]

La belleza del juego que propuso Marcelo Bielsa, los resultados y su personalidad incluso sedujeron al mundo político. Patrick Mennuci, diputado de las Bouches-du-Rhône, brindó un testimonio sobre el prestigio del entrenador argentino: “Recién estuvo en Tindouf, Argelia, en el fondo del desierto, para una visita oficial. La gente me habló de Bielsa, del OM. También me hablan de él en la Asamblea Nacional”.[52]

El expresidente francés Nicolas Sarkozy, gran aficionado de fútbol e hincha declarado del Paris-Saint-Germain, fue seducido por el juego propuesto por Marsella. Destacó el trabajo de Marcelo Bielsa: “Me gusta mucho el OM. Vi el magnífico partido contra Lyon. Hubo 1-0 gracias a un gol fabuloso de Gourcuff pero el resultado final podría haber sido 2-0 para el OM. Bielsa, como entrenador, trae un toque de originalidad”.[53]

Italia incluso recompensó con un premio especial a Marcelo Bielsa por su “fútbol innovador” durante la ceremonia de “Banquillo de Oro” encargada de coronar al mejor entrenador de campeonato italiano.[54] Del mismo modo la UEFA designó al argentino como mejor entrenador del campeonato de Francia para el año 2014-2015 y explicó los motivos: “A Bielsa se le quiere o no. Nosotros lo queremos y nos gusta todo. La heladera, el respeto de los árbitros, el jogging, el café, el café en el jogging, la exigencia hacia los jugadores, la personalidad, la despreocupación del equipo campeón de invierno, todo […] En una palabra, ¡Bielsa no se va!”.[55]

Balance deportivo

            Durante los primeros seis meses de la temporada, el Olympique de Marsella de Marcelo Bielsa practicó el fútbol más bello de Europa e hizo honor al deporte más popular del mundo. El argentino logró demostrar que era posible rivalizar con los más grandes, a pesar de un plantel limitado en cantidad y calidad, adoptando un estilo de juego ofensivo basado en la generosidad, la solidaridad y el espíritu de sacrificio. Gracias a su personalidad y su capacidad de convicción, el rosarino logró infundir una confianza extraordinaria a jugadores que salían de una temporada mediocre, colmando de alegría y orgullo a los hinchas del club.

            A nivel de los resultados, el OM de Bielsa consiguió 21 victorias, 6 empates y sufrió 11 derrotas, con un total de 69 puntos y una clasificación al cuarto puesto. El equipo marcó un total de 76 goles y encajó 42, o sea una diferencia de goles de +34. El Olympique de Marsella no había marcado tantos goles en una temporada desde el año 1971-1972, o sea más de cuarenta años. Incluso durante la época gloriosa de Bernard Tapie, en los años 1990, cuando el club tenía uno de los mejores planteles de Europa y dominaba el campeonato de Francia, el equipo no había alcanzado semejante número de goles. En la historia del Olympique de Marsella, sólo las temporadas 1947-1949 y 1970 y 1972 resultaron más prolíficas.[56]

            A nivel individual, el delantero André-Pierre Gignac terminó la temporada con un total de 21 goles, con sólo dos penales, clasificando segundo detrás de Alexandre Lacazette de Lyon que marcó 27 goles (con ocho penales). Por su parte, el mediocampista Dimitri Payet realizó un total de 16 pases, terminando la temporada como mejor pasador del campeonato. Ambos enfatizaron el aporte decisivo de Marcelo Bielsa en su rendimiento[57].

            No obstante la clasificación final no refleja el rendimiento del Olympique de Marsella de Marcelo Bielsa. Dos factores distorsionaron el campeonato: el arbitraje y la Copa de África de Naciones.

Arbitraje

            Marcelo Bielsa siempre adoptó una actitud respetuosa hacia el cuerpo arbitral, negándose a comentar las decisiones y los eventuales errores de apreciación de éste. Pascal Garibian, director técnico nacional del arbitraje francés, destacó este comportamiento y lo citó como ejemplo: “Es importante que un coach como él transmita el mensaje. Ello permite a los jugadores y a los árbitros estar mucho más serenos y a los jugadores tomar conciencia de que es inútil enfocarse en las decisiones arbitrales, incluso equivocadas”.[58]

No obstante, esta actitud noble hacia el cuerpo arbitral no premunió al Olympique de Marsella contra las decisiones litigiosas. En efecto, el equipo de Marcelo Bielsa fue víctima de al menos nueve errores flagrantes de arbitraje –entre ellos siete contra Lyon y el PSG que terminaron el campeonato respectivamente en el primer y segundo puestos– que costaron sin duda el título de Campeón de Francia a Marcelo Bielsa[59].

Las primeras decisiones discutibles se remontan al 26 de octubre de 2014 y al partido Lyon-Marsella. En el minuto 27 el defensor lionés Henri Bedimo agarró por la cintura a Florian Thauvin en el área de penalti. El penal era evidente. Pero el árbitro no tomó la decisión correcta y siguió el juego. En el minuto 78 Thauvin es otra vez víctima de una falta en la misma zona por parte de Samuel Umtiti. De nuevo el penal era flagrante. Pero el árbitro se negó a rendir justicia. El partido terminó con una victoria de Lyon 1-0 y Marsella perdió injustamente tres puntos cruciales.

El 9 de noviembre de 2014 se celebró la primera confrontación entre el Paris-Saint-Germain y el OM. Mientras que el PSG ganaba 1-0, el árbitro expulsó a Giannelli Imbula, en duelo con un jugador parisino, por una falta inexistente, perjudicando el equipo sureño. Tras el partido Clément Turpin reconoció su error y la Comisión de Disciplina canceló posteriormente la tarjeta roja. No obstante, esta decisión privó al OM de la posibilidad de empatar cuando el rival sólo ganaba por un margen mínimo. El partido terminó finalmente con una victoria 2-0 del PSG.

El 22 de febrero de 2015, el OM se enfrentaba a Saint-Etienne en el estadio Geoffroy Guichard. El equipo de Marcelo Bielsa ganaba 2-1. Mientras que se perfilaba la victoria, en los últimos instantes del partido el jugador marsellés Romain Alessandrini fue atropellado violentamente en su zona de penal por Théofile Catherine durante una fase defensiva. En vez de señalar la falta, el árbitro dejó que siguiera el juego y el rival aprovechó la ocasión para empatar, privando al OM de dos puntos preciosos.

El 15 de marzo de 2015 otra vez el arbitraje se mostró desfavorable a Marsella durante el partido contra Lyon. En el minuto 80, Lucas Ocampos marcó un gol evidente. Pero el árbitro estimó que el balón no pasó la línea mientras que las imágenes televisivas mostraban lo contrario. En el siguiente minuto Benoît Bastien decidió expulsar al defensor marsellés Jérémy Morel por una falta inexistente, como lo ilustró otra vez el video. Al final Marsella empató y perdió a uno de sus mejores defensores para el siguiente partido. Esos dos errores acumulados costaron de nuevo dos puntos al OM.

El 5 de abril de 2015, durante el partido contra el PSG, mientras que el resultado era de 3-2 a favor del club de la capital, el defensor parisino Marquinhos desvió con la mano el tiro de André-Pierre Gignac. La falta era flagrante pero el árbitro se negó a conceder el penal. Al final de partido André Ayew expresó su exasperación por los múltiples errores que perjudican a su equipo: “Estamos hartos de eso”. Ruddy Buquet decidió expulsarlo privando a Marcelo Bielsa de un jugador importante para el próximo encuentro crucial contra Bordeaux. Se le quitó injustamente un punto al OM.

            El siguiente partido contra Bordeaux, el 12 de abril de 2015, sin la presencia de André Ayew, no estuvo exento de errores de arbitraje. Al contrario, se multiplicaron. En el minuto 45, Alessandrini fue víctima de una falta en el área de penal pero el árbitro se negó a tomar la decisión correcta. En el segundo tiempo, un defensor bordelés desvió con el brazo un cabezazo de Gignac. Otra vez el árbitro se negó a sancionar la falta con un penal evidente. El partido terminó con una victoria 1-0 para Bordeaux y privó a Marsella de tres puntos merecidos.

            Según los observadores ningún otro club del pelotón de cabeza sufrió tanto las decisiones arbitrales erróneas durante la temporada 2014-2015. Eric Carrière, antiguo internacional francés y hoy comentarista, señaló los múltiples errores del cuerpo arbitral y destacó la actitud del entrenador marsellés: “Hay que ser digno en la victoria y en la derrota, como Marcelo Bielsa después de Lyon por ejemplo”.[60]

            Incluso el periodista Pierre Ménès, uno de los grandes detractores de Marcelo Bielsa en Francia, se disgustó del arbitraje desfavorable al Olympique de Marsella. “Cada partido o casi sufre de un error de arbitraje […]. Mis respetos a Marcelo Bielsa por su reacción tras el partido [OM-Lyon]. Mucha clase e inteligencia”.[61]

            Así, el equipo de Marcelo Bielsa fue privado de un total de 11 puntos a causa de las decisiones equivocadas del cuerpo arbitral. En vez de terminar la temporada en el cuarto puesto con un total de 69 puntos, Marsella debería haber terminado con 80 puntos en el segundo puesto, con sólo dos puntos menos que el PSG coronado campeón de Francia. Y ello sin tomar en cuenta el impacto negativo de la Copa de África de Naciones.

Copa de África de Naciones

Otro factor perjudicó al Olympique de Marsella en la carrera hacia el título. Con un plantel limitado a causa de las promesas no cumplidas de la presidencia del Club, el equipo fue disminuido considerablemente con la Copa de África de Naciones que privó a Marcelo Bielsa de dos titulares indiscutibles: el mediocampista André Ayew y el defensor Nicolas Nkoulou.

Durante su ausencia, el OM multiplicó los resultados negativos con una derrota en Montpellier 2-1, una derrota en Niza 2-1 y un empate en Rennes 1-1. A ello se agregó la larga ausencia de Nicolas Nkoulou tras una operación en la rodilla izquierda en febrero de 2015, cuando regresó de la CAN. Durante du convalecencia Marsella perdió puntos contra Reims (2-2), Saint-Etienne (2-2), París (2-3) y Bordeaux (1-0). Marcelo Bielsa recordó la importancia de Nkoulou en el dispositivo del OM: “Es un futbolista necesario por la jerarquía individual, por el rendimiento que tuvo durante todos los partidos que jugó. Es uno de los dos o tres mejores rendimientos del equipo. Por supuesto contar con él es una ventaja”.[62]

No cabe la menor duda de que el rendimiento defensivo habría sido mejor si Lucas Mendes no hubiera sido transferido o si uno de los defensores deseados por Marcelo Bielsa (Medel, Rekik, Isla, Jara, Alderweireld…) hubiera integrado el plantel. Del mismo modo, la conservación de Mathieu Valbuena o el fichaje de un jugador ofensivo reclamado por el técnico argentino, habría permitido compensar la ausencia de André Ayew.

Impacto de Marcelo Bielsa sobre las finanzas del club

Marcelo Bielsa, por su filosofía de juego y su personalidad, contribuyó al prestigio del Olympique de Marsella en Francia, Europa y en el mundo. El técnico argentino fue la figura deportiva más mediatizada de Francia. Según un estudio realizado por el gabinete Kantarsport, el rosarino se benefició de una presencia mediática superior a la de Zlatan Ibrahimovic, la estrella del Paris-Saint-Germain.[63]

Bernard Lama, exportero del PSG e internacional francés que ganó el Mundial 1998, evocó la influencia de Marcelo Bielsa, la cual contribuyó ampliamente a extender el renombre del club: “En el OM sólo hay una estrella, es el entrenador. Su personalidad lo aplasta todo”.[64]

Así Marcelo Bielsa, gracias al juego propuesto, atrajo a los canales televisivos como Canal+ y Be in Sport, que difundieron los partidos. Ello le permitió al club conseguir derechos audiovisuales a la altura de 43 millones de euros, estableciendo un récord histórico, mientras que el argentino dirigía un equipo con buenos jugadores pero sin estrellas. Sólo el PSG, con sus innumerables figuras, consiguió más ingresos con 45,5 millones de euros, o sea apenas dos millones más que el OM.[65]

            Además la belleza del juego llenó de felicidad a los hinchas, quienes ocuparon masivamente el estadio Vélodrome. Durante todo el año, casi todos los partidos se jugaron con el estadio lleno, lo que permitió al Olympique de Marsella conseguir ingresos superiores a 30 millones de euros, una suma dos veces superior a la de la temporada anterior.[66] A nivel de comercialización de productos, la buena temporada que realizó Marcelo Bielsa permitió al club prorrogar su alianza con Intersport para el año 2015-2016 con un contrato superior. Jacky Rihouet, Presidente ejecutivo del grupo, aceptó aportar “una contribución más importante”, dado el nuevo prestigio del club.[67]

            Por otra parte el trabajo de Marcelo Bielsa permitió valorar a numerosos elementos del grupo que fueron cedidos a precios importantes, lo que permitió al club conseguir notables plusvalías. Así, Giannelli Imbula vio su valor multiplicarse por tres en el espacio de un año. Dimitri Payet fue cedido por el doble de su precio de adquisición. Ambos fueron vendidos por una suma global cercana a los 40 millones de euros, llenando las cuentas del Olympique de Marsella. Del mismo modo muchos jugadores como Gignac, Ayew, Morel o Fanni, realizaron la mejor temporada de su carrera bajo las órdenes del argentino, lo que les permitió firmar importantes contratos con clubes atraídos por su rendimiento. Otros, como Mario Lemina, integraron prestigiosas instituciones tales como la Juventus de Torino. Todos, tanto el club como los jugadores, tienen una deuda de gratitud hacia el rosarino como lo ilustran los siguientes testimonios.

Testimonios de los jugadores

            Muchos de los jugadores que trabajaron a las órdenes del técnico argentino le rindieron un vibrante homenaje. Todos declararon que Marcelo Bielsa había cambiado su visión del fútbol y les había permitido realizar fulgurantes progresos. Varios de ellos pudieron participar en grandes campeonatos y ser fichados por clubes prestigiosos.

            Florian Thauvin, mediocampista transferido a Inglaterra, expresó su gratitud a Marcelo Bielsa: “Es una persona que me enseñó mucho en el fútbol […]. Confió en mí y me titularizó en cada partido. Me enseñó una cultura diferente. Trabajábamos muchísimo con él y es una cosa que no se hace mucho en Francia. Ahora estoy en otro país y me doy cuenta de ello. Quiero darle las gracias por todo cuanto hizo”.[68]

            Mario Lemina, joven mediocampista, realizó una gran temporada bajo las órdenes del rosarino, al punto de suscitar el interés de la Juventus de Torino, club con el mejor palmarés de Italia, que decidió hacer la adquisición. Lemina reconoció que sin su mentor argentino nunca habría podido aspirar a semejante carrera: “Bielsa me mejoró muchísimo, sobre todo a nivel mental. Me llevó a mis límites y ello me ayuda mucho ahora”.[69] No dejó de expresar su gratitud: “Ser entrenado por Marcelo Bielsa me permitió realizar progresos. Un coach que vive por el fútbol como él es único. Quiero decir gracias mil veces”.[70]

            André-Pierre Gignac, que volvió a la selección francesa gracias a Marcelo Bielsa, es consciente de su influencia: “Lo que viví en un año con Marcelo Bielsa nunca lo había experimentado en mi carrera. Sus métodos, su manera de hablar con nosotros, sus videos. Era muy enriquecedor. Realicé muchos progresos gracias a él e incluso para mí que soy delantero, aprendí mucho en términos de pressing, de reposicionamiento defensivo. También mejoré mucho mi juego de cabeza. Era casi una transformación”.[71]

            Los jóvenes jugadores como Bill Tuiloma fueron los grandes beneficiarios de la llegada de Marcelo Bielsa a Marsella. En efecto, el técnico argentino dispone de la capacidad de sacar lo mejor de cada elemento. El internacional neozelandés, que dio sus primeros pasos en el equipo primero con Bielsa, expresó su gratitud hacia el entrenador: “Marcelo Bielsa organizaba muy buenas sesiones de entrenamiento gracias a las cuales pude mejorar mi juego. Es un coach increíble que conoce muy bien el fútbol. Jugué dos partidos de Liga 1 con él y estoy muy orgulloso de ello. Es un entrenador único en el mundo. No hay dos como él”.[72]

            Gaël Adonian, quien dio también sus primeros pasos con Bielsa, guarda buenos recuerdos de su entrenador: “Hizo cosas buenísimas con el OM. Los hinchas no se han olvidado de él. Bien vemos las banderolas a su efigie. Dejó una buena imagen para el club a nivel del juego. No vaciló en solicitar a los jóvenes y ello siempre es positivo”.[73]

            Michy Batshuayi, joven delantero belga seleccionado para la Eurocopa 2016, también se expresó sobre Marcelo Bielsa. Reconoció haber realizado progresos fulgurantes gracias a él: “El periodo en que más aprendí en mi vida fue el año que pasé con Bielsa. Aprendí a dominar mejor mis carreras. Con Bielsa, aprendí a ser más agresivo, más concentrado y más profesional”.[74]

            Jérémy Morel, defensor lateral, recordó la epopeya marsellesa y tejió elogios a su antiguo entrenador: “Bielsa se atrevió a ponerme en defensa central […]. Producíamos juego y era el éxtasis en la cancha”.[75]

            Giannelli Imbula, mediocampista en Inglaterra, expresó su gratitud hacia el argentino: “¿Bielsa? Es el mejor entrenador que he tenido. Es un entrenador que puede aportar a muchos clubes”.[76]

            El testimonio de Dimitri Payet, cuya progresión con Marcelo Bielsa le permitió convertirse en un elemento clave de la selección francesa, es edificante: “La temporada con Marcelo Bielsa me hizo crecer como hombre y como jugador. Me dio bases importantes que me sirven todavía. Es un entrenador que fue clave para mí”.[77] El jugador es consciente de que superó una etapa: “En una temporada me enseñó muchísimo. Me posicionó como número 10 y me dio la regularidad que me hacía falta. Después de todo eso sólo lo puedo agradecer […]. Gracias a él pienso que he realizado la mejor temporada de mi carrera. Fue la primera vez que se me exigió tanto y que me mostré tan decisivo”.[78] La influencia del entrenador argentino era tan importante que Payet había condicionado su porvenir al de su técnico: “Formo parte de los jugadores que han aprendido mucho con Marcelo Bielsa. Lo que me dio en una temporada sé que me va a servir hasta el final de mi carrera pero también en toda mi vida. Me dio una lección de fútbol y también una lección humana. Humanamente es un personaje fuera de lo común. Cuando trabajas con él eres otra persona, no cabe la menor duda”.[79]

            Tras una temporada 2015-2016 caótica, el defensor central Nicolas Nkoulou no dejó de expresar su nostalgia de Bielsa. Recordó la época en que Marsella proponía un bello espectáculo a toda Europa: “Nos divertíamos mucho. Nos generaba placer. Teníamos mucha seguridad y estábamos acostumbrados a trabajar juntos”.[80]

            Steve Mandanda, capitán emblemático del OM, compartió la nostalgia de su compañero y recordó con orgullo la temporada pasada bajo las órdenes de Marcelo Bielsa: “El partido que más me marcó, quizás porque fue uno de los primeros en el Vélodrome, con un ambiente extraordinario, fue el que jugamos contra Saint-Etienne. Ganamos 2-1 pero en el primer tiempo, jugamos un fútbol magnífico. Durante el primer gol realizamos una acción increíble”.[81]

            El mediocampista Alexis Romao se acuerda de la confianza que insufló el técnico argentino entre los jugadores, lo que les permitía abordar los partidos con mucha ambición. Recordó con nostalgia esa época: “Con Bielsa, cuando entrábamos en la cancha, sabíamos que íbamos a ganar”.[82]

Conclusión

            A pesar de un plantel limitado y no elegido del cual importantes elementos (Valbuena, Lucas Mendes) fueron cedidos durante el mercado sin el consentimiento del entrenador, a pesar de las tensiones inherentes a la falta de lealtad por parte de la dirección del club hacia el técnico con promesas de contratación de jugadores no cumplidas, a pesar de las ausencias debidas a la Copa de África de Naciones no compensadas, a pesar de un arbitraje singularmente desfavorable al Olympique de Marsella, a pesar de las lesiones de jugadores claves, Marcelo Bielsa logró colocar el club en el centro de debate futbolístico gracias al extraordinario juego ofensivo propuesto a todos los amantes de la pelota.

            Conviene plantear algunas preguntas para poner en su justo valor la obra del rosarino a la cabeza del OM. ¿Qué clasificación habría conseguido el equipo si Vincent Labrune hubiera cumplido sus promesas e invertido 35 millones de euros para componer un plantel de 22 jugadores profesionales? ¿Cuál habría sido el rendimiento del grupo si el club hubiera fichado a sólo tres jugadores de la lista de Bielsa? ¿Qué nivel habría alcanzado el plantel en términos de resultados y clasificación si se hubiera beneficiado de un arbitraje normal? Indudablemente, Marcelo Biela habría podido luchar hasta los últimos instantes para el título de campeón de Francia.

            Ningún otro actor del fútbol tocó tanto el corazón de los marselleses, ni Basile Boli que marcó el gol victorioso de la final de Champion’s en 1993, ni Jean-Pierre Papin, elegido Jugador del Siglo, ni Didier Drogba y su fabulosa epopeya en la copa UEFA en 2004. Para entender el fervor que suscitó Marcelo Bielsa, resulta importante considerar su comportamiento basado en un compromiso total con su pasión por el fútbol, una rectitud moral y una ética a toda prueba en un mundo pervertido por el dinero y la hipocresía. Así, más allá de sus innegables competencias profesionales, destacadas por el mundo del fútbol, son su lealtad a los principios, su anticonformismo y sus virtudes humanos los que inspiran el respeto y el cariño de los hinchas.

Salim Lamrani

Eight years after releasing its first report on land grabbing, which put the issue on the international agenda, GRAIN publishes a new dataset documenting nearly 500 cases of land grabbing around the world.

In October 2008, GRAIN published a report called “Seized: the 2008 land grab for food and financial security”. It exposed how a new wave of land grabbing was sweeping the planet in the name of addressing the global food and financial crises.

“On one hand”, we wrote, “‘food insecure’ governments that rely on imports to feed their people are snatching up vast areas of farmland abroad for their own offshore food production. On the other hand, food corporations and private investors, hungry for profits in the midst of the deepening financial crisis, see investment in foreign farmland as an important new source of revenue.”[1]

In the annex to the 2008 report, we documented more than one hundred cases of these new and emerging land deals that, until then, had been buried in the business sections of newspapers like the Vientiane Times and the Sudan Tribune. Little did we know that by merely pulling the news clips and analysis together, the report would trigger a tsunami of global media attention, social activism and political struggle—not to mention corporate headaches. 

The global farmland grab is far from over. Photo: Friends of the Earth International

Eight years later, we went back to look at the data—the myriad reports of land grabbing for food production that we have been following and assessing. Over the past several years, GRAIN staff and allies in different regions have been tracking media and other information sources on a daily basis and posting reports on land grab developments to the open-publishing platformfarmlandgrab.org. We used this website as the basis for constructing this dataset, which holds 491 land deals covering over 30 million hectares spanning 78 countries.[2] This new research shows that, while some deals have fallen by the wayside, the global farmland grab is far from over. Rather, it is in many ways deepening, expanding to new frontiers and intensifying conflict around the world. We hope this updated dataset will be useful tool for movements, communities, researchers and activists fighting against land grabbing and defending community-based food systems.

Eight years later: overall assessment

The big picture view that we draw from this exercise is disturbing. First of all, the emerging new trend we wrote about in 2008 has continued and become worse. While most countries are not currently experiencing the extreme price hikes in basic foodstuffs that triggered riots from Haiti to Egypt back in 2008, prices remain stubbornly high and access to food is a daily struggle for most people.[3]Today, that situation is compounded by the mounting impacts of climate change. Harvest losses due to extreme weather have become so acute in places like the southern Philippines that farmers are in the streets begging for food and getting killed for it.[4] We now have even more evidence that climate change is caused not just by burning coal and oil for transport and energy, but by the industrial food system itself and the corporate quest for profits that drives its expansion. Indeed, climate change and land grabs are inextricably linked.

Some of the most egregious land deals we witnessed over the past several years have since backfired or failed for different reasons. In 2009, public outrage over the 1.3 million hectare Daewoo project in Madagascar helped bring down the government leading to the suspension of the deal. In 2011, the assassination of Libyan leader Mouamar Gaddafi put an end to his regime’s 100,000-hectare rice project in Mali. Other large-scale deals have been scaled back. In Cameroon, for example, after much protest, the Herakles deal was slashed from 73,000 to 19,843 hectares. Some deals have morphed into less direct forms of land takeover. In Brazil and Argentina, for instance, Chinese companies facing concerns about foreigners grabbing land have tried to work out deals to secure the production from farms rather than purchasing the land themselves. Increasingly, such deals are being labelled “responsible investments”, but they are still, in many ways, land grabs.[5]

While some of the worst land grabs have been shelved or toned down, a number of new deals are appearing, many of which are “hard-core” initiatives to expand the frontiers of industrial agriculture. We say hard-core because these deals are large, long-term and determined to avoid the pitfalls that earlier deals ran into. Much of the Asian-led oil palm expansion in Africa, and the advance of pension funds and trade conglomerates to secure access to new farmlands, fall into this category.[6] Increasingly, gaining access to farmland is part of a broader corporate strategy to profit from carbon markets, mineral resources, water resources, seeds, soil and environmental services.

As land deals rise and fall, policymakers and corporate boards are hard at work trying to facilitate their success. Instead of the wild land rush of before, we now have multiple “frameworks” and “guidelines” on how to conduct these deals while minimising social and environmental costs. All of these new rules are voluntary, however, and do more to obfuscate the problem than to solve it. Many argue that the heightened political attention around land grabbing has helped bring land and agrarian reform back into public debates in parliaments and other legislative fora. But the main objective of regulatory processes is still to formalise land markets and titles, which experience tells us will lead to further concentration of land in the hands of few.[7]

On the positive side, one thing that has changed radically compared to eight years ago is the level of resistance and mobilisation these deals have triggered. People are now more informed and taking action like never before. There are numerous coalitions and campaigns against land grabbing operating at local, national and regional levels. In many places, these struggles are converging, bringing together farmers, migrant groups, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, pastoralists and others. These movements are developing new strategies to challenge corporations and governments and building international solidarity.

Meanwhile, journalists and other media workers have become important allies in getting the word out—often at great peril to their personal safety. As resistance to land grabbing grows, the difficulties and dangers of engaging in this work are intensifying. Activists are detained and imprisoned; journalists are harassed with libel cases and even killed; and peasant and indigenous leaders are routinely murdered. But this challenging, courageous work is crucial if we are to turn the tide of land grabbing and corporate-led agriculture and create a thriving global movement for food justice and food sovereignty.

What exactly does the data tell us?

Our first land grab dataset in 2008 exposed about 100 initiatives, launched by both governments and corporations, many of which were still in an exploratory phase at the time.[8] In 2012, we updated the dataset to reach 400 projects covering 35 million hectares.[9]

The 2016 dataset documents 491 large-scale land grabs taking place over the past decade. The deals cover over 30 million hectares of land in 78 countries. This means that the number of land deals is continuing to grow, but the growth has slowed since 2012. In particular, several of the largest “mega” projects have collapsed, resulting in a decline in the total number of hectares. The problem, however, is not going away.

As with our previous datasets, this is not an exhaustive list of land deals and, as such, is not representative of the full scale of land grabbing around the world. It draws mainly from thefarmlandgrab.org website and accounts for only those deals that:

• were initiated after 2006,
• have not been cancelled,
• are led by foreign investors,
• are for the production of food crops and
• involve large (> 500 hectares) areas of land.

Below are the main conclusions we have gleaned from this new and improved dataset, though we also expect and encourage others to analyse the data for themselves.

Despite many failed deals, the problem is real

The shock of the early years of the global farmland grab has subsided. Gone are news reports of diplomats shuttling in from Gulf countries to sign deals for half a million hectares with poor, agriculture-based countries. Gone are many of the opportunistic businessmen peddling farmland investments in faraway countries to pension fund managers. Gone, too, are a number of companies that signed serious deals for tens or even hundreds of thousands of hectares, with ambitions to become top multinational agribusiness companies.

The Indian-owned Siva Group, for instance, amassed a farmland portfolio of nearly one million hectares for oil palm plantations in only a few years. The company is now facing bankruptcy proceedings in the Seychelles. In another example, Foras, the private sector arm of the Islamic Development Bank—which was on its way to acquiring 700,000 hectares of farmland across Africa for a massive rice project—has vanished. Even Karuturi, whose 300,000-hectare concession in Ethiopia made him a poster child of the new farm owners, now has nothing to show for it. His flower business in Kenya has been liquidated and his Ethiopian farms have been sitting idle for the past two years.

We culled 126 failed deals and placed them in a separate table. The large number of abandoned projects attests to the frenzy that erupted in 2008, much of which eventually backfired. Whether due to incompetence, hubris, inexperience or poor planning, their collapse helps to explain why the growth in farmland deals has slowed since 2012 and why the overall number of hectares has declined.

The food security agenda is still a factor driving farmland deals

On the heels of a global food price crisis, the initial wave of farmland deals was driven largely by “food security” concerns. Much of the media attention on the early negotiations emphasised the geopolitics with images of wealthy sheiks taking over the lands of poor and hungry peasants in Mali or Pakistan in order to export food back to their home countries. Our new database complicates this early view somewhat, as a number of today’s land grabs involving companies from China, Japan or the Gulf states have little to do with the food security agendas of their home governments.

The quest for food security has not, however, disappeared completely from the land grabbing story. Despite early difficulties, Gulf governments are still promoting overseas farming and building or buying farms abroad. Hassad Food, for instance—the agribusiness arm of Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and one of the pioneering Gulf firms in overseas farming—is even starting to worry about competition for available farmland.[10] Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the Gulf companies should watch the latest video put out by UAE-based Jenaan Investment on its new farm in Sudan—which is gigantic, high tech and fully operational.[11]

China, Japan and South Korea have also maintained official policies on overseas farming as part of their food security agendas. This mainly translates into support for their national corporations, which are not only acquiring lands overseas for farming but, just as importantly, securing control over trading routes to ship commodities back home and compete with the big Western multinationals on global markets. Africa remains a small, albeit important, part of food security-driven land grabbing, though these companies are currently focused on more accessible areas like Brazil and Australia.

Agribusiness expansion is the main objective

While the food security hype has died down, plain old profit-driven agribusiness expansion is now the dominant agenda. The new database provides a stark picture of this, with companies integrating their operations both vertically and horizontally. Food corporations like China’s COFCO are expanding by getting more deeply engaged in farming itself. In addition, more companies are getting into agribusiness and more finance is flowing in. Geographically, plantations are expanding into new territories.

Oil palm plantations alone are responsible for a large portion of land grabs in the food and agriculture sector in the last few years. Much of this expansion is led by Asian conglomerates like Wilmar, Olam and Sime Darby, which are carving out massive chunks of territory in Africa, as well as Latin America, East Asia and the Pacific. Governments play a key role here. They are building infrastructure, revising regulations and entering into new “public-private partnerships” that facilitate private sector investment in agriculture, including farmland acquisitions. They are also signing new trade and investment agreements and aid packages aimed at facilitating the expansion of agribusiness.

The financial sector is a big player

Several of the early players from the financial sector have by now vanished, and others have fallen extremely short of their initial projections. The New York-based hedge fund Galtere is a good example. In 2010 it announced it was setting up a US$1 billion farmland fund. Galtere bought a couple of farms in Brazil and then dropped off the map.

But new players from the financial sector are popping up all the time. Most have their sights on profiting from the real heavy weights among institutional investors: pension funds. The last few years have seen a spectacular rise in farmland investments by pension funds.[12] In 2008, only a few pension funds were investing in farmland. By 2012, several more were showing interest. Today the number has ballooned. Pension funds are the source of much of the capital behind companies buying farmland globally. Some, such as the US-based TIAA-CREF, are even running their own farming operations.

Another key set of players from the financial sector is the development finance institutions (DFIs), the for-profit cousins of national development aid agencies. Farmland companies still have a hard time raising funds from the private sector, as farmland is viewed as a risky investment, so they turn to DFIs—many of which have adopted “agribusiness investment” as their main vision for agricultural development. Without the involvement of these agencies, which are investing in land grabs using taxpayer money, there would be significantly fewer deals in our database.

Offshore and illicit finance underpin these deals

Offshore structures and illicit financial flows play an important role in today’s farmland grab. Had we listed the origin of the foreign investors according to where they are registered, tax havens like the Cayman Islands or Singapore would rank as top land grabber countries! Nearly all the companies grabbing land in Mozambique, for instance, are registered in Mauritius. While they may be legal, such offshore structures can conceal corruption, hide the true owners and allow companies to avoid paying taxes.

Communities and organisations on the ground are often the first to notice that companies acquiring farmland are not much interested in agriculture and appear to have been set up for entirely different purposes—such as money laundering, tax evasion or to con people out of their savings. For example, African Land Limited of the UK, which ran a scheme to sell farmland in Sierra Leone, was found guilty of misleading investors. Local farmers and pastoralists in Senegal have long suspected the company Senhuile of money laundering.[13] The Kenya Revenue Authority for years pursued Karuturi, one of the largest farmland investors in Ethiopia, for transfer pricing in its flower operations there.[14] Unsurprisingly, several farmland investors are found in the Panama Papers, such as Russian billionaire Rashid Sardarov who bought large tracts of land in Namibia.[15]

Proving the link between farmland investment and corruption or criminality is not easy, of course.[16] In Colombia, the government’s own Court of Audits estimates that drug traffickers owned nearly half of the country’s farmland.[17] In Romania, the courts have chased numerous investors for tax evasion and money laundering. More recently, several deals entered into by Dutch Rabobank in Romania were investigated for forgery and fraud. The French government even has its eyes on hot money coming into the country’s wine industry. Seeing land grabbers put behind bars, however, is a rare occurrence.

With offshore and illicit finance so tightly connected to farmland investing, we are increasingly led to the conclusion that “due diligence” is a farce—it is easy to claim, but often proves hollow. In Cambodia, the Thai sugar giant Mitr Phol persistently boated about its standards of excellence, all the while being accused of illegally confiscating thousands of hectares from rural communities. In 2015, the company finally withdrew from its plantations and the EU and Cambodian governments are now trying to audit the concessions. In Peru, the Czech-led Plantaciones de Pucallpa—member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Soy, which requires due diligence of its members—was linked to massive deforestation and human rights abuses and finally ordered to cease operations.[18] Just in the past year, Rabobank and TIAA-CREF, perhaps the most esteemed and supposedly responsible farmland investors in the world, were exposed for land grabbing. Despite their lofty claims of due diligence, both Rabobank and TIAA-CREF were found to be buying lands from crooked businessmen known for using fraud and corruption to amass lands in Romania and Brazil, respectively.

Narrower geography

The geographic scope of foreign investment in farmland has narrowed in the new database. Only a few deals have gone forward in some of the major initial targets such as Mali, Senegal, South Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines and Argentina. In Latin America, companies very active a few years ago in multi-country land deals such as El Tejar, Calyx Agro (Louis Dreyfus) and Cresud struggled to achieve profitability and eventually pulled out. Attention has now turned to countries where agribusiness is already established and the legal environment favours foreign investors and exports (e.g. Australia) and countries where the export infrastructure is being built and large areas of land can be cheaply obtained (e.g. Mozambique). As a result, there is less farmland investment buzz in Asia and the Americas in the current database, while the prominent regions are Africa, Eastern Europe and the Pacific.

There are also overtones of a colonial carve-up in the creation of these new frontiers as certain countries favour investments in specific regions. Japanese companies, backed by their government, are focusing on northern Brazil and Mozambique for soy production. Chinese companies are aggressively buying farmland in New Zealand and Australian, as well as Russia’s far east. Russia’s western farmland is a favourite destination of European companies, as are Romania and the Ukraine. Indian companies are keen on Ethiopia. French and Portuguese companies favour their former colonies in Africa. (US and UK companies, however, are pretty much everywhere.)

Farmland grabs are also water grabs

The global farmland grab remains as much about water as it is about land.[19] With a few exceptions, land deals in the database include access to water. In many of the cases for which we have been able to see the legal agreements—as in Mali, Senegal and Cameroon—rights to water and access to water are explicitly guaranteed in the text. This does not mean that land deals only occur where water is abundant, however. A frightening number of water guzzling operations are being erected in water conflict zones (e.g. along the Nile), upstream from water dependent communities (e.g. the Lurio River project in Mozambique) or on top of non-renewable underground reserves (e.g. Sudan). When drought hits, as it did in much of Asia and Africa in the first half of 2016, communities living next to these plantations see their access to water evaporate. This is what is currently happening in communities living next to the new sugarcane plantations in Cambodia and Ethiopia’s Lower Omo Valley.

The data we have today shows how far and how fast agribusiness is expanding. It also highlights how inefficient these investments are in the sense of how little they do to resolve rural poverty or make a dent in global hunger. But most importantly, it shows the tremendous resistance growing to counteract these deals. In case after case, we see staunch opposition to these investments from local communities and the organisations that support them. The resistance stems from conflicting claims over land and territories and arises as companies tear down forests, dig up burial sites, fence off pastoral zones and pollute the air and water. It grows as security forces clash with communities and as lawyers harass civil society, activists and journalists. It often becomes fatal and leaves people traumatised. The pressure behind these deals is intense and the stakes are very high for all involved.

Groups around the world have launched campaigns to stop the financing of land grabs at the source, whether from the World Bank, European governments, pension funds or shareholders in major corporations. Some of these efforts have been successful at stopping loans (e.g. to Calyx Agro in Latin America) or in making the case for divestment (e.g. Ecoenergy in Tanzania), while others are still trying to influence the halls of power (e.g. the governments invested in Feronia in the DRC). Some groups focus on legal work, whether it’s challenging land grabbers in court (e.g. Wilmar) or creating public political space (e.g. through African churches or parliaments) to rewrite rules in favour of communities and get them enforced. This kind of work is gaining momentum from Ethiopia to Sierra Leone as activists learn to tap into legal resources and support groups and use crowdfunding tools to raise awareness and support for jailed community leaders and their families.

Resistance is also growing as barriers between different frontline struggles are breaking down. In Senegal, for example, farmers’ organisations are supporting pastoralists who are the first affected by certain projects. In Mali, urban groups displaced by industrial development projects are now the first to travel to rural areas to help farmers defend their lands. Similarly, communities in different countries where the same corporation is taking control of land (e.g. Dominion Farm), are getting together to learn from and support each other, sometimes through well structured alliances (e.g. around Socfin/Bolloré). People are also engaging in more cross-sector struggles, for example creating solidarity between those fighting biofuel initiatives and those fighting mining projects.

Resistance against land grabs is at the forefront of many of today’s struggles for social, political and economic transformation, putting corporations and governments colluding complicit with land grabbing on the defensive. This makes it all the more critical to avoid traps like that of “responsible investment”. We have to keep the focus on reversing the expansion of agribusiness—stopping the problem at its root. As this new research shows, the global farmland grab is massive and it is extending its reach to new frontiers. We must redouble our resistance efforts to ensure that more lands can stay under the control of food producing communities.

Note: Translation of this report and accompanying datasets into French and Spanish is currently underway.

Going further

PDF:

Click here to download this report as a pdf

Click here to download Annexe 1. Land deals 2016 (the complete list of current land deals) in pdf format

Click here to download Annexe 2. Discarded land deals 2016 (list of deals that were discarded from the main dataset because they were sold, cancelled or had insufficient recent information) in pdf format

XLS:

Click here to download the main dataset of current land deals as an excel spreadhseet

Click here to download the dataset of discarded deals as an excel spreadsheet

*For full references, please contact [email protected]

Notes:

Sometimes all it takes is a single visual to drive home the point. For Israel’s most read newspaper, visuals have become a way to race-bait and incite against Muslims, and specifically against Israel’s Arab population.

On Monday morning, pro-Netanyahu daily Israel Hayom published a photo montage comparing Omar Mateen, the American citizen whomurdered 50 people at an Orlando gay club on Sunday, and Neshat Melhem, who murdered three Israelis in a shooting spree in Tel Aviv on New Year’s day. Above the side-by-side mugshots of the two killers, the editors of the paper decided to print the words: “A chilling similarity.”

The background: Israel Hayom is owned by far-right American casino mogul and Republican bankroller Sheldon Adelson. The paper, which is handed out for free, was created by Adelson as a platform for Netanyahu’s politics, all while circumventing Israel’s extremely strict campaign finance laws. He finances the paper reportedly at a considerable loss, selling ad space significantly below market value to put his competitors at a disadvantage. The paper, now the country’s most widely read, has dramatically upended Israel’s media landscape, and is considered just one of the ways Netanyahu, who also serves as the country’s communications minister, is able to maintain control over the public discourse.

The reason: Mateen and Melhem both wear glasses, and their heads are shaved. Oh, and they are both Muslims who have committed acts of terrorism and murdered innocents. And because it is not convenient to mention the more obvious parallel — between Mateen and Yishai Schlissel, who attacked the Jerusalem Pride Parade in June 2015 and murdered a teenage girl with a knife. Their crimes are far more similar; the only significant difference being that Schlissel was not able to use an assault rifle to inflict mass damage in the crowded parade. Mateen, on the other had, had little difficulty purchasing his weapons in Florida.

The context: The photos were used to illustrate an article by Israel Hayom columnist Boaz Bismuth — known for his ties to Sheldon Adelson and support for Donald Trump — who writes about the Orlando attack as proof that Obama cannot contend with Islamic terrorism let alone recognize it. The schadenfreude is hard to miss:

Bismuth’s refers to Israel only in passing when he writes about last week’s attack by Palestinian gunmen, which left four Israelis dead in a central Tel Aviv restaurant:

According to Bismuth, Israel and the United States are fighting a common enemy. The only difference is that unlike “Obama’s America,” Israel is not bogged down by nuisances such as political correctness. Unlike our liberal friends in the United States, we have no issues with speaking openly about the problem, and know exactly what it takes to deal with it.

And finally, the image: The decision to publish Melhem’s photo alongside Mateen’s amounts to race-baiting and incitement of the worst kind against a fifth of Israel’s population. As The Seventh Eye’s Shuki Taussig put it, the subtext of the photo isn’t difficult to parse: “The Arabs are murderers, and they live among us.” Apparently the author of the article missed that message, though, because the text never actually mentions Melhem’s Tel Aviv attack at all.

And there’s a reason Bismuth didn’t make the comparison himself. Nearly 100 percent of terrorist attacks in Israel are not carried out by Palestinian citizens, Muslim or otherwise. Over the course of 68 years, terror attacks by Palestinian citizens, or even cases in which they were an accomplice, have been exceedingly rare. Melhem, from the northern village Ar’ara, was known to have a troubled mental history and has sparked no copycat attacks among Israeli citizens. His actions were horrific and deadly, but were shocking mainly as anexception to overwhelming majority of Israel’s Arab citizens.

The photo montage is an accurate depiction of Israel Hayom‘s patron’s worldview. If Netanyahu believes that Israel is besieged by predatory beasts from both within and outside, then there is certainly no reason his newspaper to take a different editorial line. Unfortunately the decision won’t likely cause a ripple outside limited media and political circles, while many Israel Hayom readers, and perhaps even most Israelis, will simply view it as ordinary, normal — and self-evident. The lack of desire to think critically and embrace immutable, almost divine truths is on full display, courtesy of Israel’s prime minister and his foreign backer.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine’s Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week’s events. Sign up here.

Kurdish fighters allegedly backed by the US, have crossed the Euphrates River in Syria and have moved against fighters from the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) holding the city of Manbij. The city is about 20 miles from Jarabulus, another Syrian city located right on the Syrian-Turkish border. Jarabulus too is held by ISIS.

The initial push toward Manbij came from the Tishrin Dam in the south, however, another front was opened up and is hooking around the city’s north – successfully cutting off the city and its ISIS defenders from roads leading to the Turkish border – including Route 216 running between Manbij and Jarabulus.

Planning an assault on an urban center requires that an attacking force cut off city defenders from their logistical routes. Doing so prevents the enemy from fleeing and regrouping, but also diminishes the enemy’s fighting capacity during the assault. It is clear that the fighters moving in on ISIS in Manbij have determined that Jarabulus and Turkey just beyond the border, constitutes the source of ISIS’ fighting capacity.

Western Media Admits ISIS Entering Syria From Turkey 

Jarabulus is increasingly being referred to across the Western media as the “last ISIS border-crossing point into Turkey.” A 2015 article written by the Guardian’s Jonathan Steele titled, “The Syrian Kurds Are Winning!,” would explain that (emphasis added):

In July of this year the YPG, again with the aid of US airpower, drove ISIS out of Tal Abyad, another town on the border with Turkey. This meant ISIS had lost two of the three crossing points from Turkey through which it could bring foreign volunteers, finance, and weaponry to strengthen the jihad. 

Idriss Nassan, the Kurdish spokesperson of the Kobanî canton, told me that the YPG now plans to liberate the last ISIS border-crossing point into Turkey at the town of Jarabulus.

Steeles’ article gives the impression that the US was actually trying to stop ISIS by helping the Kurds wage war inside of Syria. However Steele, for whatever reason, never addresses his own implications that ISIS is literally being reinforced from Turkey – a NATO-member since the 1950’s which hosts a US Air Force base at Incirlik, and who has allowed US, British, French, and Persian Gulf state intelligence agencies and special forces to operate along its border with Syria with impunity since the conflict began.

More recently, in a Washington Times article titled, “Turkey offers joint ops with U.S. forces in Syria, wants Kurds cut out,” it would quote the Turkish Foreign Minister himself admitting (emphasis added):

Joint operations between Washington and Ankara in Manbji, a well-known waypoint for Islamic State fighters, weapons and equipment coming from Turkey bound for Raqqa, would effectively open “a second front” in the ongoing fight to drive the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, from Syria’s borders, [Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu] said.

The Foreign Minister of Turkey admits that ISIS forces – fighters, weapons, and equipment – are pouring out of Turkey’s own territory “bound for Raqqa,” but never explains how the most notorious terrorist organization of the 21st century could move enough men and materiel through a NATO-member state to wage an entire war with, without being stopped before reaching Syria. Also not explained is where ISIS is procuring the weapons that it is moving through Turkey.

It is a reality that directly and damningly implicates Turkey and its allies as state sponsors of terrorism, and calls into question both the legitimacy and relevance of NATO itself. At the very least – NATO is exposed as a military alliance so impotent that it cannot even secure its own territory from being used as a springboard for full-scale ISIS military operations.

US-NATO Harbored, Protected ISIS for Years 

It should be noted that as a “collective act” by NATO, at one point in the conflict, the United States and Germany would even place Patriot missile systems along the Turkish-Syrian border to discourage Syrian aviation from approaching too close – a strategic reality that did not shift until Russia began its own direct military intervention in the conflict on Damascus’ behalf, as Defense News reported at the time.

In retrospect – it appears that both the US and Turkey were complicit in ensuring Syrian efforts to interdict terrorists including ISIS were ineffective – establishing what was essentially a defacto buffer zone inhabited by among other groups – Al Qaeda’s Al Nusra Front and ISIS itself.

Russia’s entry into the war and its subsequent operations directly along the Syrian-Turkish border disrupted ISIS’ logistical support from NATO-territory and has been the primary factor leading to ISIS’ weakening within Syria.

Time is Up for the West’s Narrative 

With the Western media itself now admitting ISIS is crossing into Syria from Turkey – even without explaining the obvious context and implications this has for both Turkey and NATO  – it will become quickly apparent to all that more should be done by Turkey and NATO to contain ISIS within Turkey itself, rather than beyond Turkey’s border with Syria.

For the United States in particular to have substantial military assets located in Turkey for its Syrian operations, but appear oblivious to the ISIS threat passing by its own troops, intelligence officers, and military trainers and advisers, will become an act even the most naive Americans and Europeans will find difficult to believe.

In the meantime, efforts to continue securing Syria’s borders, north and south, must be made in order to confront the West’s proxies on the battlefield. Meanwhile, across information space, efforts must be made to continue raising awareness that a war fought by fighters moving from one country into another is not a “civil war,” it is a foreign invasion – and those nations participating in it along the invaded nation’s borders must be held accountable.

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

NATO prepares a veritable military buildup in Eastern Europe: German soldiers are operating in Lithuania, the British take over Estonia, and US soldiers move in to protect Latvia. The Canadians will be in Poland. Also in the Mediterranean, combat units are being increased. Russia perceives the activity as a threat, but hasn’t yet announced any countermeasures.

At the NATO summit during July 8th-9th in Warsaw, the Alliance will adopt a massive military presence along Russia’s border. Russia is classified by NATO as a threat. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said in Washington that the US and the EU have the right in the form of NATO to defend its territories on foreign soil. Critics of this strategy believe that it’s possible this upgrade will increase significantly the danger of a conflict between the superpowers. Wednesday in Brussels, the defense ministers want the military alliance to take decisions which will then be sealed by the leaders in Poland. NATO wants to strengthen its military presence on its eastern borders significantly, and to position foreign combat troops battalions in Poland and the three Baltic states. Germany is the core of the Association in Lithuania, the British in Estonia, and the United States is expected to be that in Latvia. What remains unclear, however, is who will be sending troops to Poland.

Maybe Canada will take on this task, it was last reported from Polish diplomatic sources as quoted by Reuters. “’The summit in Warsaw will be President Obama’s last (NATO summit) and the U.S. wants it to be a success. It will ensure that the fourth framework country is found, possibly by leaning on Canada,’ the source said. ‘Washington will bend over backwards here.’”

Germany wants to send at least 600 soldiers to Lithuania, which will constitute the core of the local battalion there with about 1,200 soldiers.

The battalions are to include around 1,000 soldiers each, and are not permanently stationed in the eastern countries, but replaced regularly. By means of this rotation, the military alliance wants to avoid a formal breach of the NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997, which prohibits the permanent stationing of a “substantial” number of combat troops in the east. What specifically “substantial” means, however, is controversial. [In other words: Obama wants to be more aggressive than the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997 might allow; he wants to violate the treaty in such a way that he’ll be able to say he’s not really breaking the treaty.]

Poland and the Baltic countries want to push NATO to be even more aggressive. They demand among other things, increased aerial surveillance by fighter jets of the alliance partners on the Baltic. Poland had in the past also repeatedly demanded the permanent stationing of NATO combat troops [which would clearly violate the NATO-Russia Founding Act]. The Baltic States and Poland have been feeling threatened since Russia’s March 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea.

NATO defense ministers will also discuss a new mission in the Mediterranean. What exactly is planned there, is difficult to judge. Officially the rise of extremist ISIS militias and the refugee crisis are given as reasons for that expansion of NATO. ISIS is financed and otherwise supported by Saudi Arabia, the closest ally of the West in the Middle East. A good reason why NATO, the most powerful fighting force in all of the world’s military, have not coped with that group of more or less random ragtag mercenaries, is not known. Russia is fighting on the side of Syria against ISIS and against previously officially the US-backed al-Nusra Front [Al Qaeda in Syria — the Syrian affiliate of the group that did 9/11].

The NATO alliance is looking for a new combat mission in the Mediterranean, as the 11 September 2001 NATO response “Active Endeavor” patrolling the Mediterranean to stop terrorists there, has actually become obsolete. The ministers therefore want to consider whether the mission should be transformed into a more general one to strengthen security in the Mediterranean. Also being considered is to transform that mission to a closer cooperation with the European Union, which maintains its own naval deployment off the Libyan coast against human traffickers and the rescue of refugees in distress under the name “Sophia”. At dinner on Tuesday therefore also the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and government representatives from the non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden will also be in NATO headquarters.

The agenda on Wednesday also includes the future of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. According to current plans, the US wants to reduce the number of its troops in Afghanistan from its current 9800 to 5500. Whether Obama will hold to that objective despite the poor security situation in Afghanistan isn’t yet clear.