The U.S. public loves fascists; they elect them, constantly. Donald Trump, who “says he would raise the minimum wage and stop the endless efforts at regime change,” is called a fascist by some.  But Hillary Clinton “is happy to bomb Libya or Syria or any other country,” and played a major role in mass Black incarceration. Barack Obama is the war-maker and deporter-in-chief. “All of the major party candidates fit the F word description in some way.”

“No one comes into office with any intention of undoing America’s leadership as the world’s worst jailer.”

Donald Trump is the ill spoken, boorish, graceless version of every American president in modern history. He differs from them only in his unconcealed appeals to white nationalism. But Democrats aren’t much better. They pretend to work on behalf of human, civil and economic rights but those claims are lies. They are meant to hide their partnerships with corporate America, very wealthy individuals and the worldwide imperialist project.

If Trump is a fascist then he will fit in nicely with the pantheon of horrific men we are told to respect and venerate. Barack Obama charges and convicts whistle blowers with the little used espionage act from the era of Woodrow Wilson. He claims and has exercised an invented right to kill Americans. His predecessor invaded and occupied Iraq but he continues the dirty deed there and in Afghanistan. He tries to fool the public by assassinating “al Qaeda number two,” over and over again. Al Qaeda certainly doesn’t lack for plan B staffers.

Bush the younger cut tax rates for rich people but Obama didn’t change that. Under the guise of compromising with intransigent Republicans he did the same thing. When he and the Democrats controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010 they raised the minimum wage a paltry 70 cents.

Conversely, Donald Trump says he would raise the minimum wage and says he would stop the endless efforts at regime change. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders have questioned that fundamental premise of American foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has already proven herself to be particularly blood thirsty. She is happy to bomb Libya or Syria or any other country. Her so-called expertise amounts to nothing more than an expansion of state sponsored terror committed by the United States.

It is a Democratic president who brought back a cold war against Russia and recklessly brought troops to the edge of that country’s borders.

Trump says he wouldn’t cut Social Security while Barack Obama famously declared that he and his 2012 Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, agreed on the need to cut this program that was once called the “third rail” of politics.

Every president since the 1980s has grown the horrific mass incarceration industry. Using wars on drugs as a pretext they have locked up 2 million people, half of whom are black. No one comes into office with any intention of undoing America’s leadership as the world’s worst jailer.

American history teaches black people to be, at the very least, wary of public officials who are beloved by red necks as much as Trump is. When Trump speaks of preventing Muslim immigration or deporting all of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in this country he is making inherently racist appeals.

That is why he is protested and rightly so. But the protesters have already missed the mark by giving a pass to equally questionable policy actions and statements coming from Democrats. It is a Democratic president who brought back a cold war against Russia and recklessly brought troops to the edge of that country’s borders. This scenario was unheard of during the worst days of the cold war and now risks nuclear confrontation. That is because George W. Bush unilaterally abrogated the missile defense treaty with Russia. Perhaps he can be called a fascist also.

The trade deals passed by American presidents with congressional connivance grow worse. There is no longer any pretense that their goal is to help corporations maximize profits and minimize everyone else’s rights. Not even members of Congress were allowed access to the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership legislation.

If a politician has the right establishment credentials and knows how to give prepared speeches he or she can get away with committing any outrage.

If Trump is protested, Obama ought to be as well. He is spending his last year in office on an imperialism tour. He goes to Hiroshima for photo opportunities with atomic bomb survivors while building more nuclear warheads than any other president. He tells endless lies about Russian “aggression” but he is the provocative head of state.

Trump should be disliked by Latinos and everyone else when he says that Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers. But Obama is the deporter in chief, sending a record number of Latino immigrants out of the country with dubious rationales, devastating them and their families.

Apparently all of the major party candidates fit the F word description in some way. Trump’s bombast and ignorance make him the easiest to pick out of the crowd but appearances are deceiving. It seems that if a politician has the right establishment credentials and knows how to give prepared speeches he or she can get away with committing any outrage.

In just the last 40 years American presidents or their allied partners in crime have killed people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Congo, Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Gaza, Kosovo, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen. What do they have to do to be called fascists? Showing bad manners seems to be the only thing that sets off expressions of outrage among Americans.

There is already fascism in the White House, the Justice Department, the State Department and Congress. The only question is who will be the next person to keep that sick machinery running.

Margaret Kimberley‘s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. 

Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at:

Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton: Who’s the Fascist?

The scaly anteater is considered to be the most trafficked mammal on earth. Over a million of these have been taken from the wild in the past decade alone. The illegal trade in live apes, including chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, is also rife, and many other species across the planet are being trafficked. It is estimated that rhino poaching in South Africa increased by as much as 8,000% between 2007 and 2014. For every live animal illegally taken from the wild, there are many more killed during capture and transport.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. Secretary-General of CITES, John Scanlon, states that the current wildlife crisis is not a natural phenomenon, but the direct result of people’s actions. He argues, “People are the cause of this serious threat to wildlife and people must be the solution, which also requires us to tackle human greed, ignorance and indifference.”

The nature of the crisis Scanlon speaks of is clear. The vast illegal trade in wildlife products is pushing whole species towards extinction, including elephants, rhinos, big cats, gorillas and sea turtles, as well as helmeted hornbills, pangolins and wild orchids.

Driven by a growing demand for illegally sourced wildlife products, the illicit trade has escalated into a global crisis. Thousands of species are internationally traded and used by people in their daily lives. The United Nations Environment Programme runs the annual World Environment Day (WED), which is celebrated each year on 5 June. The event aims to raise global awareness and sets out action to protect nature.

Angola is currently trying to rebuild its elephant population, which has been decimated by a decades-long civil war, and is hosting the 2016 WED celebrations. However, poaching in Angola is threatening the efforts to increase the number of elephants, and the government is committed to revising its penal code to bring in tougher punishments for poachers.

The illegal wildlife trade, particularly the trade in ivory and rhino horn, is a major problem across Africa. The number of elephants killed on the continent in recent years is over 20,000 a year, out of a population of around 4,20,000 to 6,50,000. According to data from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, as many as 1,00,000 elephants were killed between 2010 and 2012.

The population of forest elephants in Central and West Africa declined by an estimated 60% between 2002 and 2011. Official reports show that 1,215 rhinos were poached in South Africa alone in 2014 — this translates to 1 rhino killed every 8 hours. The rapid rise in rhino poaching, from less than 20 in 2007, has been driven by the involvement of organised syndicates in the poaching and trafficking of wildlife products.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on UN agencies and various partners to provide a co-ordinated response to wildlife crime and spread the message that there should be zero tolerance for poaching. As part of a wider approach, a strategy is being developed to create greater public awareness of the issue at hand, which will hopefully lead to reduced demand for wildlife products.

As commendable as these aims are, however, on their own they will not be enough to save certain species. For instance, from 2000 to 2009, Indonesia supplied more than half of the global palm oil market at an annual expense of some 340,000 hectares of Indonesian countryside. Planned expansion could wipe out the remaining natural habitat of several endangered species.

This is a ludicrous situation considering that Brazil and Indonesia spent over 100 times more in subsidies to industries that cause deforestation than they received in international conservation aid from the UN to prevent it. The two countries gave over $40bn in subsidies to the palm oil, timber, soy, beef and biofuels sectors between 2009 and 2012, some 126 times more than the $346m they received to preserve their rain forests.

If we want to see how not to manage the world’s wildlife and natural habitats, we need look no further than India, which is now the world’s leading importer of palm oil, accounting for around 15% of the global supply. India imports over two-­thirds of its palm oil from Indonesia.

Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Then import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This was a deliberate policy that effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector (see this) and served the interests of palm oil growers and US grain and agriculture commodity company Cargill, which helped write international trade rules to secure access to the Indian market on its terms.

According to Vandana Shiva, the WTO and the TRIPS Agreement, written by Monsanto, and the Agreement on Agriculture, written by Cargill, was the beginning of a new corporate imperialism. It came as little surprise then that in 2013 India’s Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oil seeds production programme.

Indonesia leads the world in global palm oil production, but palm oil plantations have too often replaced tropical forests, leading to the killing of endangered species and the uprooting of local communities as well as contributing to the release of climate-changing gases (see this analysis). Indonesia emits more greenhouse gases than any country besides China and the US and that’s largely due to the production of palm oil.

The issue of palm oil is one example from the many that could be provided to highlight how corporate imperialism drives wildlife and habitat destruction across the globe. Whether it is in Indonesia, Latin America or elsewhere, transnational agribusiness – and the system of industrialised agriculture it promotes – fuels much of the destruction that we see.

Powerful corporations continue to regard themselves as the owners of people, the planet and the environment and as having the right – enshrined in laws and agreements they wrote – to exploit, kill and devastate for commercial gain.Without addressing the impacts and nature of corporate greed and a wholly corrupt neoliberal capitalism that privileges corporations and profit ahead of people and conservation, regardless of any success in the area of the trafficking of wild animals or plants, much of the world’s wildlife and biodiversity will remain under serious threat. They will increasingly find themselves hemmed into smaller and fewer reserves surrounded by commodity plantations, industries, urban sprawl and barren, degraded landscapes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On World Environment Day: Profiting from Death, Devastation and Destruction is the Norm

Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate

June 5th, 2016 by Diana Johnstone

On June 2, a few days before the California primary, Hillary Clinton gave up trying to compete with Bernie Sanders on domestic policy. Instead, she zeroed in on the soft target of Donald Trump’s most “bizarre rants” in order to present herself as experienced and reasonable. Evidently taking her Democratic Party nomination for granted, she is positioning herself as the perfect candidate for hawkish Republicans.

Choosing to speak in San Diego, home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, on a platform draped with 19 American flags and preceded by half an hour of military marching music, Hillary Clinton was certain of finding a friendly audience for her celebration of American “strength”, “values” and “exceptionalism”. Cheered on by a military audience, Hillary was already assuming the role to which she most ardently aspires: that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

shutterstock_329730725 (3)

Whenever Hillary speaks, one must look for the lies. The biggest lies in this speech were lies of omission. No mention of her support for the invasion of Iraq, no mention of the disaster she wrought in Libya, no mention of her contribution to pursuing endless death and destruction in the Middle East.

But she also lied in claiming partial credit for the Iran nuclear deal, which she had tended to block, and most profoundly in presenting herself as a champion of diplomacy. As Secretary of State, she blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.

Johnstone-Queen-Cover-ak800--291x450

The Washington Post reported prior to the speech that her campaign “hopes there are many more national-security-minded Republicans and independents who would vote for her, even grudgingly, rather than see Trump win the White House.”

The Washington Post noted that the state of California’s “defense industry and military bases lend a backdrop for her speech.” Indeed! Hillary Clinton is quite simply catering to the military-industrial complex, as she has been doing throughout her career.   She is catering to the arms industry, which needs to keep the American people scared of various “threats” in order to continue draining the nation’s wealth into their profitable enterprises. She needs the support of military men and women who believe in all those threats invented by intellectuals in think tanks and editorial offices.

This is the core of the “national-security-minded” electorate that Hillary is targeting. She warned that Trump would jeopardize the wonderful bipartisan foreign policy that has been keeping us great and safe for decades.

In reality, such “national-security-minded” leaders as Dick Cheney and Clinton herself have led the United States into wars that create chaos, inspire enemies and endanger everybody’s national security. Despite the geographically safe position of the United States, it is that bipartisan War Party that has created genuine threats to U.S. national security by prodding the hornets’ nest of religious fanaticism in the Middle East and provoking nuclear-armed Russia by aggressive military exercises right up to its borders.

The basis of Hillary Clinton’s world view is that notorious “American exceptionalism” which Obama has also celebrated. If we don’t rule the world, she suggested, “others will rush in to fill the vacuum”. She clearly cannot conceive of dealing respectfully with other nations. The United States, she proclaimed, is “exceptional – the last best hope on earth.”

Not all people on earth feel that way. So they must be brought to heel. In practice, this “exceptionalism” means acting above the law. It means a unipolar world policed by U.S. armed forces. In practice, Hillary’s devotion to “our allies” means fighting wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and of Saudi Arabia, whose arms purchases are indispensable for our military industrial complex. It means bombing countries and overthrowing foreign governments, from Honduras to Syria and beyond, in order to help them conform to “our values”.

Trump is groping clumsily, at times idiotically, toward a major shift in US foreign policy. He is ill-prepared for the task. If ever elected, he would have to fire the neocons and take on a whole new team of experts to educate and guide him. That would be something of a miracle.

But some of Hillary’s reproaches aimed at Trump’s “reckless, risky” foreign policy statements are not as self-evident as she assumes.  For example, his statement that he would sit down to negotiate with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Is that really such a crazy idea?

North Korea is a small country, whose leaders call themselves “communist” but who are essentially a dynasty that emerged from the resistance against Japanese invaders in World War II. Their quarrel with South Korea stemmed from the domination of Japanese collaborators in that part of the country. That is practically ancient history, and today North Korea feels threatened – and is indeed threatened – by the everlasting U.S. military presence on its borders. A small isolated country like North Korea is not a real “threat” to the world. Even with nuclear weapons. Its much-vaunted nuclear weapons are clearly meant both to defend itself from attack and as a bargaining chip.

So would it be so terrible to sit down and find out what the bargain might be? Basically, North Korean leaders would like to make a deal to lessen the U.S. threat and bring their country out of isolation. Why not discuss this, since it could lead to the end of the “North Korean threat” which is artificial anyway?

Hillary’s reaction is typical. She boasts that her solution is to build up an expensive missile defense shield in Japan and increase everybody’s military buildup in the region. As usual, she goes for the military solution, ridiculing the notion of diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton’s speech will certainly sound convincing to the “national security minded” because it is so familiar. The same as George W. Bush but delivered with much greater polish. America is good, America is great, we must remain strong to save the world. This is the road to disaster.

Hillary Clinton is the clear candidate of the War Party.

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions. Her new book is Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton. She can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate

Like the foie gras producer ramming food down ducks’ throats in order to create diseased super-fatty livers that some humans find acceptable to eat, Barack Obama (via his friend and trade-negotiator Michael Froman) is trying to ram dictatorship down Europeans’ throats, for the benefit of billionaires. And, like the sweet words of the foie-grass lobbyists who say it’s all just the ‘free market’ at work, Obama’s commercial-treaties salesman is saying it’s all being done in order to support ‘free trade’.

Thus, on May 31st, a big promoter of ‘free trade’, Britain’sEconomist, headlined “Europe and US in race to keep TTIP on track”, and ‘reported’ (i.e., stenographically transmitted) the U.S. President’s propaganda; they provided to Mr. Froman their (unjustifiably respected) platform, as an unpaid ad (‘news’ story) for the Obama Administration’s work-product, this treaty: “Speaking in Stockholm on a European tour to push TTIP, Michael Froman, US President Barack Obama’s trade tsar, warned that there was no ‘Plan B’ if talks were not concluded this year. ‘We either work together to help set the rules of the world or we leave that role to others.’” In other words: Obama, via Froman, via this freebie publicity provided by the Economist, is telling the Economist’s readers, that the way to advance free trade is by imposing the rules that govern it, so as to supply advantage to the people who impose the rules and sign Obama’s document, and so as thereby to disadvantage everybody else — all people who are outside the blessed self-selected closed circle of power-holders.

 

Naturally, being good propagandists, the Economist provides no real counter-argument to that (such as by pointing out that Obama is actually trying to replace “the rules of the world” that have already become established during decades by the far less partial World Trade Organization or WTO — replace those global rules by the discriminatory treaty-based trading-blocs rules that he wants in order for international corporations to be placed directly into the driver’s seat), but instead the Economist continues immediately with this caricature of such:

TTIP’s supporters have also been blindsided by increasing opposition to trade deals in the US, where Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump has built his campaign around an antitrade message and Democrat Hillary Clinton, facing a challenge from the left, has abandoned her support for a similar Pacific trade pact.

In other words, according to the Economist: the domestic opposition to Obama’s trade-deals is comprised of two categories: of ‘antitrade’ populists, and of leftist yahoos who don’t know that Marxism is dead and ended ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 — both categories of yahoos are simply behind-the-times, according to theEconomist. Pity those non-subscribers to mega-corporate propaganda such as this.

Then, this Economist ‘news’ ‘report’ (a.k.a.: propaganda) continues:

With the clock running out on Mr Obama’s presidency, officials on both sides now believe that the window is closing for a deal to be reached and approved in legislatures in Europe and the US before the end of the year. EU officials stress that they want to agree a working text by July.

A failure to complete the agreement before a change in US administration could condemn the pact to years of drift.

Get it done now, is the propaganda message. But, the intelligent reader will still be asking: should it be done at all? Viewed in narrowly economic terms alone, the three independently done (as opposed to mega-corporate funded) studies indicate that the major stockholders in international corporations (especially ones that are based in the U.S.) would benefit from these deals, at the expense of everyone else and especially at the expense of consumers, and of employees. However, that’s only the economics of it. More broadly, what Obama’s treaties will do if they become passed into law is to achieve internationally the dream of fascists ever since the time of Mussolini: to transfer sovereignty away from the public in a democracy, to, instead, as Mussolini himself sometimes called his fascist ideology, “corporationism,” which he defined as:

The corporation plays on the economic terrain just as the Grand Council and the militia play on the political terrain. Corporationism is disciplined economy, and from that comes control, because one cannot imagine a discipline without a director. Corporationism is above socialism and above liberalism. A new synthesis is created. 

Earlier, he had said (and even legislated), tellingly:

Labor in all forms, intellectual, technical and manual, is a social duty. In this sense, and in this sense only, is it protected by the State. From the national point of view all production is a unit; its objects are unitary and can be defined as the wellbeing of the producers and the development of national strength.

He didn’t mention there “the wellbeing of the workers,” nor “the wellbeing of consumers,” because his ideology wasn’t concerned about those matters. He even asserted that labor “is a social duty. In this sense, and in this sense only, is it protected by the State,” so that workers’ rights have no protection in fascism. Only workers’duties do. “National strength” was his goal, just as it is Barack Obama’s, and they don’t believe that workers’ rights are part of this. That’s why it’s ignored in Obama’s proposed treaties.

“National strength” is, of course, largely a military phenomenon. Here is Obama speaking on 28 May 2014 to graduating cadets at America’s academy for its future military leaders, West Point:

Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago. It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. …

America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership.

This was a statement that America’s economic competitors are to be addressed not only by economic means (such as his economic sanctions against Russia) but also by military means, and that these cadets are therefore to think of their nation’s economic competitors as additionally being also America’s enemies. He even said there that all nations except the U.S. are dispensable; and his precise words to assert this type of American exceptionalism were that “the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation.” Consequently, for example, Russia and China (like any other enemy)are ‘dispensable’ (because only one is not: America).

Of course, some fascist leaders, such as Francisco Franco, haven’t similarly held their nation to be the only ‘indispensable’ nation. Not all fascist leaders do, but Adolf Hitler certainly did believe that his was, and he too was a fascist, though not a member of Mussolini’s party, the Fascist Party, because Hitler had his own fascist party, the Nazis. Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, which has existed ever since the beginning of the American republic. Fascism didn’t even exist back then. Furthermore, U.S. President FDR was passionately anti-fascist, and he led the Democratic Party during the time of Mussolini and Hitler, and went to war against them. However, there is evidence that Obama is a fascist in the sense that Mussolini initiated as not merely the Fascist Party, but more germane here, in the more basic sense, as the fascist ideology.

For example, Michael Froman has insisted that a country which systematically and regularly ignores whenever a labor union organizer gets murdered, isn’t therefore disqualified from being included in trade agreements such as the U.S. is now proposing. Obama, quite evidently (from his proposed trade treaties) feels that it’s quite okay for American workers to be competing against workers in foreign countries where labor union organizers are like free-fire-zone targets for corporations that want them to be (mysteriously) eliminated.

Of course, Obama’s rhetoric doesn’t say any such thing; he’s far more genteel than was Mussolini. But Obama’s actions, and the people whom he appoints to run the federal offices for him and who carry out his policies (such as Froman), show the real person, not merely the verbal front, and his agents make quite clear that, where the ideological rubber actually hits the policy highway, Barack Obama is, in fact, a classic fascist, in the sense that the first fascist leader, Mussolini, was. Obama’s concept of ‘free trade’ is the fascist version, not the democratic one.

previously noted that,

Mussolini … had learned his fascism from the economist Vilfredo Pareto, whose teachings had inspired the young Mussolini

As Pareto himself said, 1 September 1897, in his essay “The New Theories of Economics”: “Were I of the opinion that a certain book would contribute more than any other to establish free trade in the world at large I would not hesitate an instant to give myself up heart and soul to the study of this particular work, putting aside for the time all study of pure science.” But what the international corporations call “free trade” isn’t quite the same thing that supporters of democracy would mean by that phrase.

The same article also documented extensively that Pareto specifically condemned “the empty words of meaning of the famous Declaration of the Rights of Man,” and that he rejected equality of rights. He set forth the ideology upon the basis of which (for example) Michael Froman might ‘justify’ American workers competing against ones in countries where labor union organizers can be murdered with impunity: only the corporation’s owners should have the right to collective bargaining (via their management, lobbyists, etc.). Pareto was very big on the rights of owners, but that’s all.

Barack Obama’s ‘free trade’ is entirely in keeping with fascism. It’s simply extending that, globally, and excluding from the mega-trading-blocs that he is creating, the BRICS nations (now just the RICS nations, because of the successful coup in Brazil). This is in accord with his having told West Point cadets that they might be called upon by their nation to treat those nations where “rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums,” as being America’s enemies, to be killed or captured — conquered. Perhaps this is to be the new gunboat diplomacy.

Irrespective of Obama’s rhetoric, which is often in accord with the tradition of America’s Founders, his proposed trade treaties are in blatant violation even of the U.S. Constitution itself, as well as of the very clearly expressed intentions of the chief individuals who drafted it and who led this nation during its earliest years.

All knowledgeable people are aware that Obama is pushing not only for a locked-in American domination of the world, but for U.S. corporate dictatorship. As I previously headlined, “UN Lawyer Calls TTP & TTIP ‘a dystopian future in which corporations and not democratically elected governments call the shots’.” But, what the UN’s legal expert on these matters has to say about them, doesn’t receive nearly as much freebie promotion as is provided to even just one of the U.S. White House’s fascist puff-pieces; so, the UN’s expert gets drowned out by the fascist cacophony.

Consequently, though the publics both in the U.S. and EU are opposed to these ‘free trade’ treaties (notwithstanding all the PR for them), the governments can just go ahead and sign them. This is Western ‘democracy’. The publics are the ducks, and the people who control things need to fatten up our livers a bit more, regardless of what we think. Obama and his allies are preparing this meal, and the people who paid them to do it are hungry, and are demanding to be served this feast, ASAP. The ducks (despite all the pretty sounds about how nutritious this food will be) might squawk about it, but, after all, the ducks don’t own the farm, and the people who do are the actual decision-makers — in accord with what Mussolini and his teacher Pareto said should be the case.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Obama Tries To Ram His TTIP Down Europeans’ Throats, “For the Benefit of Billionaires”

9/11′s Conspiracy Trio Falling Apart

June 5th, 2016 by Wayne Madsen

The three conspirators—American neocons, Saudi Arabia, and Israel—that successfully pulled off the crime of the 21st century, namely the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, are infighting to the point that the layers of secrecy surrounding the 9/11 attacks are beginning to wither away.

The weakest link in the troika of conspirators is Saudi Arabia, the country that provided the manpower, finances, and hijacker personnel for the cover story—”Al Qaeda did it”—for 9/11. Stung by U.S. congressional moves to allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia and calls for the Obama administration to release 28 classified pages in the joint Congressional Inquiry on 9/11 intelligence failures to the public, the Saudi government is now pushing the story that the U.S. government was responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attack.

A Saudi legal scholar, Katib al Shammari, writing in the London-based “Al Hayat” newspaper and believed to be representing the view of the Saudi government, stated: “September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos agree unanimously that what happened in the Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings . . . Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing only gave the green light for the detonation—they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. This can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.’”

Alarmed by the willingness of its regional ally Saudi Arabia to question the official version of 9/11, Israel weighed in with New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer to place a “poison pill” in the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) bill that cleared the Senate in a unanimous vote. The bill would allow the families of the victims of foreign government-sponsored terrorism to sue the governments involved for damages. The law, which President Obama indicated he would veto, would lift “sovereign immunity” on countries like Saudi Arabia, thus making them liable for civil law suits. Schumer placed an amendment inside the JASTA bill that would allow Saudi Arabia to avoid law suits so long as the U.S. State and Justice Departments certified to the trial judge hearing any JASTA case that the two departments were making good faith efforts with the defendant country to resolve any issues bilaterally. Schumer’s amendment—the Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations—would also allow the State and Justice Departments to seek from the court continual 180-day stays, thus killing any lawsuits indefinitely.

Israel is also concerned that it, too, could face lawsuits under the provisions of JASTA. WMR has previously reported that some of the footnotes in the classified 28 pages provide links that lead to Israeli involvement in 9/11. It is noteworthy that the Saudis are blaming the George W. Bush administration for carrying out 9/11 and are leaving Israel out of the equation. Schumer’s actions on behalf of the Saudis are a clear indication that the Saudi-Israeli alliance remains intact.

Coupled with House Speaker Paul Ryan’s decision, after his recent trip to Saudi Arabia, to not allow JASTA to come before a full House vote and Obama’s promise to veto the bill, it is all but dead. Meanwhile, Congress has been inundated with Saudi lobbyists who now appear to have been successful in killing off JASTA. However, the damage to the troika of conspirators may have already been done.

A Saudi government-linked legal scholar is now on record that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Schumer, a virtual agent for the government of Israel, has killed JASTA to protect two of the conspirators—Israel and Saudi Arabia. That leaves only the U.S. neoconservatives who were involved in facilitating 9/11 without protection. And with Donald Trump already giving muted signals that 9/11 was an inside job, the neocons have only Hillary Clinton to provide them protection. If Trump wins the White House, the neocons will be left as the exposed third leg of the 9/11 troika.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11′s Conspiracy Trio Falling Apart

Six Questions for Monsanto

June 5th, 2016 by Katherine Paul

Monsanto may not be the largest company in the world. Or the worst. But the St. Louis, Mo. biotech giant has become the poster child for all that’s wrong with our industrial food and farming system.

With 21,000 employees in 66 countries and $15 billion in revenue, Monsanto is a biotech industry heavyweight. The St. Louis, Mo.-based monopolizer of seeds is the poster child for an industry that is the source of at least one-third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and is largely responsible for the depletion of soil, water and biodiversity. Not to mention the company’s marginalization—and sometimes terrorization—of millions of small farmers.

Since the early 20th century, Monsanto has marketed highly toxic products that have contaminated the environment and permanently sickened or killed thousands of people around the world. The most toxic of its products include:

• PCBsone of the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which affect human and animal fertility

• 2,4,5 T (2,4-D)a component of Agent Orange containing dioxin which was used by the US military during the Vietnam war and continues to be a major cause of birth defects and cancers

• Lassoan herbicide now banned in Europe

• Roundup: the most widely used herbicide in the world, cause of one of the biggest health and environmental tragedies in modern history. This highly toxic weed killer, sprayed on GMO crops including soybeans, corn and rapeseed for animal feed or for the production of biofuels, was recently classified as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

In a rare exception, Monsanto was recently ordered to pay $46.5 million to compensate victims of its PCB poisoning. Sometimes the company settles out of court, to avoid having to admit to any “wrongdoing.”

But for the most part, thanks to the multinational’s powerful influence over U.S. politicians, Monsanto has been able to poison with impunity.

It’s time for the citizens of the world to fight back. On October 15-16, in The Hague, Netherlands—the International City of Peace and Justice—a panel of distinguished international judges will hear testimony from witnesses, represented by legitimate lawyers, who have been harmed by Monsanto.

In their preparation for the citizens’ tribunal, and during witness testimony, the judges will consider six questions that are relevant not just in relation to Monsanto, but to all companies involved in shaping the future of agriculture. The six questions are:

1. Right to a healthy environment: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as recognized in international human rights law (Res. 25/21 of the Human Rights Council, of 15 April 2014), taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

2. Right to food: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to food, as recognized in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in Articles 24.2(c) and (e) and 27.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and in Articles 25(f) and 28.1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

3. Right to health: Did the firm Monsanto violate, by its activities, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the right of child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, as recognized by Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 201

4. Freedom of expression and academic research: Did the firm Monsanto violate the freedom indispensable for scientific research, as guaranteed by Article 15(3) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the freedoms of thought and expression guaranteed in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, taking into account the responsibilities imposed on corporations by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in Resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011?

5. Complicity in war crimes: Is the firm Monsanto complicit in the commission of a war crime, as defined in Article 8(2) of the International Criminal Court, by providing materials to the United States Army in the context of operation “Ranch Hand” launched in Viet Nam in 1962?

6. Ecocide: Could the past and present activities of Monsanto constitute a crime of ecocide, understood as causing serious damage or destroying the environment, so as to significantly and durably alter the global commons or ecosystem services upon which certain human groups rely?

The citizens’ tribunal judges will not have the power to adopt binding decisions. But they will issue opinions which will provide victims and their legal counsel the arguments and legal grounds for further lawsuits against Monsanto within their national jurisdictions.

Throughout history, citizens’ tribunals have been an effective tool for highlighting the need to change international law so that victims of transnational companies have a means to legal redress. They are most successful when they are able to attract media attention, and are endorsed and supported by millions of citizens, throughout the world.

If you would like to endorse the International Monsanto Tribunal and follow its progress,sign on here. (Organizations can also sign on, here.)

To submit witness testimony, email claims (at) Monsanto-tribunal.org. You can also support the tribunal financially.

More on the International Monsanto Tribunal.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Six Questions for Monsanto

City Manager Peter Wallace recently released a report on The City of Toronto’s Long-term Financial Direction. The analysis is the latest to reinforce what many earlier studies have long been arguing: that the city of Toronto does not have a spending crisis, but a revenue crisis. It found that “cost containment” measures have produced some $300-million in savings since 2010, but that this has done little to address the structural deficit at the root of the city’s financial challenges. The report notes that, consistent with the austerity approaches adopted by the governments of Ontario and Canada, city government is less expensive today than it was six years ago: some $165 or 3.8 per cent less per resident (in 2016 dollars). And yet, despite austerity targets totaling some 16 per cent over six years, and the elimination of 1,374 positions, the City has been unable to stop, let alone reverse, the growing revenue crisis that has been a hallmark of urban governance.

Wallace’s report also found that when adjusted for price inflation property taxes have actually fallen 4.8 per cent since 2010, the lowest of any major city in Ontario. At the same time, TTC fares have risen more than 17 per cent, recreational programs and permitting are up 9 per cent, while waste, water and parking have jumped 24 per cent. The practice of deferring capital expenses has also continued apace and is now conservatively estimated to leave the city $1-billion short per year of its needs by 2021. Should any number of uncertain revenue streams dry up, such as the land transfer tax which is up 167 per cent, this could significantly raise the revenue gap. Other pressures include: funding requirements for the TTC and Toronto Community Housing, annualized costs related to earlier capital and operating commitments, addressing prior year deferrals of employee benefit liabilities, and adjustments in response to the loss of the Toronto Pooling Compensation grant from the Ontario government, let alone council promises to implement its poverty reduction strategy, clamp down on runaway police budgets, and address the inadequacy of social assistance. As Wallace makes clear: “operating expenses are not simply government spending for its own sake – they are investments of vital public resources by Council toward a broader public good. Similarly, capital investments address issues around livability, congestion and public space in our dynamic and increasingly dense and complex city.”

As the analysis argues, there are no quick solutions or shortcuts to be found: annual surpluses are falling and an inadequate capital finance strategy, reserve funds are already at historically low levels compared to other jurisdictions and, although funding from other orders of government are important and necessary, they cannot replace long-term gaps in operational funding or fully offset unmet capital needs. And, even though, the highly uneven pattern of settlements with City workers has been falling below the rate of inflation, expenses tend to climb moderately over time. As Wallace concludes in no uncertain terms, the “circumstances of the recent past are unlikely to continue and, at the very least, cannot form the basis for responsible future fiscal planning.” Indeed, “It is no longer appropriate or feasible to defer difficult financial decisions to future years. The time has come for a direct conversation concerning the City’s finances.”

Breaking the cycle of permanent austerity and retrenchment that has characterized the last three decades of urban neoliberalism in Ontario requires challenging the continued reliance on tax cuts as a cure for nearly all of society’s social ills, as well as an alternative vision of municipal governance that rejects the market-based remaking of urban life. In addition to expanded revenue transfers from federal and provincial governments, a variety of independent revenue tools are needed if municipalities are going to become fiscally autonomous governance units. In an attempt to address the municipal malaise, mainstream approaches have tended to focus on increasing the scope of market imperatives through a continued ideological and political assault against public services and public sector workers (cfib 2013; University of Toronto Mowat Centre–kpmg 2009). At the same time, business and development groups continue to influence municipal councils through lobbying, local business associations and bankrolling local campaigns for office. These much-recycled approaches, however, rather than addressing municipalities’ structural constraints, reinforce their worst effects. Substantively addressing the revenue crisis that currently besieges municipalities, then, requires an alternative approach rooted in social equity, inclusiveness and justice.

Overcoming the Myth of Fiscal Crisis

Megacity Malaise.

The discourse of fiscal crisis is part fact and part fiction. But it is important to separate its economic realities from political pretexts. Because Ontario municipalities are effectively barred by provincial legislation from running annual deficits, many municipalities are on firmer fiscal ground than their provincial and federal counterparts, as is evidenced by balanced operating budgets, manageable levels of borrowing, low debt overhangs and strong credit ratings. While there is much variability across Ontario municipalities, Slack, Tassonyi and Grad (2014) argue that Ontario’s thirty largest municipalities have been fiscally prudent and conservative over the period from 2000 to 2011, thus are efficiently managed and generally well run. They also note a growing disparity between older industrial city–regions (Niagara Falls, Hamilton, Windsor) and northern municipalities (Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie) on the one hand, and GTA municipalities (Vaughan, Mississauga, Oakville) on the other, in their ability to raise revenues, their varied dependencies on provincial–federal transfers, pressures on infrastructure and demands for social services. While the former are often dealing with an older and declining population, weak economic growth and, in some cases, harsher climates and geographic remoteness, the latter are growing in population, more economically robust and experiencing a construction boom, thus broadening the property tax base. Hence, there is an unevenness in the Ontario urban and regional political economy.

Two of the foremost authorities on municipal finances, Enid Slack and Andre Cote (2014), have argued that Toronto does not have a spending problem, but rather a revenue problem. Their research demonstrates that, despite the perception that spending has been rapidly growing, in reality expenditures per household are roughly equivalent to what they were in 2000, when adjusted for inflation and population growth. However, there have been some important changes in the allocation of expenditures: while transportation costs grew as a share of operating spending from 21 to 28 per cent, and police and fire services have remained constant at 16 per cent, social and family services – including social assistance, childcare and seniors’ programs – declined from 27 to 20 per cent as a share of total spending. This is equal to more than a 25 per cent real cut in social and family services (Slack and Cote 2014: 3).

Much like the Miller-era Independent Fiscal Review Panel and Ford-era Core Services Review, Slack and her colleagues’ work confirms that there are few, if any, remaining efficiencies to be found without lowering services levels or asset sell offs. Property taxes are a very visible and therefore particularly contentious tax as the impression persists that rates have been rising rapidly. Although property taxes account for some 40 per cent of the City’s revenue, with provincial and federal transfers worth some 20 per cent, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, Toronto’s property tax revenues per household have actually fallen by nearly 15 per cent between 2001 and 2012, and are amongst the lowest in the GTA. Commercial, industrial and multi-residential taxes are also on their way down and tax increases for these groups have been limited to one-third of residential tax increases. After more than a decade of comparatively low development charges across the GTA, Toronto development charges were finally increased in 2013 in order to account for the rising costs of providing infrastructure for new residential developments (Slack and Cote 2014: 10–14). However, while development charges assist in supporting new infrastructure they do not support long-term operations, maintenance and replacement. Also, the assessed property tax is unlikely to generate enough to cover the costs. As a consequence, the burden of paying for aging infrastructure is shifted from both the private to public sector and from business to workers.

In light of Toronto’s construction boom, which some are warning appears to be vastly overvalued (McMahon 2014), the Land Transfer Tax rose from $150-million in 2009 to $350-million in 2013. The combined value of the City’s assets total nearly $70-billion, excluding land and parkland values. This includes everything from water and wastewater systems, transportation infrastructure, public transit, city buildings, facilities, fleet and public housing. However, pressures to sell off these assets are mounting as a result of the financial inability to maintain and renew existing assets, and build new ones to accommodate population and service level needs (Grewel 2011; Sancton 1996). Estimates suggest that Toronto’s infrastructure deficit will climb from $2-billion in 2013 to $2.4-billion by 2020, as much of the infrastructure built during the 1950s and 1960s goes unrepaired. Likewise, a repair backlog for social housing estimated at $860-million is expected to rise, with $2.6-billion in capital funding needed over the next decade. This structural shortfall is not the result of overgenerous social services or the excessive wages of unionized employees. Rather, they are a legacy of growing, long-term pressures resulting from population growth and downloaded infrastructure and public service costs from provincial and federal governments, especially for transit and housing. Thus Toronto is a city that has both a housing boom and housing crisis existing in tandem.

How to provide quality, affordable housing is, of course, a complex multilateral issue. In general, however, the City of Toronto (as elsewhere) has preferred voluntaristic agreements and incentives for developers, rather than mandatory measures. As noted earlier, given municipalities’ limited financial capacities they are constrained in their abilities to build and operate housing facilities as well as programs that address the lack of affordable housing and homelessness. This does not, however, mean that municipalities are impotent. They can examine their own regulations to eliminate barriers to the provision of affordable housing, including the legalization of secondary units, new density agreements for affordable and rental housing, the provision of land for emergency, transition, supportive, belowmarket housing, prohibiting the conversion of rental suites and charging a dedicated development levy that goes into a fund for affordable housing. Municipalities can also enhance planning and zoning support, regulation and business licensing; design levies to discourage quick “flipping” and housing market speculation; fine owners of long-term empty “investment” properties; and strengthen by-laws and building regulations. New measures by other levels of government, including new regional coordination and municipal governance capacities, are of course also necessary, such as changes to tax policy to encourage the construction of rental housing, strengthening of existing legislation, maintaining and expanding existing funding programs for homelessness and affordable housing, and inducements for non-profit and cooperative housing. One such measure is an inclusionary zoning policy mandating 10 to 15 per cent of all units in large residential buildings be set aside for affordable housing. In fact, since amalgamation, the City has requested more than a dozen times the administrative power to use inclusionary zoning. And yet, despite some 95,000 households on the city’s affordable housing waiting list, the Province has refused to devolve such powers. Although inclusionary zoning will not resolve Toronto’s housing crisis, it will offset some pressures. New investments from federal and provincial governments will also be necessary in order to begin addressing the shortage of affordable housing. However, since transfers are out of municipalities’ hands, there is little certainty about future funding and uploading of costs.

Reimagining the Municipal Bargain

In order to counter the municipal race to the bottom, it is necessary to change the social attitudes about the role of taxation and make the connections between social justice and workplace democracy. Ontario municipalities’ current reliance on property taxes is unsustainable in the long run and merely shifts the burden of responsibility for social and physical infrastructure from one generation to the next, and from capital to labour. While increasing municipal development charges is an important revenue initiative, it tends to be cyclical in nature and relies on the unstable fluctuations of real estate markets. It is necessary, therefore, to establish dedicated funding to municipalities by other tiers of government as well as independent revenue-raising capacities. The fiscal mechanism for this is straightforward in a sense of reversing corporate and personal income tax cuts implemented since at least 2008 and raising the GST back to 7 per cent, with dedicated funding to municipalities. These measures could provide consistent and secure funding, which could begin to redress decades of underinvestment and neglect across Canadian municipalities. Turning to wealthy individuals and corporations, who have benefited the most from neoliberal tax reforms, and having them contribute a fairer share in terms of higher corporate and income taxes, would be a symbolic and significant initial step. But wider populist, anti-tax sentiments must also be challenged, so that more goods and services come through public, and not private, consumption.

As Figure 1 shows, despite the City of Toronto having a broader range of revenue tools than other Ontario municipalities, it continues to overwhelmingly rely on property taxes to raise revenue outside of federal and provincial transfers. And from this, as Figure 2 demonstrates, the City must provide a range of services including general government administration, social assistance, health services, social housing, fire and police services, long-term care, shelters, libraries, parks, recreation and so forth. Hence, an alternative municipal agenda also needs to consider a broader range of options for mobilizing revenues beyond property taxes. This is especially the case so that user fees can be cut and eliminated for many services as part of broader social equity initiatives.

This heavy reliance on property taxes as the major source of revenue is not the norm outside Canada. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) average is 36 per cent. Cities in the Nordic countries – Germany and Switzerland, for example – receive over 90 per cent of their tax revenue from income taxes, while Hungary and the Netherlands collect between 50 and 75 per cent of local revenue from various sales taxes. Similarly, in France, Japan, Korea and the U.S., sales taxes comprise about 20 per cent of local revenue. As the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2012) has argued, there is no natural law dictating that local governments be exclusively dependent on the property tax. Rather, they argue that a multiplicity of revenue streams is needed to ensure diversity, balance and stable, long-term funding for Canadian municipalities.

There are a number of issues that should be taken into view when considering new revenue-raising capacities for local governments:

The size and corporate sophistication of municipalities, local fiscal conditions, tax administration capacity, and efficiency considerations such as the risk of leakage across jurisdictional boundaries. In general, taxing powers make more sense for larger cities that deliver a broader range of human services, have greater administrative capacity, and could encourage implementation of taxes across metropolitan areas. Local governments should also be responsible for levying the taxes and setting the rates – even when other governments are responsible for administration. (Cote and Fenn 2014: 50)

Extensive research has demonstrated the social and economic benefits of expanding the tax base and reinvesting in public services. The case for enhanced public investment has been made across the political spectrum, in both the private and public sectors as well as by various think-tanks and research centres. The Toronto and York Region Board of Trade, Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Institute for Municipal Finance and Governance, Metrolinx and even the CD Howe Institute have recently moved in this direction (Hjartarson, Hinton and Szala 2011; Scarth 2014; trbot 2013).

Metrolinx (2013), a crown agency that administers and integrates road and public transportation across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Areas, has recently suggested a series of investment options for dealing with Toronto’s revenue problem that, unlike inelastic property taxes, are better linked to growth in the local economy. This includes a 1 per cent hike to the province’s Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), which would bring in an additional $1.3-billion annually; 25 cents to $1 per day on commercial parking spaces depending on assessed property values, which could generate between $350-million and $1.4-billion; and a 5 cent per litre fuel surcharge estimated to bring in some $330-million. Combined, these new revenue tools could raise around $2-billion annually for transit expansion costing the average household about $477 annually.

When compared with the average cost of congestion, which is estimated to run the average family around $1,600 annually in lost productivity, plus the cost of car ownership pegged at $8,000 per year, these measures are cost effective and ensure that people have access to the services they rely on. It also encourages public, not private, consumption through a reduction in individual car use and fossil fuels emissions. Metrolinx has also suggested the implementation of a tax credit to assist low-income residents in paying the additional HST and related costs. Further funding proposals include: 15 per cent increase in development charges worth $100-million; 30 cents per kilometre for high-occupancy toll lanes (free for motorists with at least two passengers, with the option of paying a toll for single drivers), which could bring in anywhere from $25-million to $250-million depending on its expansiveness; $2 to $4 per day for parking at GO stations, which would bring in between $20 and $40-million; land-value capture along transit lines for $20-million; and a 0.5 per cent employer payroll levy, which is estimated to raise as much as $920-million (aecom-kpmg 2013; fcm 2003; tcsa 2010; Broadbent 2008).

The Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario (2010: 6–7) has argued:

Over the next 50 years there is the risk of public infrastructure underinvestment that could cost the Canadian economy 1.1 per cent of real gross domestic product (GDP) growth. The effect of this underinvestment on the Canadian public breaks down as follows: It will cost the average Canadian worker between $9,000 and $51,000, with the younger generation disproportionately at risk, and decrease the after-tax profitability of Canadian businesses by a long term average of 20 per cent … Results show that for every extra dollar paid in taxation revenue, the taxpayer is better off by $1.48 on average, in after-tax wage terms. That means mitigating the underinvestment risk is cost effective.

A number of polls and studies have pointed toward people being willing to pay more in taxes so long as the funding is dedicated to issues that keep people healthy and help balance work–life conflicts – like transit, infrastructure and public services – rather than deal with the consequences of inaction (Burda and Haines 2012; Global Toronto 2014; Transport Canada 2009; Forum Research 2013). New taxation and administrative powers could be accomplished by provincial legislation that cements new revenue-raising capacities, collection and enforcement by aligning local taxes on the provincial rate collected by the Canada Revenue Agency. Some also argue:

Urbanization and the outsized economic role of city–regions are creating pressures to reform fiscal and governance arrangements to foster the conditions for growth and social progress. The trend line has not been smooth, but it has been steadily heading toward the decentralization of responsibilities to local governments … The case for decentralization is premised on the proposition that local governments have superior access to local information compared with higher-order governments, allowing them to better respond to local needs.  (Cote and Fenn 2014: 20)

The notion of a “new localism” is one which has been at the heart of a growing debate in central and local government since at the least the early 1990s. The origins of new localist thought stem from pressures on governments to consider whether they should divest more governance capacities at the local level in the context of eroding nation–state power. In an era allegedly characterized by the geographical restructuring of economic relations and spatial reconstitution of state power to supra-national and local bodies, these debates have also tended to juxtapose the coordinated market economies of the post-war Keynesian era with the neoliberal city of the last three decades. But they have also been criticized for reinforcing certain neoliberal frameworks and assumptions (Peck and Tickell 1994; Gough 1996).

This includes an emphasis on the virtues of local, globally competitive markets for mobile investment, fiscal restraint, marketization of public services and assets and inter-local competition designed to stimulate business-friendly labour market policies via the erosion of regulatory capacities and new concessionary demands. However, neoliberalism as a political economic practice should not be read as a juxtaposition of (less) state against (more) market, but rather as a particular kind of state suited to the logic of accumulation in a specific historical phase of capitalist development (Albo and Fanelli 2014; Panitch and Gindin 2012).

In the absence of new multi-scalar governance capacities and planning orientations, a disembedded focus on the local may reinforce existing issues and concerns. As discussed above, land-use planning as much as transportation, social ecologies and economic development overlaps with the borders of other municipalities and provinces. Likewise, beggar-thy-neighbour tax policies and intensified municipal competition might undermine land-use planning that seeks to restrain unchecked growth. As Greg Albo notes (2007: 23):

Eco-localism projects the local as an ideal scale and conceives communitarian eco-utopias in a politics that is individualizing and particularizing. Under neoliberalism, eco-localism has evolved into a practical attempt to alter individual market behaviours, and to disconnect and internalize local ecologies and communities from wider struggles and political ambitions.

There are few reasons to suggest, however, that

the national and global are on a scale that is any less human and practical than the local. This is not to deny the importance of the local in anti-neoliberal politics; nor the importance of the question of appropriate scale for post-capitalist societies. It is to insist, however, that local socio-ecological struggles cannot be delinked from – and are indeed always potentially representative of – universal projects of transcending capitalism on a world scale. (Albo 2007: 23)

Building up local bases of power and administration must be connected to projects to transform national state power and to internationalize political struggles and alliances against the world capitalist market. A fetishization of the local can undermine broader equity and social justice initiatives, fragmenting collective planning and alternative policies to neoliberalism (Sharzer 2012).

For Peck and Tickell (2012: 247–8), the solution is not to re-double local efforts aimed at stimulating globally competitive urban environments,

but to challenge and ultimately transcend the extra-local rules of the game that were being shaped by the rolling process of neoliberalization, since the potential of local initiatives would always be limited by an essentially antithetical, competitive inter-local settlement. These challenges, in turn, were framed by the intrinsically regressive scalar politics of neoliberalism, which duplicitously conferred on local agencies and interests responsibility without power, while brazenly granting global institutions and actors power without responsibility.

In the absence of cooperative mechanisms and strategies for new planning orientations between local, regional, national and international levels, then, it is difficult to envision an alternative political economic project emerging.

Building a New Urban Politics

As geographers are keen to remind, space matters. The extent to which smaller, rural and northern communities can provide expensive services like firefighting, infrastructure, community services, roads and safe drinking water are much different than the capacities of larger, southern Ontario municipalities. So conferring new powers to municipal councils still requires forming new urban planning orientations at other governance scales. In other words, given the diverse needs and capacities of municipalities, policymaking that recognizes the specificities of size, geography, economy and so on might generate the conditions amenable to creating a province-wide, comprehensive approach to match Ontario’s diverse local needs. This might include, for instance, community boards that debate and advise on local issues, participatory budgeting and region-wide campaigns aimed at living wages. Likewise, strong national and provincial standards for municipalities facilitate best practices and are beneficial because they ensure public health and safety standards as reasonable checks on local autonomy and preventative measures against competitive austerity. Such cooperative intergovernmental arrangements could go a long way in achieving real costs savings, accountability, enhanced outcomes, mature local governance and responsive public services.

Anti-austerity activists in Toronto.

In the Canadian mayoral system, where the council remains the supreme decision-maker and the mayor is considered first-among-equals within a legislative body, local governments encounter their own unique set of governance and administrative challenges – as was illustrated by the stripping-away of Rob Ford’s mayoral powers in 2014 (cbc 2013). For instance, beyond new and independent revenue-raising sources, enhanced collection and enforcement of municipal fines and charges could go a long way in recuperating the estimated $1-billion in outstanding charges across Ontario municipalities (Cote and Fenn 2014). But municipalities cannot go it alone in order to resolve issues related to climate change, public transportation, housing, social services and wastewater. These challenges require developing new intergovernmental planning capacities with dedicated funding to launch a national transit strategy and clean water fund, community development strategies in self-governing northern and First Nations communities and new investments in social services provisioning and infrastructure. The only realistic starting point for the Province of Ontario (as much as the Government of Canada) is to recognize that municipal downloading and austerity have created more problems than they have solved. The unwillingness of federal and provincial governments to extend governance autonomy and revenue powers to municipalities prevents local governments from democratically establishing public policies that are a counter to neoliberalism. In practice, this structural incapacity reinforces capital mobility avoiding any centralization or harmonization of policies safeguarding against the potential market-inhibiting “abuses of democracy.”

Of course, there is also a political imperative to do more thinking about alternative responses to the challenges confronting municipalities informed by labour, community groups, First Nations, municipal associations and other civil society groups. “Rights to the city” campaigns in North America, for example, are focusing on free public transit, social housing and public spaces that are protected from commercialization and anti-poverty initiatives. David Harvey (2008: 40) suggests adopting

the right to the city as both working slogan and political ideal, precisely because it focuses on the question of who commands the necessary connection between urbanization and surplus production and use. The democratization of that right, and the construction of a broad social movement to enforce its will is imperative if the dispossessed are to take back the control which they have for so long been denied, and if they are to institute new modes of urbanization.

Of course, only new organizational capacities will make such ideas politically viable. As such, the goal over the long term should include dedicated organizing strategies intent on creating new inroads into spaces currently seen as private. These initiatives would need to emphasize the social value of extending public services and shift the debate from focusing solely on individual consumerist needs met through the market and tax cuts, to creating livable cities that offer decent employment, public spaces, universal public services and climate change-informed development.

Making the case for an expanded public sector counters the prevailing orthodoxy of neoliberalism – one that challenges private accumulation as the engine of economic growth – and raises a set of demands for non-commodified labour and services. This means not only expanding the redistributive role of the state, but also taking the lead in ensuring access to housing, public transit, community centres and other social services irrespective of urban and regional boundaries. Reducing public spending will increase unemployment, weaken consumption and exacerbate income inequality, along with reinforcing ethno-racial and gendered labour market/life insecurities. One of the silver linings of the recession has been the fact that governments can borrow money at historically low interest rates, making large-scale public reinvestments feasible. Likewise, with the cash holdings of non-financial corporations increasing faster in Canada than anywhere else in the G7 since the mid-2000s, it is clear that corporate hordes of “dead money” – to borrow a phrase from former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney – have also become an economic and social liability, particularly in the context of the private sector’s unwillingness to create new jobs.

Research by Jim Stanford has shown that “since the first of several rounds of business tax reforms and reductions were implemented in 1988, business investment has declined by 1 full percentage point of GDP – even though after-tax business cash-flow has increased (in part as a direct result of the tax reforms) by 3 to 4 percentage points of GDP.” This led Stanford (2011: 3-4) to conclude: “As a means of stimulating growth, employment and even private business spending the historical evidence suggests that business tax cuts are both economically ineffective and distributionally regressive.” Instead of using the extra cash to boost investments in machinery, equipment, new plants, new hires and research and development, nearly half of all profits have gone to boosting shareholder dividends. As such, the rate of investment in new machinery, equipment and people over the past decade has declined in lockstep with lower tax rates, putting Canada dead last among peer countries when it comes to new investments in research and development (CLC 2012; Conference Board of Canada 2014). By the end of 2014 corporations held some $680-billion on hand, larger than Canada’s national debt, during which time new public investments as a percentage of GDP fell from the average of 2–3 per cent in the 1960s and 1970s to around 0.5 per cent since the mid-1990s, where it has remained ever since. Reallocating this “dead money” away from financing tax cuts and toward new public investments in social and physical infrastructure through a reversal of the tax cuts that have been a hallmark of neoliberal governments would provide both a direct economic stimulus and job growth in the face of the private sector’s unwillingness to spend. Thus the focus ought to be on enhancing public revenue by rebuilding stable, long-term funding streams rather than that onesize-fits-all diktat of austerity-driven expenditure restraint and service cuts alone.

In the absence of organized civic political parties (they are effectively banned in Ontario by the Municipal Elections Act), trade union and community activists must fill that void. One of the few exceptions in speaking out against municipal service level and staff cuts has been radical sections of the anti-poverty movement. In the face of continued gentrification across Toronto (partly driven by the property tax that is tied to market value), falling housing affordability and a looming real estate bubble, many working poor families continue to fall deeper into debt amidst increasing social insecurity in what is ultimately a city divided by race and class (Hulchanski 2010; Walks and Maaranen 2008). It is not clear that the moral outrages at the service cuts that have been the dominant political response of various civil society organizations and some unions will lead organizationally to anything new and more effective. A long period of stagnation could heighten the municipal crisis as poorly funded cities continue their social polarization and decline. The political coalitions that have arisen in Toronto (and across Ontario) to fight the cuts over the last two decades have been unable to reverse these processes, although they have certainly slowed it down in some important ways.

Some of the most notable of these are found in locally rooted union and community-based movements. This includes Local 79 and 416 campaigns for the extension of public services; Toronto Hydro workers’ struggles against privatization; Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113’s We Move Toronto campaign for the expansion of public transit; and the Toronto and York Region Labour Council’s Retirement Security for Everyone campaign. Others include the Good Jobs For All Coalition, an alliance of community, labour, social justice, youth and environmental organizations challenging low-waged and precarious work across the city and region; the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and the Stop the Cuts campaign; the Idle No More and Defenders of the Land housing and Indigenous rights movements; Toronto Environmental Alliance efforts around waste privatization, opposition to the Line 9 oil pipeline between Ontario and Quebec and climate justice; Ontario Health Coalition efforts against cuts to healthcare funding and public–private partnerships; the Workers’ Action Centre-led campaign for a $15 Living Wage; and No One Is Illegal struggles around migrant justice, just to name a few.

While it is still too early to tell what will amount of these movements and campaigns over the long term, these labour and community-based responses to social injustice are beginning to rebuild a democratic praxis from below that challenges market rule. Activists continue to struggle with new ways of understanding the relationship of movements to one another, their shared interests and how to build solidaristic political capacities wherein alternative and oppositional political views may emerge. •

Carlo Fanelli teaches in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Ryerson University, and is a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Occupational Therapy at Western University. Megacity Malaise is available from Fernwood Publishing.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Megacity Malaise: Neoliberalism, Public Services and Labour in Toronto

Muhammad Ali: An American Muslim

June 5th, 2016 by Sufyan bin Uzayr

Muhammad Ali, the greatest boxer this world has ever known, is no more. The fact that he is gone is difficult to come to terms with — for years, Ali was renowned as a larger than life figure, the Greatest as he would call himself, and the demise of a man of such a high stature is surely a void that can never be filled.

In the world of sports, Muhammad Ali will forever be known as the boxing legend who won 56 bouts over the period of a 21-year career. In popular culture, he will be remembered as the man who was not afraid when it came to speaking his mind — someone who was not shy of talking about things unrelated to boxing, and would always take the right stand when needed.

But that is not the only reason why this world will miss Muhammad Ali.

Muhammad Ali: An American Muslim

Back in 1964, Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr changed his name to Muhammad Ali.

Cassius Clay is a slave name. I didn’t choose it, and I didn’t want it. I am Muhammad Ali, a free name – it means beloved of God – and I insist people use it when speaking to me and of me.

He was, at that time, one of the most high-profile Americans to revert to Islam. As a Muslim, Ali could free himself from the racial bias that the American society in 1960s was known for. Islam offers no room for racism — “Indeed, there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white, except by piety and good action.” (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) — and this gave Muhammad Ali a chance to be truly independent.

Ali would then go on to get involved with the Nation of Islam, but eventually, in 1975, he left NOI and turned towards mainstream Sunni Islam.

The Anti-Establishment Icon

Muhammad Ali risked his career and reputation by opposing the US-Vietnam War. Furthermore, he refused to serve in the US Army and in the process, was accused of committing a felony.

His reasons were simple. The Vietnam War was a proxy war to propagate US hegemony in Asia, and Ali wanted to have nothing to do with it. As he stated:

I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong—no Viet Cong ever called me nigger.

Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs?

The above remark provided enough fuel for many people to oppose the military draft. Compelling civilians and soldiers to enter into a war just to satisfy the ambitions of the ruling class — this surely was not something Ali wanted to be known for.

Ali was then stripped of his titles and had his boxing license suspended. The US Supreme Court later overturned this decision, but by that time, Ali had lost four years of his boxing career.

However, while it did damage his boxing career, Muhammad Ali’s refusal to take part in the War had deep-reaching effects on the social level.

In Memoriam

I do not weep simply for the death of Ali because death is an inevitable fact, and Muhammad Ali lived an illustrious life. He was a boxer par excellence, a social reformer, a fighter, and obviously, a Muslim.

It was his status as a Muslim that urged him to correct misconceptions about Islam and raise awareness among the masses. When Donald Trump played with the idea of a ban on Islam in USA, it was Muhammad Ali who stood tall against this ridiculous concept.

I weep because Ali was universally loved. Every single time Islamophobia rose in the West, with people questioning Muslims everywhere, he would be there to prove the haters wrong. No one, and truly no one, could despise or hate Ali as “that extremist Muslim”.

I weep because now that Muhammad Ali is no more, the list of Muslims whom the world does not hate has grown even shorter.

Whether it be his in-ring career, or his refusal to be a part of the US invasion of Vietnam, or his life as a Muslim, Muhammad Ali stood up for ideas he believed in. Even to this day, criticizing your country’s foreign policy can have disastrous effects. But Ali was one of the very few bravehearts who had the courage to criticize US foreign policy back in the 1960s.

Now that he is gone, this world is left with memories, and a void that cannot be filled. In Ali’s own words:

I won’t miss fighting, fighting will miss me.

Rest in Peace, Muhammad Ali.

Sufyan bin Uzayr writes for various reputed publications and verticals, and is the author of several books. He regularly blogs about issues of contemporary relevance at Political Periscope (www.politicalperiscope.com).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Muhammad Ali: An American Muslim

The Global Economy and Europe’s Chronic Stagnation

June 5th, 2016 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

The global economy is in deep trouble. And there are growing signs that the US economy is slowing as well. The paltry 0.5% GDP US growth in the first quarter 2016 (itself overestimated by at least 0.3%) will not ‘snap back’ in the second quarter, and will continue to slow over this summer. The US will slip into a moderate recession after the November elections (my predictions).

Globally, Japan is in deep trouble, with prime minister, Shinzo Abe, at the recent G7 meeting, declaring another ‘Lehman Brothers Moment’ (the bank that collapsed in September 2008) is approaching. His warnings were ignored by the other G7 ministers. Japan’s massive QE and negative interest rates experiment has failed. The Eurozone central bank, like the Japan central bank, has embarked upon a policy of negative interest rates now that QEs effects have significantly diminished. More than $10 trillion in government bonds globally are in negative rate territory. And unknown additional amount in private corporate bonds, the collapse just beginning. Globally, there are more than $10 trillion in non-performing corporate bank loans, concentrated especially in Europe and China. Should a UK ‘Brexit’ event occur on June 23 (I predict a 55-45 chance it will), it may precipitate a major global stock market correction.

Global trade is dramatically slowing, real job creating investment is reaching a stagnation level, productivity in the advanced economies is already nearly zero, with predictions it will turn negative soon–the first time in the US in more than a half century. To the extent job creation has occurred in the US and advanced economies, it has been overwhelmingly ‘contingent’–i.e. part time, temp, contract…and growing ‘gig’ jobs. Median and below household income has fallen in 220 of US geographic regions.

In the USA, candidates of the two wings of the Corporate Party of America–Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump–have no idea of the depth of the discontent seething below the surface, as 18-34 youth are faced with crap jobs or no jobs, middle age workers deal with nearly a decade of little or no wage growth, and those over 65 abandon retirement and work part time service jobs to try to make ends meet. Meanwhile, everyone is gouged by escalating rents, health insurance premiums and costs, escalating education expenses, while corporations distribute $5 trillion in stock buybacks and dividend payouts to their 1% wealth investors. 50,000 at a time attend Sanders’ rallies in California, as more hear him tell them what they already know from experience.

In Europe the ruling elites’ solution to the growing problems of the economic system is ‘labor market reform’. That is, reduce wages, eliminate union bargaining power (what’s left), cut benefits, slash pensions (deferred wages), make it easier for employers to fire and layoff workers, and transfer all the savings from all the above to their companies….in the false expectation it will enable them to reduce costs and prices and thereby steal exports from their global competitors, in a rapidly slowing global trade economy. Capitalists fight over a shrinking pie, and take it out on their workers to enable them to do so. A race to the bottom.

How this has come about in Europe, read my 12,000 word chapter on Europe from my recently published book, ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’.

TO READ THE COMPLIMENTARY CHAPTER 6, ‘EUROPE’S CHRONIC STAGNATION’, go to my website at the following url:

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles.html

(FOR A COMPLIMENTARY CHAPTER 5, ‘CHINA: BUBBLES, BUBBLES, DEBT AND TROUBLES’, scroll down the articles at the url to read my assessment of economic fragility today in China).

For more on the book, ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’, go to the ‘Books’ tab on the website’s toolbar, for Synopsis, Table of Contents, and complimentary INTRODUCTION CHAPTER.

To order Jack Rasmus’ book, click the Clarity Press ad at the foot of the Left Column.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Global Economy and Europe’s Chronic Stagnation

The overview below began as a letter to a major international newspaper often publishing my work.  But the US-orchestrated overthrow of elected government across Latin America is unspeakable in the corporate media.  No communication is published that connects the dot of the US- led money-party destroying any and all democratic alternatives.  This is how the life-devouring system prevails as it depredates the world, now the liberated social states of  America Sud whose elections cannot be controlled.

In the Guardian Weekly front-page story “Venezuelans angry for reform” (27 May-2 June), we find no ‘reform’ mentioned in the article below the banner headline. The narrative interviews people who “want food” and “basic goods” in a declared “socialist society”, a familiar line from the past. Explanation of the crisis is confined to the long lines for subsidized goods and quotes form frustrated shoppers.

The all-fronts campaign of social destabilization by Venezuela’s US-backed oligarchy, mass media and street gangs behind Wall-Street-shorted oil prices are all deleted from the account. The same inner logic of mass media cover-up governs the official story of every one of Latin America’s continent-wide coups against elections from Brazil to Honduras.

In the article after the one on Venezuela, “Social policies scaled back in Brazil”, the real meaning of ‘reform’ is made clear. It means more “cutting healthcare spending”, “reducing the family poverty relief system” and otherwise depriving poorer citizens and the public of collective life goods provided by their elected social states. Venezuela and Brazil are certainly not alone in the continent -wide overthrow of  democratic sovereignty and public life infrastructures. Social-program slashing across Latin America now reverses over 15 years of fair elections and life capital development.  A corresponding financial-fascist sweep has usurped social states from Greece to Ukraine to pay for private bank system collapse by bleeding social life support systems dry.  Here too government destabilizations and overthrows without electoral legitimacy are the modus operandi.

All societies are in fact being re-set to private financial predation of public wealth, the ultimate feeding trough no corporate state or media ever reports and no national election has supported. Concealing the great public dispossession behind big lies is the moral of the story across oceans.

Public life liquidated to ensure money gains to the rich is the inner truth of all the covert coups. Venezuela has been targeted since before 1999. Progressive elected governments in Honduras and Paraguay have already been overthrown by US-approved rightist coups. Argentina’s government has been financially strangled and led by corporate media hysteria and US court-supported vulture funds.  Brazil ‘s government has been toppled led by gangster politicians who avoid their own criminal prosecution for private theft from the state by projection onto the democratically elected president with 54 million votes who is innocent of any crime under law. Ecuador and Bolivia are now in the cross-hairs as well.  Blanket media destabilization and accusations without citizen vote or court decision are the transnational strategy of reversing social evolution after endless defeats of the right at the polls.

But the dots are never joined in the public conversations.  The elected governments are blamed, and the poor’s rising deprivations are disconnected from the money-party forces always orchestrating them. That these same forces are rooted in the death-squad dictatorships of the past is buried from sight in the official narratives inside and outside victim societies.

Even as the IMF admits that its ‘austerity programs’ have failed, media propaganda and social destruction rampage on.  In this way, the most advanced policies and governments in Latin America since the mass-murder dictatorships of US-led coups from the 1950’s on are reversed beneath public notice today.  All the while media headlines mislead us to believe that the poor support the stripping of their elected social states which is always, in fact, led by system-wide financial schemes and social sabotage backed by Washington and Wall Street.

John McMurtry is author of The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure.  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Overthrowing Latin American Democracies behind Corporate Media Lies

The Tragedy of Syria and the Middle East at Large

June 5th, 2016 by Peter Koenig

Amin Abadi of the  Kayhan Institute, Teheran interviews renowned economist and geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig.

The interview entitled “The Tragedy of Syria and the Middle East at Large” was published in Farsi in Kayhan (Cosmos), one of Iran’s most prominent newspapers. Below is the original English version of the interview.

Amin AbadiWhat is the major reason for Syrian crisis in your point of view, the crisis that includes massacre of thousands of people and homelessness of too many

Peter Koenig

By 2011 the ‘opposition’ was ready to launch a civil war on behalf of Washington against the Government of Bashar al-Assad, the democratically elected President of Syria, elected with a vast majority; and after five-years of foreign imposed war on the people of Syria, his approval rating is still above 70%. The ‘opposition’ – al-Nusra, al-Qaeda and whatever other names the ‘western friendly’ opposition was given to confuse the public at large by western media, was trained, fed and armed by the CIA, Mossad, Saudi Arabia – and of course, Vassal-Europe’s / NATO secret services.

Backtracking – soon after WWII a few Zionist-headed US so-called ‘think tanks’, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – and others, concocted a plan for the United States to take over the world. They called it ‘Pax Americana’ after the Roman Empire’s ‘Pax Romana’ which were arguably the 300 to 400 bloodiest years of the Roman Empire.

This is an ongoing plan, modified and adjusted according to new circumstances, but never deviating from the final objective – Full Spectrum Dominance. In the early nineties, under neoliberal banking deregulator Clinton, the plan’s name was changed to ‘Plan for a New American Century’ – PNAC. ‘Pax Americana’ may have been too obvious a give-away for a country that propagates democracy around the world, while spreading dictatorships to achieve a One or New World Order. Mind you, the Chosen People, are masterminding the New World Order – which includes the take-over of the Middle East.

Within PNAC, the Middle East’s destruction and chaos was planned for a long time, according to the motto – divide to reign. It’s part of the take-over of the world and its resources. The Middle East’s major natural resources are hydrocarbons – and “who controls energy controls the Continents; who controls food, controls the people; and who controls money – controls the world” – the infamous words spoken by war criminal Henry Kissinger already in the early seventies. It remains the motto on which the PNAC is built.

This is a long introduction to get to the point: The PNAC singles out in particular a number of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) countries that have to fall – regardless. Period. They include, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia – not necessarily in this order, but their destruction and subordination, or to use the term that emerged after Clinton’s destruction of peaceful and prosperous Yugoslavia – Balkanization – was planned. Yugoslavia was divided into chaos, to be controlled by the US / NATO forces – and to advance NATO bases ever closer to Russia.

The ‘balkanization’ of Syria is particularly ‘necessary’ for the Empire, as it is strategically located on the Mediterranean Sea and a potential thoroughfare for oil pipelines from the Gulf countries to serve the vast European markets and become a fierce competition for hydrocarbons from Russia.

At present about 35% of the world’s seaborne traded oil (and about 20% of all oil worldwide) passes through the Strait of Hurmuz, one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints, which is largely controlled by Iran; and, by the way, is a key factor in the US-Iran tensions – which in fact have nothing to do with an alleged Iranian ‘nuclear threat’. This is nothing but a public opinion manipulating farce propagated by western media.

Of course, Washington needs to dominate and cannot deal with democratically elected socialist leaders like Iran’s Hassan Rouhani, or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. In Syria, Mr. Assad has full popular support as recently demonstrated by Syria’s Parliamentarian elections. He is leading a secular socialist government with equal rights and free social services like health and education – all of which does not fit Washington’s neoliberal fascist concept of privatizing-everything in the New World Order under their reign. So – for Washington there is not even a question of ‘peace’ as long as President Assad is the head of Syria. For Washington and its European vassal allies, there is only one way: “regime change”.

By now it is no longer a secret, not even in the western media, who created, funded, trained and armed ISIS or the Islamic State (IS) terrorism – the United States of America, by recruiting remnants of Saddam Hussein’s elite defense forces after his murder. Now maintenance of the Islamic State is shared largely between the US, the Saudis, Qatar and other Gulf states – and Turkey, President Erdogan being the number one US puppet, leading a crucially strategically located NATO country, who can be ordered to do anything that Washington demands – like shooting down a Russian fighter jet.

Fortunately, there is Russia and President Putin. He has put a monkey wrench in the wheels of aggression of the western forces who were pretending vis-à-vis the western public that they were fighting ISIS (or IS), but in fact were supporting them, by bombing mostly Syrian civilian populations and supplying IS with arms, letting them smuggling stolen petrol into Turkey for sale to such illustrious ‘enemies’ like Israel and others in Europe. In a few months Mr. Putin put an end to IS dominance in Syria and western aggressions, liberating most of IS-occupied territory, and putting the Syrian army back in charge.

This left Washington and its European vassals up in arms – what to do? Despite the self-inflicted or ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, which were to justify more NATO bombing of Syria – Russia’s air force and strategy prevailed in bringing back, at least in part, Syria’s sovereignty. – Therefore Washington had to gain time – for NATO and IS to regroup and to rethink (sic). Hence, the so-called Geneva Peace Talks were called. As we know now, they are unlikely to lead anywhere – as long as Washington and its European NATO stooges insist on ‘regime change’.

Be sure, while Washington keeps breathing, they will never relent; they will never make any serious concession which deviates from their plan – other than agreements they break by deceit, as we already see with the Iranian Nuclear Agreement. That is their firm strategy. Never get detracted from your goal – à la Roman Empire – which eventually collapsed through internal forces.

AA: Do you believe that big powers across the world including America has fulfilled their humanitarian responsibilities and moral obligations toward Syrian people?

PK: Of course not. To the contrary, they are responsible for the humanitarian disaster, for over 4 million of displaced people, for more than half a million killed by a ‘civil war’, entirely instigated and funded by foreign forces. They are responsible for uncountable human tragedies, for the flood of refugees into Europe via Turkey. Mind you this flood of refugees from Syria and other western devastated MENA countries was also planned, as a ‘weapon’ to destabilize Europe.

The US and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States funded refugee camps in Turkey at the tune of 6 billion dollars – camps that can hold more than 4 million refugees. Erdogan was told by his transatlantic masters – keep them in Turkey until we tell you to open the flood-gates. That’s exactly what he did. Last fall came the order – let them go. And he did let them go – into a European wet and cold fall and winter season, difficult to give shelter to sudden multitudes of refugees. In masses they crossed the Aegean Sea to the Greek islands or the Mediterranean to Italy and southern France. Many of the refugees were told to go to Germany, that’s where the future is – many of them were actually given ‘road maps’ to Germany, Austria and some other northern European countries.

Germany in 2015 absorbed at least a million refugees from MENA and African countries and is expected to take in at least as many in 2016. Yet, as these lines are written, Madame Merkel is negotiating with Mr. Erdogan a six-billion euro-plus deal to keep the refugees in Turkey. The blackmail specialist, Erdogan is getting paid from both sides. He must keep his fraudulently acquired money in safer places than Panama.

A new, little spoken about but horrendous tragedy is lately emerging from Europol – possibly as many as 10,000 refugee children, mostly orphans, have disappeared. Have they fallen into the hands of child traders, using and selling them for slave labor and the girls into sex trade?

All is possible in our western world where all sense of ethics has disappeared in the last 30 years or more; but at least since the ascent of neoliberal – everything-goes-for-profit – fascism. After all, Europe’s records on ethics is historically abysmal – having raped, plundered and killed hundreds of millions of Africans, Asians and South Americans in their hundreds of years of colonies around the world. One would have hoped after two world wars they would come to reason. But no. There is something fundamentally wrong with this ‘Chosen People’-dominated western world.

Yet, there was another strategy in place – to destroy Greece completely. She is already being slaughtered, humiliated and – I dare say – assassinated by the troika – European Commission (EC), European Central Bank (ECB – which is not really a central bank) and the infamous IMF, the long-arm instrument of the US Federal Reserve (FED) and of Wall Street. History shows that Greece is a country of enormous human resources and resilience. This resilience has to be broken and annihilated. After all, Greece, together with Turkey and Germany, is host to one of the most important strategic NATO base. Greece cannot remain an autonomous, sovereign state and god forbid – with a socialist government. Never.

So, the northern European countries closed their borders to Greece; and Greece could not return the refugees to Turkey, mostly because of humanitarian reasons. What would happen to them back in Turkey – under Erdogan’s fist – and thousands of refugees have already lost their lives attempting to cross the seas to safer havens. Ironically, these safer havens are the very European nations that helped destroy their homes, livelihoods, tear their families apart – kill literally millions of them during the past 15 years. Go and seek help from your executioner! – What a fate! – Greece, with not enough resources to feed its own people, had to look after and protect the lives of hundreds of thousands of refugees, who were not allowed by her northern neighbors to move on.

Talk about solidarity – there is none. The European Union is a sham; an unsustainable fraud.:

AA: You have mentioned in your article The Children of Syria published by Global Research that Obama is the biggest misuser of human rights in the world of the century, would you explain us more about that.

PK: Sure. For one thing, Mr. Obama has started more wars than his predecessor; he is today involved in seven wars, as he boasts himself. And this for a Peace Nobel Prize winner – a prize given to him at the beginning of his tenure, in hope that he would bring peace to the world. But no. He was given a different agenda by his masters. The secret masters at the top of this opaque triangle, the elite of the elite, some call them ‘Illuminati’ others, the secret Masters of the Free Masons.

The known semi-secretive organizations, like the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the British Chatham House, the World Economic Forum (WEF) – and others – are all instruments used subjugate the world by the top of the evasive triangle. The ‘leaders’ below, Obama, Hollande, Merkel, Cameron and Co. are all puppets, put in place by above and executing orders from above. The elusive above is led by ‘The Chosen People’. – Sounds like conspiracy theory? – Think again and look at who is heading the FED, Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants, the media and communications industry, the military industrial complex – and so on.

Back to the question on human rights – Obama is also abusing human rights by his drone killings. He has openly admitted, if not boasted about approving every drone killing himself. Mostly on Tuesdays, he looks at lists of alleged terrorists around the world, and he decides who must be eliminated, no accusation, no trial, no investigation. He is god, deciding over life and death, giving the job to actually pull the drone trigger to some young soldiers who love ‘play stations’ – killing unknown people thousands of kilometers away, mostly aiming at people’s gatherings like weddings, funerals or other family events, in which, maybe, the target is present. They kill hundreds of people who have nothing to do with the alleged ‘terrorist’ – they become ‘bug-splats’, military jargon for remotely killed unknown people. On Obama’s orders; who fulfills a world agenda of the above.

Other than the two world wars, there is hardly anybody on this planet who is responsible for killing more people in the last hundred years than Obama. He is a puppet alright, but even puppets have a conscience – don’t they, or shouldn’t they?

AA: You have mentioned in your article that tens of thousands people have been killed during the last 15 years because of the drone attacks conducted by France, America and United Kingdom and more than 90 percent of the victims were civilians. Why have the international communities responsible for human rights such as United Nations kept silence against these crimes?

PK:  There is no international community that is not in the claws of the United States of America. In the last 20-30 years they have all become lackeys for the Empire. It’s sad to say, but the United Nations, born in October 1945 from the League of Nation, created after WWI to assure peace around the world, has become but a tool for Washington to manipulate the world. Every UN Secretary General has to be approved, if not selected by Washington. All the UN Special Agencies, like WHO, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNICEF, World Bank, IMF and more – are under direct orders from Washington. If anyone misbehaves, as has happened at times, with WHO and UNESCO among other, the US simply withholds its share of funding and pressures other countries to do likewise – until the respective agency falls back in track. So simple.

The worst is the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. From a court you would expect neutrality and justice. How come all the ‘criminals’ accused and condemned are enemies of the Empire? But the real criminals and war criminals, like the US Presidents of the last 60 years and their aids, are not even accused, let alone tried and brought to justice. In a just world they all would deserve a judgement Nuremberg style.

That’s why all these agencies, the international community, keeps silent about these crimes – the drone killings, the ‘illegal’ wars (all wars are illegal and crimes against humanity), proxy-instigated and fed conflicts, go without judgement. People are afraid of sanctions, of Washington’s sledgehammer.

Fear is the key instrument used by any empire to manipulate people. Just organize somewhere an act of terror – and people are afraid, screaming for help – please more police, more military protection – they even ask that their civil rights be abrogated for ‘protection’. That’s how President Hollande was able to extent the state of emergency (Martial Law) in France. He is still working on perpetuating it into the French Constitution.

AA: As you mentioned in your last article, millions of people in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan are living in a very low standards of life, they are suffering from poverty and that misery is only because of the greed and dominance ambitions of super powers. What is the solution to enhance their level of life?

PK:  The simple and in the end only answer is peace and social justice. How to achieve that is a different question. It needs a shift in paradigm. It requires a different human consciousness, one not driven by greed and power, but by a sense of human solidarity, by a desire to live together in harmony and in harmony with nature – a society that is not just thriving on consumerism, on absurd annual growth of consumption – a society that is aware of its surroundings, of Mother Earth, her entire ecosystem, animals, plants, natural unrenewable resources – a society that takes care of and protects its ‘neighborhood’ which is precisely that – the globe’s precious ecosystem. It is generously giving us everything we need for life, for a decent life that is – without having to kill and destroy.

This consciousness is inherent in human beings. We are all born with it. But it is imminently destroyed as we enter this greed-driven society. Yet, there is in every human brain, call it spirit or soul, a spark that glows up ever-so-often and tells us, there is something wrong with what’s going on around us. We only have to grasp this glow, this warm little light in the back of our minds, and follow it, look where it leads us. It will lead us to the truth. Maybe we have to look for it in alternative media, or just by opening our eyes. It may disturb our comfort zone. That’s the major hindrance for most people who ignore this little warm spark. In fact, crossing that threshold of abandoning our comfort zone, brings a richness of mind from which you never want to return. – That would be the solution.

AA: America has always been exposing as a state that pay close attention to peace and has a great emphasis on maintenance of democracy all over the world. But, yet the US itself has been one of the countries, having big shares on Syrian destruction. How do you see this Paradox?

PK: The ‘paying close attention to peace and democracy’ is just a propaganda farce Washington applies again and again. Ever fewer people fall for it. They see the real United States of Chaos, Greed and Power. But the paradox is, that even if nations and leaders of nations see the truth, see the lie behind the propaganda, they do not dare countering it. They are afraid of the emperor without cloths. He might dish out sanctions, economic sanctions, his atrocious military forces may invade their country, he may bring about ‘regime change’ – he may just simply kill to get what he wants. Just see what’s happening in Syria, in the Ukraine, before in Iraq, Libya – you name it. The list of leaders of unaligned nations killed by the empire in the last 70 years is long, very long.

Yes, the US has not only a big share in the Syrian disaster, it is the main instigator of the war and misery. The reason being, as explained before, full dominance of, first, the energy rich and strategic Middle East and North Africa, then of the world. And there it may falter. There is Russia and China, allied countries that will not allow a Zionist-Anglo-Saxon take-over. They have not only created an alliance among themselves, but also with the remaining BRICS (Brazil, India and South Africa), as well as with the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).

This alliance is foremost an economic and political alliance, but also one of defense. Together these countries make up about half of the world population and at least one third of the globes total economic output. They are also about to launch their independent monetary system, completely delinked form the fraudulent western fiat dollar-based casino system (for more on this, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-collapse-of-the-western-fiat-monetary-system-may-have-begun-china-russia-and-the-reemergence-of-gold-backed-currencies/5521107 ).

There is hope. Although do not expect a drastic overnight change. Sea changes do happen. But they are slow.

AA:  According to the received reports more than ten thousand refugees including kids have been disappeared in European countries. There is a
big probabilities that they have been kidnapped by human trafficking Bands. Such a news coming from Europe seems not to hurt anyone  seriously in West. What do you see the reason?

PK:  Indeed, as mentioned before, according to Europol, at least 10,000 refugee children disappeared. They could have easily fallen into bands of human trafficking – an utterly miserable perspective for these defenseless children, slavery, sex-exploitation, abuse all the way to death. Nobody knows about their fate. And as you said, the western media doesn’t particularly seem to care about their fate. This occurrence is almost silenced.

More important seem to be the semi-secret talks between Madame Merkel and Mr. Erdogan about the six-billion-euro deal, and the ongoing ultra-secret, behind closed-doors ‘negotiations’ of the infamous TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), the most nefarious trade agreement of recent centuries that risks to totally enslave Europe to transnational corporations, most of them US corporations

(For details see PK’s article my article entitled  EU to Become a “U.S. Colony”? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would Abolish Europe’s Sovereignty. (24 April 2016).

Human life is cheap, especially human lives in poverty and destitution is expendable, in our world of greed and without ethics.

As a last word – let me again appeal to this little warm spark in the back of your mind that we tend to ignore, as it may impinge on our comfort. Please do not ignore it. Let it glow brighter and follow it to the truth. It will warm your heart and help bring about the needed sea change.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, CounterPunch, TeleSur, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Tragedy of Syria and the Middle East at Large

They were marching shoulder-to-shoulder, young and old, in absolute silence. Some were carrying small placards with names and photos of their loved ones, who disappeared four decades ago, during the pro-Western dictatorship here in Uruguay.

The entire center of Montevideo came to a standstill. Blocks and blocks of this marvelous city were literally inundated by the river consisting of human bodies.

Then, in front of the municipality, the silence was broken. A huge screen above the square lit up, and photographs of each man and woman who disappeared, suddenly emerged, one by one. When no photograph was available, a gray contour was projected on the white screen. Two voices, one of a man, and one of a woman, were reading names of the victims. And the crowd chanted back: “PRESENTE!”

One block further, the “March of Silence” ended. The national anthem of Uruguay resonated all over the old city. Some people stood still, in silent salute and reverence, others fell into each other’s arms, weeping openly and uncontrollably.

Uruguay, at least to some extent a socialist country, was still standing. All over the continent, left-wing governments were collapsing, under the terrible weight of constitutional coups as well as the media and business manipulations of the ‘elites’ and the Empire. Argentina was crying out in pain under the neoliberal President Mauricio Macri, while the great Brazilian nation, fooled, cheated and spat at, was just slowly and painfully waking up after the long night of a shameless coup that brought a corrupt lackey and snitch of the West – Michel Temer – to the Presidency.

But even in Uruguay, the old establishment was still clinging to power, blocking many essential changes, resisting and silencing the calls for justice.

Around 300 people disappeared in the small Uruguay during the extreme right-wing dictatorship (1973-85), of course much less than in Argentina or Chile.

“But that is enough. Enough!” An old lady who was holding a placard with the image of her sister told me. “300 are much more than enough. We want justice and truth. Because without those, there could be no real progress in this country.”

One of the posters read:

AGAINST IMPUNITY OF THE PAST AND PRESENT! TRUTH AND JUSTICE!

Other placards were much more explicit:

NO FORGETTING NO FORGIVENESS!

And even one stronger one:

THEY ARE INSIDE US, SHOUTING ‘REVOLUTION!’

“This is so impressive, so touching!” whispers my friend Lilian Soto, a leading Paraguayan left-wing politician and former MP and Presidential candidate. “I have already participated in this march on several occasions. I really love this country!”

I briefly speak to my colleague and comrade from TeleSur, who is covering this great event for the entire Latin America and the world.

This year, after what happened in neighboring Argentina and Brazil, the march is gaining great symbolism. Cuban flags are flying, not far from the great Uruguayan Cinemateque, where my film about the US-backed 1965 coup in Indonesia had been shown, many years ago. In front of the statue of Socrates, a man poses, proudly, wrapped in a huge Brazilian flag.

“Those flags were just personal statements by several individuals,” explains my friend, Uruguayan journalist and activist Agustin Fernandez. “The demonstration was still mainly about the crimes committed by our past dictatorship.”

Mainly, yes; but those men and women I spoke to, on the night of 21 May, in the center of Montevideo, appeared to be extremely concerned about the macabre developments shaking the neighboring countries.

In Latin America, as well as all around the world, everything is clearly inter-connected. The West; the Empire, are behind almost all the horrid crimes against the humanity.

A great Greek film director, Costa Gavras, depicted the Uruguayan dictatorship and the Yankee involvement (a story of a US diplomat and expert in torture, who was kidnapped by the Uruguayan resistance group Tupamaros), in his iconic film “State of Siege” (1973).

The US and the West were behind the disappearances and torture in this historically peaceful and democratic country… as they were responsible for the horrors of fascist dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere… and just as they are accountable for the recent ‘events’ in Argentina and Brazil.

Who said that the US was ‘too busy in the Middle East, while also provoking Russia and China?’ Who said that ‘the Empire finally closed its eyes, stopped looking south?’ It never does! It never sleeps!

Walking down the streets of Montevideo, photographing and talking to the marching masses, on several occasions I felt like shouting:

“Hugo Chavez Frias!”

And:

“Salvador Allende Gossens!”

Expecting to hear those loud, clear and proud voices replying to me: “PRESENTE!”

(First published by RT)

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 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Dirty War: Uruguay and the March Of Silence, For South America’s Martyrs and Revolutions

Desde o começo, ficou evidente que o processo de impeachment da presidente eleita, Dilma Rousseff, tinha como objetivo principal o fortalecimento dos verdadeiros ladrões de Brasília, permitindo assim que impeçam, obstruam e ponham fim às investigações da Operação Lava Jato (além de imporem uma agenda neoliberal de privatizações e austeridade extrema). Apenas 20 dias após assumir o poder, provas irrefutáveis do envolvimento do Presidente interino Michel Temer em escândalos de corrupção vieram à tona. Dois ministros interinos de seu gabinete composto apenas de homens brancos, incluindo o Ministro da Transparência, foram forçados a abandonar seus cargos depois do aparecimento de gravações secretas em que conspiram visando obstruir as investigações nas quais se encontram envolvidos, assim como 1/3 dos ministros do gabinete interino.

Mas os alarmantes níveis de corrupção de seus ministros têm por vezes servido para encobrir o envolvimento do próprio Temer. O interino também se encontra envolvido em diversas investigações de corrupção. Agora condenado formalmente por violações de leis eleitorais, encontra-se por oito anos impedido de se candidatar a qualquer cargo público. Ontem, o Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de São Paulo, estado do presidente interino, publicou uma certidão formal que o declara culpado e impedido de se candidatar a qualquer cargo público por ter se tornado um candidato “ficha suja”. Temer foi condenado por doações acima do limite de campanha permitido por lei.

Em meio a intrigas, corrupção e irregularidades no governo “interino”, as violações da lei não são a mais grave transgressão de Temer. Mas ainda assim revelam de forma evidente a fraude antidemocrática que a elite brasileira tenta perpetrar no país. Em nome da corrupção, a presidenta eleita democraticamente foi afastada e substituída por alguém que, apesar de não estar impedido por lei de assumir cargos públicos, encontra-se por oito anos impedido de se candidatar ao cargo que exerce no momento.

Apenas algumas semanas atrás, o impeachment de Dilma parecia inevitável. Até então, toda a atenção da mídia oligárquica brasileira era dirigida exclusivamente à presidenta. Mas gradualmente as atenções se voltaram para quem estava organizando o processo de impeachment, para quem se fortaleceria e para seus motivos reais.

Então, tudo mudou. Agora, o impeachment de Dilma, embora ainda seja provável, não parece mais ser completamente inevitável. O Globoinformouna semana passada que dois senadores anteriormente favoráveis ao afastamento da presidenta, já admitem rever seus votos por conta das gravações recentemente publicadas dos ministros de Temer. Além disso, a Folha de S.P. ontem também noticiou que diversos senadores estudam a mudança de seus votos. É importante observar que os meios de comunicação brasileiros pararam de publicar pesquisas de opinião sobre a popularidade de Temer e sobre o impeachment de Dilma.

Enquanto isso, a hostilidade a esse ataque à democracia cresce tanto no Brasil, quanto no exterior. Os protestos contra Temer têm crescido e se intensificado. Mais de vinte deputados britânicos revelaram que consideram o impeachment um golpe. Mais de trinta deputados do Parlamento europeu reivindicaram o fim das negociações comerciais com o governo “interino” brasileiro por considerá-lo ilegítimo. O grupo anticorrupção Transparência Internacional anunciou que interromperia os diálogos com o novo governo até que a corrupção fosse eliminada dos novos ministérios. Em uma reportagemsobre a demissão do Ministro da Transparência nesta semana, o New York Times descreveu-a como “mais uma derrota para um governo que parece se atrapalhar em sucessivos escândalos poucas semanas depois de Temer substituir Dilma Rousseff.”

 

The incumbent president, Michel Temer, during inauguration ceremony of the presidents of public banks and Petrobras, in Planalto Palace, in Brasilia, capital of Brazil, on 1 June 2016. Fearing used the event to take stock of the first days of his interim government and highlight the "scenario" in which he found the country after the departure of President Dilma Rousseff. Photo: ANDRE DUSEK/ESTADAO CONTEUDO (Agencia Estado via AP Images)Photo: Agencia Estado/AP

 

Mas nada explica melhor a perigosa farsa que as elites brasileiras tentam impor à população do que o líder por eles escolhido ser impedido de se candidatar ao cargo que acabou de assumir, devido a uma condenação judicial. Não se trata apenas da destruição da democracia no quinto país mais populoso do mundo, tampouco da imposição de uma agenda de privatizações e ataque aos pobres para benefício da plutocracia internacional. Trata-se do fortalecimento de operadores corruptos – desrespeitando as regras democráticas – cinicamente conduzido em nome da luta contra a corrupção.

* * * * *

Ontem, em um evento no Rio de Janeiro com David Miranda e Nathalie Drumond, fui perguntado – como sempre sou nestes eventos – sobre o possível envolvimento dos Estados Unidos na mudança do governo. Abaixo, um vídeo com 4 minutos de minha resposta:

 Glen Greenwald
  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on O Colapso de Credibilidade de Michel Temer – Agora Inelegível Por Oito Anos

Employment Lies. The Manipulation of US Unemployment Data

June 4th, 2016 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

June 3, 2016.   Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the US economy only created 38,000 new jobs in May and revised down by 59,000 jobs the previously reported gains in March and April.

Yet the BLS reported that the unemployment rate fell from 5.0 to 4.7 percent, a figure generally regarded as full employment.

The May jobs increase only covers a small fraction of the monthly growth in the labor force and, therefore, cannot account for the drop in unemployment.

Moreover, the BLS reported that the labor force participation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points, bringing the decline to 0.4 percentage points over the past two months. Normally, a strong labor market, such as one represented by a 4.7% unemployment rate, causes an increase in the labor force participation rate.

The question becomes:  How real is the 4.7% rate of unemployment?

The answer is: Not at all.

The unemployment rate dropped because people unable to find jobs ceased looking and are no longer counted as being in the labor force.  If you are unemployed but not considered part of the labor force, you are not included when unemployment is measured. The BLS says that in May there were 1.7 million Americans who “wanted and were available for work,” but “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.”

In other words, the unemployment rate is a useless measure of unemployment, just as the consumer price index no longer measures inflation.  What were once useful statistical measures have been converted into good news propaganda.

Another inconsistency is the BLS report that, despite the low unemployment rate, in May almost another one-half million Americans were forced into part-time jobs as full-time employment was not available.

The average work week is no longer 40 hours.  The shrinkage of the average work week to 34.4 hours (May) is another reason for declining real median family income. Assuming 3 weeks of vacation, a 34.4 hour work week is 274.4 hours less per year. At $20 per hour, for example, a 34.4 hour work week produces $5,488 less annual income than a 40 hour week.

The loss of annual income is greater for many.  The average is a result of shorter and longer work weeks. The shorter work weeks that pull down the average are not full-time jobs and therefore do not receive health and pension benefits.

Just as Washington and the presstitute media lie about everything else, they lie about the economy.

The United States of America has beeen reduced to a House of Cards whose foundation is lies.

How long can it stand?

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Employment Lies. The Manipulation of US Unemployment Data

Climate Change Censorship: Australia and UNESCO

June 4th, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Censoring climate change and its reporting is a big business, notably among fossil fuel obsessives and those in denial. It continues to fulfil a role in the policies of Australia’s Turnbull government.  Even after the demise of Tony Abbott last year, his successor continues to scrub his own environmental credentials from his profile.  As he does so, an assortment of weasel words have found their way into the political argot: “innovation”, “growth” and a host of other empty treats.

Despite lauding various efforts to pursue “clean energy” (PM Malcolm Turnbull decided to reverse the previous leader’s decision to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation), environmental politics in Australia remains a dirty business.

Turnbull demonstrated as much in March by announcements that he would remove funds from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and replace it with a new, slogan rich “Clean Energy Innovation Fund”.  Turnbull is particularly keen on copyrighting innovation, a substitute, he finds, for actual de-funding strategies for the essentially redundant environment portfolio.

As Giles Parkinson noted in March, “the move to de-fund ARENA and create a ‘new’ fund using money already allocated to the CEFC is nothing but a sleight of hand, and an elaborate ruse by Turnbull to save more than $1.3 billion and get his new pet word ‘innovation’ included in a financing scheme.”[1]

This is only one portion of Turnbull’s strategy. Another is a no mean effort at censorship in an attempt to minimise the effects of climate change on Australia’s environment.  The current prime minister is, after all, a businessman, and while he lauds efforts of Australian “innovation” in solar energy, ironically much of it being done in other countries, he is also happy to remove references to climate change when needed.

Guardian Australia scored something of a coup on this tendency in obtaining the Unesco report on tourism and climate change at the end of last month.  Titled “World heritage and tourism in a changing climate,” it was modified to incorporate Australian objections.

The draft report, to that end, looks somewhat different to its final form.  One had just to ask the lead author of the report, Adam Markham of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who expressed profound shock at “the reasons the Australian government gave for why they pressured Unesco to drop the Australian sites.”[2]

Portions removed in the final report include reference to the dangers posed to the Great Barrier Reef.  “The biggest long-term threat to the GBR today, and to its ecosystems services, biodiversity, heritage values and tourism economy is climate change, including rising sea temperatures, accelerating rates of sea-level rise, changing weather patterns and ocean acidification.”[3]

The section concluded that “without a comprehensive response more in keeping with the scale of the threat, the [reef]’s extraordinary biodiversity and natural beauty may lose its world heritage values.”

In addition to this excision came two other sections.  The Tasmanian wilderness, for one, receives no mention as being under threat, despite the appalling fires in early 2016.

David Bowman, professor of environmental change biology at the University of Tasmania noted the “root cause” behind the fire season as being “the record-breaking dry spring and the largely rain-free and consistently warm summer, which has left fuels and peat soils bone dry.”[4]  Far from seeing the Tasmanian fires in isolation, their severity had to be considered as part of “a global pattern of increasing destructive fires driven by extreme fire weather.”

Dr. Michael-Shawn Fletcher of the University of Melbourne would similarly observe in February that the frequency of bushfires in Tasmania had become exceptional.  “My conviction,” he gloomily noted, “is that the current trend is evidence of anthropogenic forces.”[5]

The response from the Tasmanian Liberal premier, one that Turnbull has aped, was to deny that there was any serious problem.  The fire, he claimed in February, burned some 1.2 per cent of the world heritage zone.  While “not insignificant […] it could have been much worse.”[6]

Environmental groups disagreed in what became a public relations war of images on forest destruction. “It’s damn ordinary,” shot back the premier, “that you’ve got environmental activists almost gleefully capitalising on images, naturally caused, which could inflict significant damage on our brand, our reputation.”[7]

The deleted section on Tasmania in the Unesco report is cognisant of the “2013 assessment of climate change threat [which] identified the same habitats as at high risk from greater fire frequency and drier conditions, with likely catastrophic implications for fauna.”  The calamitous fires of January 2016 bore out those “dire predictions”.

Warnings about Kakadu national park similarly vanished in the penultimate report. “Climate change threatens Aboriginal traditional use by altering the ecosystems of the vast wetlands of Kakadu and raising temperatures to a level likely to lead to more intense fire regimes.”

Brands, reputations, labels, and management.  Do not kick up a fuss and damage reputations.  Those are the guiding words and principles in the Turnbull environmental protocol.  Rather than providing genuine policy, these constitute the fundamentals of managing decline.  And, in that universe, if profit can be made along the way, so much the better.

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


Notes

[1] http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/turnbulls-sleight-of-hand-on-clean-energy-investment-63202

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/revealed-the-report-on-the-great-barrier-reef-that-australia-didnt-want-the-world-to-see

[4] https://theconversation.com/fires-in-tasmanias-ancient-forests-are-a-warning-for-all-of-us-53806

[5] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-24/study-links-tassie-fires-to-human-induced-climate-change/7193830

[6] http://www.smh.com.au/environment/pr-war-over-fires-in-tasmanias-world-heritage-area-takes-to-the-air-20160212-gmstxz.html

[7] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/greenpeace-to-use-tasmanian-forest-fire-vision-in-campaigns/7160482

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Climate Change Censorship: Australia and UNESCO

After reviewing the main determinants of the current eurozone crisis, this paper discusses the feasibility of introducing fiscal currencies as a way to restore fiscal space in peripheral countries, like Greece, that have so far adopted austerity measures in order to abide by their commitments to eurozone institutions and the International Monetary Fund. We show that the introduction of fiscal currencies would speed up the recovery, without violating the rules of eurozone treaties.

At the same time, these processes could help transition the euro from its current status as the single currency to the status of “common clearing currency,” along the lines proposed by John Maynard Keynes at Bretton Woods as a system of international monetary payments. Eurozone countries could therefore move from “Plan B,” aimed at addressing member-state domestic problems, to a “Plan A” for a better European monetary system.

*    *    *

Below is the Introduction of this article. To Read complete article click here (pdf)

An increasing number of economists and commentators believe that the current (spring 2016) economic policy path that some eurozone countries are following will undermine the rules of the European Monetary Union (EMU) originally put in place in the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (subsequently modified in 2007 by the Lisbon Treaty, and in 2011 with the “Sixpack”) and eventually lead to either the collapse of the European cohesion or a period of prolonged stagnation.

The rules of the EMU structure were based on two assumptions, both of which have proven to be untenable. The first was the belief in a smooth transition from simple agreements among different national states to a federation, creating the “United States of Europe,”1 which would not only complete the institution of a common market, but also share the same constitution, thereby ensuring common rights for the “European citizen,” with a common foreign policy, an integrated fiscal system, and a common currency. Had this belief been realized and accomplished smoothly with the approval of the population of each member state, then the currently missing institutional mechanism of a unified fiscal structure large enough to be an automatic stabilizer facilitating federal fiscal transfers to member states at times of need would have made the eurozone sustainable. This process was, however, stopped by the ill-conceived proposal for a European Constitution, which, albeit ratified by several member states, was rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005, de facto halting any further attempts to put the United States of Europe project on strong foundations.

The second assumption inspiring the logic of the Maastricht Treaty, and its subsequent modifications, was based on the ordo-liberal economic dogma that prevailed then and continues to this day, mainly by Germany’s dictum. It asserts that markets: would self-adjust towards full employment; the central bank would be independent from governments and be concerned only with price stability; and national governments would be responsible for fiscal policy subject to the Treaties’ guidelines; guarantee property rights; and smooth the functioning of markets irrespective of the asymmetries in their real economies. This (German) logic inspired the 1 The “Ventotene Manifesto” is believed to be one of the major sources of inspiration for a plan towards a federation of European countries; see Spinelli and Rossi (1941). 3 structure of the ECB, avoiding the possibility of acting as lender of last resort to governments when needed; it also inspired the limits to government deficits and debts codified in the Maastricht Treaty, which were made even more stringent in the Sixpack.

In the public debate that ended with the signing of the treaties, it became clear that the adoption of a single currency would mean the renunciation of domestic authorities having any role in the formulation of monetary and exchange-rate policies. This, in the face of asymmetric shocks, would imply divergence and crisis handling among member states in accordance with their underlying real economies. To spur growth in regions lagging behind, a system of fiscal transfers—the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund—was therefore established. Moreover, some provisions were later included in the treaties to force countries to take corrective actions, reversing their surplus positions whenever their current account balance exceeded a given threshold relative to their GDP. The mechanism of fiscal transfers, however, is insufficiently funded to act as an automatic stabilizer at the level experienced in the US (with a sufficiently large federal budget in the order of 15 percent), while the requirement for surplus-reversing— introduced only in 2011 as part of the “Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure”—has not been applied thus far, given the large external surpluses of Germany and other countries of the European North.

The euro’s faulty architecture was thus well-known before its implementation started (Papadimitriou and Wray 2010, 2012).2 In a prescient contribution, Godley (1992) wrote:

[…]if all these functions are renounced by individual governments they simply have to be taken on by some other authority. The incredible lacuna in the Maastricht programme is that, while it contains a blueprint for the establishment and modus operandi of an independent central bank, there is no blueprint whatever of the analogue, in Community terms, of a central government.

The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we briefly review the historical evolution of the imbalances that led to the prolonged stagnation of the eurozone periphery and the outright 2 On the other hand, there was a hope that countries not satisfying the requirements for an optimal currency area would converge to such requirements once the common currency had been adopted; see Frankel and Rose (1998), among others. crisis (which dominated in Greece) that has stimulated a debate on how to reform the eurozone institutions—a plan commonly referred as “Plan A,” or “Plan B” —focusing instead on implementing domestic policies that do not necessarily terminate the current Eurozone agreements. There is also the option of which countries in deep crisis, such as Greece, may very well choose to abandon the euro, possibly precipitating the collapse of the Eurozone monetary system. In this paper, we will not investigate this possibility. Instead, in the third section, we present a proposal, based on Papadimitriou (2016) and Papadimitriou, Nikiforos, and Zezza (2014, 2015a, 2016), for the introduction of a domestic fiscal currency compatible with keeping the euro as legal currency. In the fourth section, we discuss how some simple changes in the functioning of the ECB Target2 system may lead the way to a more sustainable monetary architecture; in the final section, we offer our conclusions.

Notes

1. The “Ventotene Manifesto” is believed to be one of the major sources of inspiration for a plan towards a federation of European countries; see Spinelli and Rossi (1941).

2. On the other hand, there was a hope that countries not satisfying the requirements for an optimal currency area would converge to such requirements once the common currency had been adopted; see Frankel and Rose (1998), among others.

 Read complete article (pdf)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Going Forward from B to A? Proposals for the Eurozone Crisis. The Introduction of “Fiscal Currencies”

In the dawn of the day of April 22nd, 1995, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) seized the moment to perpetuate one of the largest massacres in the history of the Rwandan tragedy in Kibeho camp, home to more than 100,000 internally displaced refugee.

Today, this tragic episode has been kept silent. The Rwandan government has officially only recognized 338 victims, ‘’mostly Interahamwe militia and former genocidaires”. The massacre that took place in Kibeho in 1995 remains a non-existing event for the Rwandan authorities.

The current regime in Rwanda has managed to falsely represent the slaughter that took place in Kibeho as a military operation that slightly escalated in history and curricular books. As such, thousands of children, women and men have indeed become forgotten in Rwandan history. (JambonNews.net)

 Video montage and source: Ann May Simone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Kibeho Refugee Camp Massacre in Rwanda: The Real Story of What Happened There in 1995

Hybrid Wars. Breaking the Balkans, Country Scenarios

June 4th, 2016 by Andrew Korybko

(Please read Part IPart IIPart III, and Part IV before this article)

The research thus far has thoroughly explained the Hybrid War context in the Balkans and the specific regional vulnerabilities that are ripe to be exploited. This penultimate section will thus briefly elaborate a bit more on each country’s Hybrid War scenarios and segue into the final chapter that talks about the dire threat facing the Republic of Macedonia, the most susceptible of all the Balkan states to this new form of warfare.

Slovenia

In and of itself, there aren’t any endemic factors inside Slovenia that place it at risk of a Hybrid War, but it is in danger of suffering destabilization as a result of the “refugee” crisis. The work earlier touched upon the regretful incident where a group of out-of-control “refugees” torched their own camp, showing everyone that all it takes for pandemonium to break out among the ‘human caravan’ is just a few impassioned provocateurs. Thankfully the authorities were able to re-establish control before panic and/or aggression took hold over the rest of the crowd, but the incident brought to light a serious threat that will remain so long as there are “refugees” transiting the Balkans.

_86367350_migrant_journeys_turkey_to_germany_624_v9Slovenia itself isn’t expected to be targeted by the US or any other external actors intent on provoking a Hybrid War, but as is seen by the camp incident, certain Hybrid War triggers don’t always need an external patron to provoke. The conditions for a “refugee” riot are already well established and intimately interwoven into the entire ‘migration’ experience, partly owing to the unpreparedness of the transit states to accommodate such massive human inflows and also due to the composition of the “refugees” themselves (mostly young, military-aged men with pro-Islamist sympathies). There exists the distinct possibility that an unforeseen spark somewhere along the “refugee” transnational ‘chain’ could lead to a larger riot that takes the victim state’s government off guard (whether it’s Slovenia or whichever other transit state) and triggers a larger regional crisis in its wake.

Still, it seems as though Ljubljana has prepared for this scenario in light of the “refugees” burning their own camp and has called in the EU to assist with security measures. Slovenia obviously sacrificed a degree of its sovereignty in this request, but it’s questionable exactly what level of independence it even had prior to this (being such a gung-ho EU and NATO member), so in a sense it’s somewhat of a moot point to even consider (although nonetheless relevant to mention). Therefore, the country’s real vulnerability to Hybrid War stems not so much from an unplanned incident that could lead to a larger “refugee” riot on its own territory, but from the humanitarian consequences of this or another Hybrid War scenario happening ‘upstream’ in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, or the Republic of Macedonia, and thus sending an even more overwhelming flood of people surging across its borders and obliterating what little institutional defenses it has against such an asymmetrical destabilization.

Croatia and Bosnia

Croatia shares the same risks of a “refugee” riot as Slovenia does, and it is equally susceptible to being caught in the middle of any mayhem that the ‘migrants’ decide to start. That being said, just like with Slovenia, Croatia is not a target for American-provoked Hybrid Wars, and although understanding that its allies’ stability is in jeopardy due to the “refugee” scheme, Washington wants to avoid any intentional scenario for weakening its Western Balkan partners to the advantage of the Central Balkans. If taking down the Central Balkans through a provoked “refugee” riot on their territory means that adverse consequences will come to the Western Balkans, then so be it, the American strategy goes, so long as the multipolar megaprojects are endangered enough to justify the collateral damage to the US’ Lead From Behind proxy in Zagreb.

Moving beyond the “refugee” riot scenario and to speak more concretely about another Hybrid War risks that could feasibly result in Croatia’s involvement (whether as an active player or a passive participant), the US would like to destabilize Bosnia in order to draw Belgrade into a quagmire. This was discussed at length earlier so there’s no need to repeat all the details, but the general idea is that militant Dayton Revisionism on the side of Sarajevo (at the behest of its Western patrons) is already leading to tensions with Banja Luka, and if the current trend keeps pace, then relations between the two federal entities will significantly deteriorate in the coming year. Croatia’s self-interest in this course of events is simple –the Croat-Muslim entity will seek as many external partners as possible while it prepares for a possible conflict with Republika Srpska, and the most geopolitically ‘natural’ one for it to reach out to is Zagreb, which has its own historical ambitions for actualizing Greater Croatia.

Map_Bih_entitiesSpoken about in this context, Croatia is trying to turn Bosnia’s Croat-Muslim entity into its proxy domain, and this becomes more realistic as preplanned and provoked tensions are ratcheted up against Republika Srpska. Under this structural arrangement, Croatia has more involvement in supporting a Conventional War in Bosnia than a Color Revolution and/or Unconventional War, meaning that it’s not necessarily partaking in a full Hybrid War-facilitating role, although its actions would likely contribute to the destabilization of the whole country. The reader should remember that one of the US’ main strategies is to lure Serbia into the Bosnian boiler and trap it in a quagmire that leads to a full state collapse with time, an objective which didn’t succeed in the early 1990s but now seems to have a higher probability of occurring, provide of course that the US can trick Serbia into a conventional intervention there. Just as the US used the killing of Russians in Donbass to try and produce an emotional and shortsighted response from Moscow, it may try to emulate the same pattern in Republika Srpska with the Serbs in order to goad Belgrade into a geopolitical trap, possibly even going as far as also using a Color Revolution to set the patterned chain of events into motion.

Serbia

This brings the conversation around to Serbia and the very real threat that it faces from multidirectional Hybrid War threats. Continuing with the tangent that was touched upon above, Belgrade must be cautious in getting drawn too deeply into Bosnia’s spiraling problems (initiated entirely by the US’ initiative, one should never forget), but at the same time, it must strike a balance between avoiding a ‘Reverse Brzezinski’ and simply capitulating its geopolitical position. Therefore, when forecasting Serbia’s role in any forthcoming Bosnian destabilization, it would be wise for Belgrade to initially limit its support and refrain from over-emotionally getting drawn into the conflict, no matter how provocative the ‘bait’ is (e.g. Sarajevo trying to do to Republika Srpska what Kiev was doing in Donbass [to completely different situations, but the general idea is the same]). Other than that general guidance, there is nothing else solid enough to be suggested until any conflict actually breaks out, as the detailed specifics will dictate more concrete action at that time.

Moving along, the preceding chapter outlined the threat quasi-separatist threat that could emerge from the ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina, prodded on as they’d be by nationalist actors such as Jobbik. It is here where a more ‘traditional’ Hybrid War threat could become manifested, since there’s the possibility (however vague it may seem at this time) for the community there to utilize Color Revolution technologies in agitating for some sort of more clearly defined identity separateness from the Serbian state. Each Color Revolution scenario makes use of different on-the-ground tactic s and slogans that apply most efficiently to the given situation, but it could be foreseen that language rights might play some sort of role in the future. The uniqueness of the Hungarian language is a source of pride for its speakers and is an integral part of the Hungarian national identity, and nationalist provocateurs could push the people into organizing around it in order to give their nascent movement a unifying factor. For example, one possible scenario could be see Jobbik-organized Hungarian Serbs demanding the creation of a so-called “Hungarian Regional Autonomy” in the northern reaches of Vojvodina, using a language dispute as pretext for galvanizing the demographic. It probably wouldn’t descend into its own Hybrid War, but a faulty state response to this emerging and premeditated crisis could severely worsen relations with Hungary and possibly jeopardize the Balkan megaprojects.

_44442019_-400Rounding out the rest of Serbia’s Hybrid War threats, it’s necessary to touch upon the socio-political vulnerabilities of Sandzak and the Presevo Valley. Both southern regions are inhabited by a large amount of Muslims that could be provoked into resentment against the titular Serbian majority, obviously being aware of how tactically success this was for the Kosovo-based Albanians (despite leading to a failed ‘state’ shortly thereafter). The US’ goal here isn’t in recreating another ‘geopolitical Kosovo’, but in simply stirring up problems between minorities and the titular Serbian majority. That fact that the “refugee’ ‘chain’ flows through the Presevo Valley is a strategic advantage in this respect since it means that the transnational travelling ‘caravan’ could be manipulated into being a catalyst for this scenario, per the “refugee” riot risk that was earlier discussed. Both areas’ proximity to the occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo means that they’re within relatively easy reach of ISIL-affiliated terrorists that have taken nest in the NATO protectorate. The most dramatic scenario would be if these individuals found a way to arm the “refugees” prior to or immediately after a planned incitement against the Serbian authorities, which could then be joined by the Presevo Valley Muslims (provided that their preconditioned for such action).

Montenegro

This tiny country is being sucked into NATO against the wishes of the majority, and it’s already produced a sizeable amount of domestic instability as a result. Interestingly enough, the conditions inside Montenegro might give way to a form of Hybrid Warfare, albeit not one that’s conducive to American foreign policy goals and which would be entirely organic if it occurs. Aside from the previously discussed interests that the US has in Montenegro, its geostrategic territory is envisioned to host a part of the long-cherished Ionian-Adriatic Pipeline, a prospective project to link the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP, supplied by Azeri gas) northwards to Croatia and help Zagreb become a sizeable energy hub in conjunction with its planned (but ultra-expensive) LNG terminal in Krk island. From an American perspective, NATO absolutely must occupy Montenegro in order to perpetually guarantee the pipeline’s viability, and any legitimate opposition against its proxy Djukanovic cannot be tolerated since it’s unknown whether his democratically elected replacement will want the project or not. For these reasons, NATO is bunkering down behind Djukanovic and supporting the violence that he’s unleashed against the protesters. Their calculation is that a non-NATO, non-Djukanovic Montenegro would be an unreliable transit state, hence why it must be avoided at all costs.

Seen from this analytical vantage point, the West’s blind support for the unpopular Djukanovic is ironically more harmful to its soft power than anything else, since their backing of him amidst the violent crackdown and non-democratic NATO push has tarnished their reputation in the eyes of their nominal supporters. The rapid polarization that has transpired since the government’s preemptive September announcement about joining the military bloc seems to be irreversible and deeply rooted, with impassioned anti-NATO and anti-Djukanovic supporters unlikely to ever backtrack on their ideals. Now that Podgorica accepted Brussels’ invitation for membership, there’s an ever-dwindling window of opportunity for the protesters to act in stopping what appears to be a looming fait accompli. Pushed to act, they might very well make a determined push against the government sometime in the next year or two before Montenegro’s formal admission, which could see a renewed spate of protests rocking the country and simultaneously taking place in other cities besides just the capital. There’s no doubt that Djukanovic will react savagely to this development and that NATO will stand fully behind their prospective member in offering political, material, and intelligence support, meaning that the lines for a possible civil war are clearly set in the sand, provided of course that the opposition is serious enough about continuing their protest movement in the face of such violent adversity.

untitledOrganized protest marches all throughout the country could scare Djukanovic into thinking that a Color Revolution is being hatched against him, and in some ways, the political technologies and tactical applications could very well mirror this traditional Western regime change strategy. The pivotal difference, however, is that no foreign patron is supporting the Montenegrin opposition and the entire anti-government movement is purely endemic and founded on grassroots resistance. Because of its genuine origins, it might perhaps be in a greater position to succeed in its regime change goals than any of the artificial Washington-engineered Color Revolutions before it due to its literal adherence to the precepts laid out in Gene Sharp’s “From Dictatorship To Democracy”, and this frightens Djukanovic and his NATO patrons to no end. Therefore, they’ll take the most severe and violent course of action if they feel ‘threatened’ by a critical mass of anti-government protesters converging on the capital, and the bloody and chaotic aftermath could motivate the oppositionists to take up arms against the government and wage a guerrilla war. If it comes to that, then Hybrid War would have come to Montenegro in the one way that the US could never have expected it to, and its successful completion (the replacement of Djukanovic with a democratically elected and multipolar leader) would throw a serious wrench into the US’ strategic plans for the Balkans.

Albania

Albania is a very peculiar country when it comes to Hybrid War, since it perpetually needs to continue pursuing one abroad in order to prevent its emergence at home. The full details of this theory are contained in the author’s earlier worked called ““Greater Albania” Is A Myth To Preserve The Country’s Unity”, but to summarize, the guiding concept is that the Gheg and Tosk differences in Albania are a lot larger than most observers realize, and that without the unifying ideology of Greater Albania, the separateness between these two dialect groups would quickly come to the surface and create political complications for the perpetually impoverished state. In order to deter this from happening, Albanians are periodically reminded of the irredentist crusade that lies at the heart of the government’s post-Cold War legitimacy.

Typically, Greater Albania is evoked whenever Albania itself is closest to a serious domestic crisis authorities see the need to trot it out as the ultimate distraction. This happened during the 1997 economic crisis when Greater Albania was directed against the Serbian Province of Kosovo, and again in 2015 when the deteriorating economic conditions inside the country gave rise to tens of thousands of EU-destined migrants and the parallel revival of the KLA in Macedonia. Neither case is coincidental, and it’s argued that without the driving force of Greater Albania to unify and distract them, then the distraught citizens of Albania would direct their negative energy towards the government and unintentionally provoke the chaotic conditions where the Gheg and Tosk divide could take on political dimensions.

Albania_declared_Catholics_census_2011What’s also important to mention (and is argued in the aforementioned source article) is that Albania is one of the few countries in the world where Christianity actually grew since the end of the Cold War. This is attributable to Catholic missionary activity heavily active in the northern part of the country, and amidst any domestic political uncertainties, it’s possible that this extra element of identity (Christian Albanians) could come to the fore as the national identity begins to disintegrate with the rise of Gheg and Tosk. Making matters even more complicated would be if Turkey’s Neo-Ottomanism continues its Balkan lurch and Ankara succeeds in pressuring its junior proxies in Tirana to mildly support (or at least make their country conducive to) social Islamism. This could produce tensions with Albania’s rising Christian minority, traditional atheists, and secular Muslims, and might turn out to be the key catalyst for dismembering the Albanian national identity. With all these competing identity factors just below the country’s social surface, and each of which are capable of emerging during prospective anti-government protests amidst the economic crisis, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that Tirana’s elites are once more resorting to the myth of Greater Albania in order preserve their positions, and this will be discussed more thoroughly when addressing the Republic of Macedonia.

Greece

The US must strike a real tricky balance when dealing with Greece, since it wants to destabilize it enough to preempt Balkan Stream and the Balkan Silk Road, while at the same time not doing anything to offset the TAP. However, if it came to it, then Greece and the TAP could be sacrificed so long as doing so was thought to guarantee the destruction of the multipolar megaprojects, although this of course is the failsafe, last-resort option that the US would only pursue if it was in a desperate enough position (e.g. Hybrid Wars don’t break out as planned in Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia). The two tools used to achieve the strategic unbalancing of Greece and meant to place it in a position of perpetual servitude are the “refugee” crisis and the fierce left-right divide.

“Refugees”:

The “refugee” crisis was spoken about at much length before, and it could potentially affect Greece in the same manner as the other downstream states that were earlier discussed. The key difference, however, is that Greece practically doesn’t involve itself in any useful capacity in dealing with the “refugees”, meaning that there are less ‘opportunities’ for them to get distraught and lash out against the authorities. Truth be told, Greece pretty much has an ‘open-door’ policy when it comes to “refugees”, emulating in many respects the “wet foot, dry foot” policy that the US has in place for Cubans. In both cases, if an individual is intercepted at sea, then they’ll likely be sent back, or at the very least, not allowed to freely continue their mission to wherever it was that they intended to reach further afield. But, if they physically touch foot in American, or in this case, mainland Greek soil, then standard immigration rules are not enforced and they receive a carte blanche to do as they please (with the US actually offering them a package of welfare benefits, unlike the poorer and less politically motivated Greeks). The US does so on purpose in order to lure Cubans away from their country and beget a humanitarian and political crisis (which is slowly gaining steam in Central America at the moment), while Greece has its ‘wet foot, dry foot’ policy due to pure ineptitude, a lack of funds, and misprioritization brought about by the economic crisis.

Migrants%20Mediterranean16x9Regardless of the reasons, the effect is the same – Greece turns such a blind eye to the “refugees” and ignores them to such a point that Athens greatly facilitates all manner of illegal immigration to the rest of Europe (be it of “refugees”, terrorists, or economic migrants), thus giving these individuals no ‘probable’ cause to riot that could be exploited by interested outside actors. They simply don’t exist, and even if a “refugee” finds themselves ‘stranded’ in mainland Greece, they’re a lot more complacent than in any of the other transit states because the society seems to have no issue with these ‘indefinite tourists’, and the standard of living is so low at the moment that whatever funds they brought with them for their journey will be beyond sufficient for a prolonged period of time (keep in mind that many “refugees” have thousands of Euros with them). The only exception in this case is if they’re stranded on an island en route to the mainland, in which case their prospects of ‘freedom of movement’ in Europe are less bright because they still haven’t reached the continent itself yet. Anyhow, this isn’t as significant of a Hybrid War factor because any “refugee” riot on the Greek isles is physically contained and poses no real threat to the government’s stability.

Political Polarization:

The real threat facing Greek stability isn’t “refugees”, but the vicious left-right divide that continues to split the nation. In Greece, there’s no such thing as a ‘political moderate’, since people are either ardently on the left or the right, and this is directly due to the legacy of World War II, the Greek Civil War, and the military junta that ruled the country from 1967-1974. All Greek families were affected to one degree or another by these two traumatic events and their fallout, although the impact they had on each individual was substantially different depending on their political disposition. It’s generally understood that leftist Greeks played a decisive role in the anti-Nazi resistance and were naturally poised for leading the country after the Germans’ defeat, but American and British support for the reinstalled authorities (motivated by nascent Cold War fears) shifted the military balance and ultimately contributed to their loss in the subsequent civil war. Nearly two decades later, the military coup drastically put the country on a hardcore right-wing trajectory and led to numerous instances of state oppression against the country’s leftists. All in all, these three milestone events in Greece’s modern history significantly polarized the country’s citizenry and contributed to the present threat of political violence that returned during the economic crisis.

The sustained economic suffering that Greeks have been experiencing as of late has given rise to a hyper-polarization of the existing left-right divide as seen by the popularization of Syriza and Golden Dawn, respectively. Granted, the current leadership of Syriza has largely moderated its hardcore leftist ideology for financially existential reasons under heavy German and EU pressure, but many of its followers still hold these ideas close to their heart. On the opposite spectrum of things, Golden Dawn is an ultra-nationalist right-wing movement that has made its presence visibly felt over the past couple of years. Ideologically speaking, these two parties couldn’t be more distant from one another, literally representing polar opposites and having incompatible social policies and historical narratives. It’s difficult to gauge the number of Greeks from either side that are fervent enough believers in their cause to possibly engage in street violence to promote or defend it, but in comparative situations of hyper-polarization and extreme economic malaise, there are usually a critical number from each camp that could fulfill this role. Typically, though, it’s more common for right-wing supporters to do this than their left-wing counterparts, so even if Golden Dawn has comparatively less public support and membership than Syriza does, it could in fact have a more forceful street presence in any future unrest.

flags1370At this stage, it’s difficult to predict the exact triggers that could provoke a wave of street violence in Greece, but it can safely be presumed that they would have some kind of connection with the economic crisis and German-enforced austerity. It’s even conceivable that it wouldn’t be Golden Dawn that takes to the streets first, but Syriza supporters revolting against a controversial decision by their party-led government, which in any case would be a magnet for counter-protests such as those by the right wing that could then lead to possible violence. The thing about Greece is that the old wounds of political division run quite deep even to this day, and for Greeks, it’s not just a matter of ideological affiliation one way or another for the theoretical sake of it, but of how earlier beliefs had tangible effects on the livelihood and safety of various family members in the past. This makes the left-right divide a very personal one for many people and testifies to the difficulty inherent in moving past it, to say nothing of how quickly the historical memory of politically targeted violence and suffering could return as a driving factor in aggravating civil relations. Thankfully, Greek society has thus far resisted the political violence that some find so attractive and tempting, but it can’t be assumed that the present state of misleadingly peaceful affairs will last indefinitely. The longer that the economic crisis goes on, the most polarized each camp becomes, and it seems to be only a matter of time before one or the other takes to the street in desperation for their cause and provoke a tense counter-reaction from their ideological rivals.

Hell In The Hellenic Republic:

To bring the Greek Hybrid War forecast to a close, even if there’s a return to political violence in the country, it seems unlikely that this will ever descend into a full-fledged civil war. The most immediate consequence of left-right violence would be the degree that it destabilizes the ruling government, which might feel prompted to call in military support if the situation quickly spirals out of control. One should keep in mind that the preceding event – large-scale political protests by one or both sides – could tactically resemble a Color Revolution depending on the political technologies involved, and that the breaking point might come from a clash between the two and/or an unexpected (and perhaps unprofessionally conducted) military intervention that leads to a spike in civilian-on-civilian and/or state-on-civilian violence.

This doesn’t mean that an Unconventional War between any of the sides is guaranteed to follow, but that point itself is irrelevant in the larger context of American grand strategy because the government would have been already been destabilized to the degree that neither of the multipolar megaprojects is any longer a priority. They wouldn’t in and of themselves be discounted from that point on, but if one or both of them became a political subject of intense debate (e.g. if the Balkan Silk Road would be constructed mostly by imported Chinese laborers instead of unemployed Greeks), then it’s possible that grassroots pressure could be applied in offsetting the entire endeavor or at least ‘halting’ it indefinitely, especially if there’s a government shuffle or outright change in the wake of the street violence. If this happens, then the US would succeed in sabotaging both projects while still holding Athens back from the precipice of full-scale chaos, which would thus allow Greece to still perform its role as a pivotal TAP transit state and remain an integral piece of the unipolar world.

To be continued…

Protesters-gesture-and-wa-004

Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the post-graduate of the MGIMO University and author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS:

Hybrid Wars 1. The Law Of Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Wars 2. Testing the Theory – Syria & Ukraine

Hybrid Wars 3. Predicting Next Hybrid Wars

Hybrid Wars 4. In the Greater Heartland

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hybrid Wars. Breaking the Balkans, Country Scenarios

Muhammad Ali: Anti-War Civil Rights Activist

June 4th, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

On Friday, June 3, boxing great Muhammad Ali died at age 74 in Phoenix after a lengthy battle with Parkinson’s disease.

Over time, it eroded his motor skills and ability to speak coherently. His wife Lonnie said even though his speech was impaired, “he sp(oke) to people with his eyes…with his heart, and they connect(ed) with him.”

Born Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., he joined the Nation of Islam in 1964, rejected what he called his “slave name.” Muhammad Ali replaced it. In 1975, he converted to Sunni Islam after Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad died.

He refused army induction during the Vietnam war, publicly calling himself a conscientious objector, famously saying “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong. No Viet Cong ever called me nigger.”

At his scheduled Houston army induction on April 28, 1967, he refused three times to step forward after his name was called.

Warned he was committing a felony, he stood firm. Arrest followed. The New York State Athletic Commission stripped him of his boxing license and world heavyweight championship title.

Other US boxing commissions followed suit. Ali couldn’t box anywhere for over three years. On June 20, 1967, a jury found him guilty. An appellate court upheld it.

Ali remained free pending the result of his Supreme Court appeal. On June 28, 1971, the High Court unanimously ruled in his favor at a time of nationwide anti-war activism – not based on his claims, because the appellate court gave no reason for denying his right to conscientiously object.

His conviction was reversed. He inspired Martin Luther King to voice public opposition to the war. Famously he called America “(t)he greatest purveyor of violence in the world – my own government. I cannot be silent.”

Ali’s anti-war activism “robbed (him) of his best years, his prime years,” his trainer Angelo Dundee explained.

Perhaps his best remembered quotes were, saying “I am the greatest,” and “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.”

He’s less well-known for saying “I know I got it made while other black folks are out there catchin hell, but as long as they ain’t free, I ain’t free.”

Boxing is a violent sport, yet Ali espoused peace and nonviolence, opposed militarism, resisted racial discrimination and injustice.

His star power made his comments resonate. He abhorred the way Washington uses federal tax revenues for war-making, once saying:

I buy a lot of bullets, at least three jet bombers a year, and pay the salary of 50,000 fighting men with the money they take from me after my fights.

Boxing is nothing like going to war with machine guns, bazookas, hand grenades, bomber airplanes. My intention is to box, to win a clean fight. But in war, the intention is to kill, kill, kill, kill, and continue killing innocent people.

Ali used his fame to fight for justice outside the ring, fearlessly speaking his mind publicly. The world’s most famous pugilist became an anti-war, civil rights, nonviolence champion.

A personal note: In the early 1970s while Ali was still active in the ring, I ran into him in the lobby of my office building.

He was with several others at the time. We passed like ships in the night. I didn’t intrude to chat. Looking back, I wish I’d have extended my hand in friendship.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Muhammad Ali: Anti-War Civil Rights Activist

On June 3, the ISIS terrorist group launched a full-scale advance at the rebel stronghold of Mar’e. ISIS units stormed Mar’e from two different axes – from the north and from the south, resulting violent clashes in the area. The Turkish artillery was reportedly conducting a cross-border fire towards the ISIS positions near Talalen, north of Mar’e.

After freeing 17 villages in East to Manbij, the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) took control of Al-Madasah from ISIS on June 1. The control on the Qara quzaq bridge allows the SDF to develop the advance in the area. On June 2, the SDF seized the villages of Jawathah, Al-Hammam, and Al-Bourtoghali.  Now, SDF units and US special operation forces are within 11 km of Manbij.

The operation’s goal is to cut the ISIS terrorist group off from an area the group uses to move weapons and fighters across the border.The territory between the towns of Manbij and Marea is a crucial issue in the fight against ISIS. This area is known as the Manbij Pocket. If it’s captured, ISIS will be isolated from the Turkish border and the last funnel for foreign fighters will be cut off. This will also clear the way for an assault on the city of Raqqa, which is the ISIS self-proclaimed capital.

On June 2, the SAA and its allies liberated the Abu Al-Zayn Mountains and Al-Masbah area along the Salamiyah-Raqqa Highway in the Hama province, deploying at the outskirts of Al-Zakiyah in Western Raqqa. Now, the SAA’s goal is to seize the strategic Al-Zakiyah crossroad. This move will open the way to Tabaqa Military Airport. If it’s seized, the Syrian Arab Air Force will be able to use fighter helicopters actively in the province of Raqqa.

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: 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/

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria and Iraq: The ISIS Terror Group Launches Full Scale Advance

Why You Shouldn’t Romanticize the Black Panther Party

June 4th, 2016 by Dr. Ajamu Nangwaya

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP). It is arguably the most revolutionary and impactful organization created by the African-American liberation struggle. There is much that may be learned from the legacy of the BPP in advancing today’s struggle for freedom, justice and a world that is free of capitalism, patriarchy, imperialism and racism.

The BPP’s explicit commitment to revolutionary socialism was a notable development, which serves as a contrast to the failure of many current activists and social justice organizations to openly embrace socialism. Well, we are not referencing Bernie Sanders’ “socialism” that is really capitalism with a human face. In Eldridge Cleaver’s On the Ideology of the Black Panther Party (Part I), he states that the BPP was committed to Marxism-Leninism or state socialism, while altering it to the Afrikan-American social reality. It should be expected that the ideas of socialism will be adapted to the concrete conditions in specific societies.

It is not enough for the radical forces to assert that they are anti-capitalist. That is a politically negative and vague position. Radicals must name the political ideology to which they are committed. If progressive individuals and organizations appreciate the BPP’s radicalism, they need to seriously explore socialism as the antidote to capitalism.

However, given humanity’s experience with authoritarian or state socialism in the former Soviet Union, the radicals of today would need to move away from the socialism of the BPP that promotes an all-power state and top-down leadership. The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin is on-point here: “Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” Revolutionary socialism must commit itself to ending all hierarchical relations in society. The creation of the classless, stateless and self-organized (communist) society is impossible through the path of state socialism.

The BPP’s survival programmes served as an excellent way for the group to implant itself among the people as well as to organize with them. The BPP provided and/or initiated a comprehensive and impressive range of programmes. Huey P. Newton explains the context for these programmes:

We recognized that in order to bring the people to the level of consciousness where they would seize the time, it would be necessary to serve their interests in survival by developing programs which would help them to meet their daily needs. For a long time we have had such programs not only for survival but for organizational purposes.

There are two things that might become obvious to the reader after going through the book The Black Panther Party: Service to the People Program. Firstly, the programmes were not sustainable. They depended on donations from individuals, businesses and religious organizations or foundation funding to survive and they generated no revenue. If a radical group gets locked into this operational mode, it might degenerate into a social service, reformist political entity. Since revolutionary organizations will not be funded by the state and foundations, they must find other ways to self-finance the struggle for liberation.

Secondly, the BPP’s survival programmes provide a compelling case for self-organizing the people to autonomously operate their projects, programmes or institutions. The people should not just serve as volunteers, advisors or clients. A central role of the organizers is to equip the people with the knowledge, skills and attitude to collectively address their needs. This approach would affirm in practice the slogan “All Power to the People” as well as operationalize participatory democracy within the ranks of the labouring classes.

Furthermore, in the event that the revolutionary organizers and organizations are rendered ineffective by the secret police, regular cops, the court and prison system, as happened to the BPP, the people would be able to continue running their programmes and institutions. The state would have to repress the people, as a whole, in order to stop them from living the resistance through their projects, programmes and institutions.

In this “Age of Vulgar Identity Politics” wherein each oppressed group retreats into the protective cocoon of its particular identity, the BPP’s practice of solidarity could instruct us on the strategic value of principled alliances among different people in society. Uniting the oppressed against the forces of oppression should be seen as a positive and essential action. In the paper Black Panther Party: 1966-1982, Michael Carpini states that “the Black Panther [P]arty connected the self-determinacy of blacks to the self-determinacy of other marginalized groups such as the poor, women, and homosexuals.” The preceding approach of the BPP offers a way forward in uniting the people who experience exploitation.

Some Black nationalists viewed the BPP’s alliance with largely White organizations such as the Patriot Party, White Panther Party and Peace and Freedom Party with suspicion. Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) claimed that the BPP would play the role of cannon fodder for the White left. Ture’s position reflects a lack of confidence in the capacity of Afrikan revolutionaries to enter into alliances with White organizations on an equitable and non-exploitative basis. One would not argue that there will not be difficulties in the coalitions or alliances between revolutionary Afrikan and White organizations. But they must create principles of unity that will guide their actions and processes to deal with the unavoidable problems that will emerge when people work together.

A problematic element of the BPP’s programme was the central role that it gave to the lumpenproletariat as agents of revolutionary transformation. Eldridge Cleaver channelled the BPP’s position on the lumpen when he asserted that “the Lumpenproletariat is the Left Wing” of the working-class in the Afrikan-American nation and the “Mother Country” (the United States). It argued that the working-class had embraced the values and aspirations of capitalism and had carved “out a comfortable niche for itself.” As a result of this development, the unionized working-class is now a part of a “most un-revolutionary, reformist minded movement that is only interested in higher wages and more job security.” The lumpen cannot be the left-wing of the working-class because it has no direct relationship with the world of work.

According to the BPP, the isolation of the lumpen from the means of production and the dominant institutions leaves it with “no choice but to manifest its rebellion in the University of the Streets.” Cleaver and the BPP viewed the urban rebellion as the defining feature of the struggle for emancipation in the United States. This line of thought led Cleaver to declare that “One outstanding characteristic of the liberation struggle of Black people in the United States has been that most of the activity has taken place in the streets.” Since the urban uprisings are episodic and short-lived, the bulk of the organizing work among the Afrikan-American working-class takes place in the spaces in which it lives, works and plays. It is not the members of the lumpenproletariat who carry out the consistent, systematic and ongoing organizing that is the basis of effecting Afrikan liberation. It is the working-class and its radical or revolutionary petite bourgeois allies who shoulder the task of organizing and mobilizing the people.

Cleaver rebuked some Marxist-Leninists when he wrote that “It can be said that the true revolutionaries [the lumpen] in the urban centers of the world have been analyzed out of the revolution.” There is no question about the fact that the ruling-class sees urban insurrections as frightening affairs and that the street becomes the theatre of the oppressed during those infrequent moments of resistance. But Cleaver’s claim that “by and large, the rebellions have been spearheaded by Black Lumpen,” ignored the fact that many of the young people who actively participated in these uprisings were members of the working-class.

According to the March 1968 issued document the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disordersthat reported on the causes behind the 1967 rebellions:

The typical rioter was a teenager or young adult, a lifelong resident of the city in which he rioted, a high school dropout; he was, nevertheless, somewhat better educated than his nonrioting Negro neighbor, and was usually underemployed or employed in a menial job. He was proud of his race, extremely hostile to both whites and middle-class Negroes and, although informed about politics, highly distrustful of the political system.

The typical participant in the rebellions were members of the Afrikan-American working-class and that may be deduced from the fact that he was “underemployed or employed.” It is reasonable to assume that the lumpenproletariat do participate in urban uprisings but given its social characteristics, this class might simply use this festival of resistance in the streets for its own immediate material gains.

The composition of Marx’s lumpenproletariat, as outlined inThe Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, was definitely not a positive or endearing description:

Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni,1 pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, maquereaux [pimps], brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème.

The Marxist Internet Archive lists the 21st century members of the lumpenproletariat as “beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables… and all sorts of declassed, degraded or degenerated elements.”

In the autobiography A Taste of Power: A Black Woman’s Story, Elaine Brown, former BPP Chairperson, incorrectly includes members of the working-class (“black domestics and porters, nurses’ aides and maintenance men, laundresses and cooks, sharecroppers, unpropertied ghetto dwellers”) in the lumpen category. Brown demonstrates a lack of ideological clarity on the question of the people who constitute the working-class. But she did capture key members of the Afrikan-American lumpen: “gang members and the gangsters, the pimps and the prostitutes, the drug users and dealers, [and] the common thieves and murderers.”

How realistic is the expectation that the criminalized lumpen elements, Huey P. Newton’s “illegitimate capitalists,” will serve as agents of liberation? If members of the lumpen are transformed into agents of the revolution by way of methodical political education and disciplined organizing within the working-class, they have essentially committed “class suicide” and, as such, would no longer be lumpen.

The BPP was ill-advised in believing that the lumpen, especially the criminal elements, could serve as a revolutionary force. The lumpen panders to predatory behaviour, self-destructive lifestyle of the street and “militarism.” The lumpen can become a useful part of the revolutionary force, but only after extensive political and ideological education. There is not even a single case, since the emergence of capitalism, of the lumpen serving as the revolutionary force in struggles for liberation. Samuel Farber’s essay The Black Panthers Reconsidered is a good source on the challenges of the lumpen as political actors or activists.

Radical organizations and organizers should be wary of the BPP’s top-down leadership approach. Kwame Ture highlights this problem in his autobiography Ready for Revolution: The Life and Struggles of Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture):

From a SNCC perspective, the organization seemed to me entirely too hierarchical. With a quasi-military chain of command even. Not enough serious political education instead of slogans. Also, there apparently was no time, and absolutely no provision, for full internal discussion within the organization. Instead, “mandates,” “orders,” and “directives” were handed down whether or not folks agreed with or even understood them.

In this climate, to raise questions, even legitimate and sincere ones, was too often seen as disloyalty or as challenging authority, an error to be corrected with physical or ideological intimidation, expulsion, or both… C’mon, “beat downs” may be a common gang tactic, but they are no way to build loyalty, unity, or even discipline in a radical black political movement.

The BPP’s revolutionary legacy offers us many useful lessons in our organizing work to create the just and emancipated world. We should fully explore and draw insights from the BPP’s legacy in other areas such as gender relations in movement organizations, practising principled anti-imperialism, role of armed resistance in the global North and the centrality of systematic political education in preparing organizers. Romanticizing the contribution of the Black Panther Party would make adoring fans of us, and not clear-eyed, unsentimental revolutionaries.

Ajamu Nangwaya, Ph.D., is an educator, organizer and writer and a member of the Network for the Elimination of Police Violence.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why You Shouldn’t Romanticize the Black Panther Party

Russ Baker’s article was originally published in 1999 by The Observer

Author’s Note

What Is the Government Doing Today About Which We Know Nothing?

Continuing our exploration of secret government experiments on American citizens, we now re-publish an article I wrote in 1999 about the CIA and LSD experiments. That article was originally commissioned by the New York Times Magazine, which opted in the end not to publish it. Instead, it appeared in the magazine of the esteemed British newspaper The Observer, the German newsmagazine Spiegel, and in top newspapers in Australia, the Netherlands, and other countries. It never ran in the United States.

*       *       *

Some of his New York neighbours knew him as Paul Galan, some knew him as Paul Stanley. To others, he was just Paul, a quiet man who could usually be found on his doorstep with his dog and an ever-present cup of coffee. But in retrospect, all agree that there was an air of mystery about the man who invariably greeted passers-by with a smile and a friendly word.

When “Paul” died in 1992, people in his neighbourhood gathered in the rain, on the step, to toast him with coffee and pastries from the nearby Ukrainian restaurant. What none of them knew was that their neighbour’s real name was Stanley Glickman, and that he had once been a promising young artist, a dashing American in Paris on his way to great things. But then a most peculiar event transpired, one that would change his life forever.

Photo credit:  danor shtruzman / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Photo credit: danor shtruzman / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

This coming Tuesday in a US court, Stanley’s past will be the focus of a lawsuit pitting the Glickman family against the US Government. At issue will be exactly what happened in a Paris cafe in November 1952 when, according to the family, a CIA official slipped a large dose of LSD into Stanley’s drink, triggering a psychotic episode and transforming him into a neighbourhood “character” with a secret.

Glickman was born in New York City in 1927, the son of a modestly successful furrier. The youngest of three children, he began showing an aptitude for drawing and painting in his pre-teen years, attending classes outside school and winning many prizes. In the summer of 1951, he sailed for Paris, where he began studies at the Academie de la Grande Chaumiere, and later at the studio of the renowned French modernist Fernand Leger. He also traveled to Florence to study fresco painting, and won a national competition to have one of his paintings hung in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.

In autumn 1952, he set himself up in a studio on the outskirts of Paris. “My days were spent working in my studio, my evenings usually spent drinking coffee at the Cafe Dome in Montparnasse,” he would later recall. His friends were young people from various countries with whom he got into passionate discussions about ideas, events and plans for the future. He also met and fell in love with Ruth Edelman, a young Canadian making a grand tour of Europe. Her father came to visit, the three dined together, and Mr Edelman pronounced Glickman very suitable for his daughter. The two became so wrapped up in each other that Glickman had trouble concentrating on his work. Reluctantly, he urged Ruth to continue on her tour, with plans to resume the relationship when she returned to Paris.

Man Drinking Cocktail

Photo credit: Quinn Dombrowski / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

One evening soon after her departure, as Glickman was enjoying his habitual coffee at the Dome, he was invited by an acquaintance across the street to the Cafe Select, where they were joined by another group of Americans whom Glickman did not know. Glickman and the conservatively-dressed strangers disagreed over politics, power and patriotism; a heated debate ensued. At length, a fed-up Glickman settled his bill and prepared to leave.

But one of the men insisted on buying him a drink as a peace offering. Glickman, who had been drinking coffee, reluctantly agreed to accept a liqueur, and although the group had been enjoying waiter service, the stranger insisted on getting the drink personally. Halfway through his Chartreuse, Glickman began to feel strange: his perceptions of objects, sounds and dimensions became distorted. This hallucinatory state must have been particularly frightening for Glickman, since it was more than a decade before LSD became easily available and its effects widely known.

At this point, according to an affidavit Glickman filed in 1983, the men around him leaned in, fascinated. One suggested that he was capable of performing miracles. Fearing he had been poisoned, Glickman broke free and made his way home; it seemed to him that shadowy figures were following him. In the morning, he woke to intense hallucinations. The next two weeks found him wandering the streets of Paris in a feverish haze. Seeking to backtrack through this nightmare, he returned to the Cafe Select, sat down at a table and promptly collapsed. Strangers revived him and drove him to the American hospital in Paris.

There, according to medical records, he was given an EEG and a calming dose of sodium amytal. Not so, according to Glickman, who claimed in his affidavit that he received electroshock therapy via a catheter up his penis, and was dosed with what seemed to be more hallucinogenic substances. He panicked and checked himself out of the hospital, but soon had himself re-admitted, remaining for another seven days during which time he believes he was given yet more hallucinogenic drugs. At this point, Ruth Edelman returned from her travels and signed him out of the hospital. She wanted to stay and nurse him, but Glickman told her to go home to Canada because he didn’t want to ruin her life.

For the next 10 months, he remained a terrified recluse in his Paris flat, not painting and barely eating for fear of being poisoned again. His relatives in the US knew nothing about his condition until a visiting friend of the family saw how thin Stanley was and alerted his parents. Almost immediately, his brother-in-law arrived to bring him home. Under a doctor’s care, his physical health slowly revived, but he never regained his mental equilibrium. He avoided old friends. Once an avid student, he stopped reading books.

He never held a steady job, never had another romantic relationship, and never painted again.

“In 1952, the only explanation was madness,” Glickman would later write in an affidavit. Although one psychiatrist suggested that he be institutionalised, Glickman’s family helped him settle into a small apartment in New York’s East Village.

Screaming man

Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Crosa / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

At first he found it difficult even to leave the apartment; every time he urinated, he thought of the catheter and the events at the Cafe Select. But after a while he tried, falteringly, to get on with his life. He cleaned furniture in a local antique shop, filled in occasionally for his sick father at the family shop, designed fabrics, and even opened a small, unprofitable antiques shop of his own.

“He would never really try to sell you anything,” recalls Marilyn Appleberg, a neighbourhood association chairman. “(His shop) was a place for him to be, to socialise.” Just getting through each day seemed a challenge. He would walk his two big red dogs Charlie and Gent, and, after they died, a smaller black one called Kuma. Even in an area known for street characters, he cut a striking figure, with his shock of white hair and a red-and-black silk scarf, knotted like a cravat. But most of the time, he just sat on his step with a cup of coffee. There were two names on his mailbox: Glickman and Galan. Nobody knew for sure who he was. No neighbour ever entered his apartment.

Yet someone else did share Glickman’s secret: his sister Gloria. In 1977, she was watching televised Senate hearings about CIA abuses, chaired by Ted Kennedy, and she called Stanley, urging him to turn on his television.

One of the witnesses described a government drug-testing programme known as MKULTRA, which had used innocent Americans selected as human guinea pigs. “There was no advance knowledge or protection of the individuals concerned,” the witness said.

The CIA’s mandate is to preserve and protect the liberties guaranteed in the American constitution, yet this CIA-sponsored “research” directly violated the Nuremberg Code, established in the years after the Second World War to deal with the “crimes against humanity” committed by the Nazis during their notorious medical experiments. The Code stipulates that patients must give “informed consent” before any experimentation may begin.

The witness before the Kennedy committee went on to justify the CIA’s experiments on grounds of national security. With the Soviets looking into the possible use of hallucinogens as “brainwashing” agents, the United States had to be prepared to fight back even if it meant giving drugs like LSD to unsuspecting American citizens.

‘Harsh as it may sound in retrospect, it was felt that in an issue where national survival might be concerned, such a procedure and such a risk was a reasonable one to take,” he said.

Shortly after watching the hearings, Glickman began seeking answers on his own. He contacted Kennedy’s staff and the office of the US Attorney General, to no avail. He was advised he needed a lawyer, but that would take money. Unable to raise funds on his own and perhaps seeking further catharsis, he decided to write a film treatment.

One day in 1981, the movie Ragtime was filming down the block, and one of Glickman’s neighbours, Dean Corren, was working as an extra in it. Glickman approached Corren and asked him if he would try and get his film treatment to Ragtime’s director, Milos Forman. Corren agreed, and took the story home to read. He was stunned: “There was something about it that defied fiction.” Then Glickman, who had apparently never told anyone outside his family about the Paris experience, told Corren the whole story.

Nothing came of Glickman’s treatment. He was no writer, and as for the story itself, perhaps even Hollywood found it too fantastic. But Corren became intrigued by Glickman’s account, and spent the next five years looking into it. In 1981, on an unrelated trip to Washington, he visited the Centre for National Security Studies and read about the architect of MKULTRA Sidney Gottlieb, the same man who had testified before the Kennedy committee about the policy of spiking the drinks of unsuspecting Americans.

After reading a description of Gottlieb, Corren telephoned Glickman in New York with a question: did one of the men in the cafe, by any chance, have a club foot? Glickman’s response was immediate: he recalled the man who had gone to get him the Chartreuse, and, as the man stood at the bar, noticed that he had a misshapen foot. That’s curious, Corren replied. So does Dr. Gottlieb.

Gottlieb, the antagonist in this drama, is a well-known figure: Norman Mailer devoted a whole section of Harlot’s Ghost, his novelisation of the history of the CIA, to him. With a doctorate in biochemistry from the California Institute of Technology, Gottlieb was a rarity among higher-echelon CIA officials, who tended to be Ivy League graduates with equal parts self-assurance and naivety.

As well as being born with a club foot, which left him with a noticeable limp, the New York native was also plagued by severe stammering. Nevertheless, Gottlieb became head of the CIA’s Chemical Division at 33, and quickly impressed colleagues with his curiosity and energy. “He was one of the most imaginative, creative people I’ve ever worked with,’ says Dr John Gittinger, who worked under Gottlieb and later became chief psychologist in the CIA’s Clandestine Service.

MK-ULTRA Memo

MK-ULTRA Memo Photo credit: Central Intelligence Agency / Wikimedia

In a 1953 memo to a researcher, Gottlieb gave an indication of the kinds of mind control issues he was interested in for both offensive and defensive purposes: “Disturbance of memory; discrediting by aberrant behaviour; alteration of sex patterns; eliciting of information; suggestibility; creation of dependence.”

He seemed driven to excel in the Cold War battle against the Soviets, working with a zeal that Gittinger attributes to guilt that his disability kept him out of the War. Ultimately, Gottlieb would admit that MKULTRA tested an array of techniques and substances on dozens of unsuspecting people, and there may well have been hundreds.

Most striking to all who knew him in those days was the ease with which he overcame his disability. A keen dancer, while travelling, he seized every opportunity to learn new dances and steps, which he eagerly demonstrated to friends and colleagues on his return. When not trying to find out whether a person could be coerced into changing his or her political loyalty, the head of MKULTRA enjoyed life on his Virginia farm, raising goats, Christmas trees and corn.

Ironically, Gottlieb, who has never been willing to discuss his role in MKULTRA in any great detail or to apologise for its excesses, would years later turn to Zen Buddhism and become a volunteer in Aids hospices. He would only grudgingly admit to the Senate committee that MKULTRA was a failure: “In looking backward now, the real possibility of the successful and effective use (of mind control) either against us or by us was very low.”

In the 1950s, though, Gottlieb was sufficiently supportive of unanticipated ingestion of LSD that he personally spiked the drinks of scientists working with him. In one incident, an Army scientist, Frank Olson, was given a massive dose and, in a delayed reaction some days later, ended up jumping through the 10th-floor window of a Manhattan hotel. President Gerald Ford later apologised, and Congress authorised a $ 750,000 payment to the family.

Shortly after finding the CIA documents in Washington, Dean Corren began searching for a lawyer to take up Glickman’s case. At least a dozen firms said no before their luck turned. Then, one after another, firms accepted but later handed the case on when their approaches were thwarted by government obfuscation. Time and again, courts simply took the agency’s word on what information could be safely released from its files. Even 45-year-old documents were not made available without heavy editing.

The U.S. government has over the years issued various qualified denials in the course of seeking to have the case dismissed. In one brief, government lawyers assert that “there is no evidence that TSD (the Technical Services Division, whose Chemical Division was headed by Gottlieb) ever engaged in or funded LSD testing or research overseas.”

But the Glickmans, distrustful of such claims, eventually found someone with impressive credentials to back them up. In 1988, Glickman’s then-counsel Ramsey Clark called Dr Lester Grinspoon, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and one of the world’s leading authorities on LSD and hallucinogenic drugs. Grinspoon had himself tried to get CIA records about the testing programme back in the 1970s while working on a book; he too had been stonewalled. So when the call came from the Glickmans, he readily agreed to examine Stanley.

Grinspoon saw Glickman on several occasions, and spent a good deal of time with him. He examined old film footage of Glickman going to Italy shortly before the events in Paris. “As far as I can tell, Stanley was a very healthy young man,” says Grinspoon. “He’s not a person who could have been said to be mentally disturbed.” Glickman told Grinspoon that, after accepting the fateful drink, he saw the walls in the cafe moving and halos around the lights, and became convinced he could levitate wine bottles on the shelves.

“When he got back to his apartment, he began to feel that the whole world could see through his eyes,” says Grinspoon. “He thought his voice was transmitted back through the radio to the people who were broadcasting. He looked at the lines on his hands and saw all kinds of meaning in them. The colours became bright and intense.” Grinspoon, who has written two books on psychedelic drugs, says this is unquestionably a description of what is commonly known as a “bad trip.”

Bad trips afflict a relatively small number of people, but can be prolonged and cause permanent damage. According to Grinspoon, the personality of the user, the environment in which the drug is taken, the dosage, and whether or not the user is aware that he or she has ingested LSD, all affect the outcome. Giving LSD to someone surreptitiously could seriously aggravate the harm especially in 1952, when few people, even doctors, were aware that such a drug existed. “No wonder he suffered so terribly,” says Grinspoon.

Glickman’s hospital records revealed other intriguing clues. When Glickman collapsed at the Cafe Select, he was brought to the American hospital, where earlier that year the same attending physician had treated Glickman for hepatitis. This fact took on much greater significance for Glickman’s legal team when they learned that CIA files from that period contained a 1951 Swiss research article addressing the effect of LSD on people with hepatitis.

The CIA and Gottlieb were apparently aware that when LSD was given to hepatics, its effect was heightened. A CIA Information Report, summarising intelligence acquired during an 11-month period beginning in November 1952 (when Glickman entered the hospital), notes that “subjects in whom only a slight modification of hepatic function is present make a marked response to LSD.” This sentence might have been written about Glickman himself. Certainly, he would have been an ideal guinea pig.

Another physician listed in the hospital records as having treated Glickman had previously published an article in the Revue Neurologique, describing experiments he had conducted on rabbits using LSD.

Furthermore, the CIA has been forced to admit that there were other cases in which it used foreign doctors for research that was illegal under US law. In the late 1950s, for example, a CIA-funded psychiatrist in a Montreal psychiatric hospital administered an array of drugs and electric shocks to people who had checked themselves in for problems ranging from anxiety to post-natal depression. A long-running lawsuit resulted in payment by the US government of more than a million dollars in total to nine Canadian citizens.

Even assuming Glickman ingested LSD in October 1952, was it the CIA that slipped it to him? It is known that in the summer of 1952, nearly six months before the Cafe Select incident, Gottlieb asked a government narcotics agent named George White to begin testing hallucinogens on unsuspecting citizens.

Nobody but the CIA and the Swiss company Sandoz (which discovered LSD accidentally in 1945) had access to the drug at that time, and Sandoz had agreed to help control the supply by notifying the Agency every time it shipped the substance.

Tests on consenting volunteers were already under way. White, a hard-drinking, fast-living man who had failed in his efforts to join the Agency, worked for the National Bureaux of Narcotics (forerunner of today’s DEA), and was deliberately chosen as an outside operative for the CIA.

He began dosing unwitting guinea pigs in autumn 1952, following his summer discussion with Gottlieb. (He would later, with Gottlieb’s approval, set up safe houses in New York and San Francisco where he played host to prostitutes, drug dealers and their customers and handed the unsuspecting guests drinks laced with LSD.) Records indicate that Gottlieb and White met on 20 October, 1952, in New York and again in Washington on 30 October to discuss the plan to administer LSD and other drugs to unsuspecting targets.

The Glickman team points out that there was plenty of time for Gottlieb to get to Paris, spike a Chartreuse, and be back for his subsequent meeting with White. Gottlieb says he wasn’t in Paris at all in 1952. But both he and the CIA have been unable to locate his passport to verify that. And, more significantly, Gottlieb and his boss, Richard Helms, had in an unprecedented and controversial move ordered all MKULTRA records destroyed in 1973. A few financial records survived, but in the absence of any other documentation, the case is dependent on the defendant’s word against an abundance of compelling, but circumstantial, evidence.

Towards the end of 1992, Glickman’s physical health began to deteriorate. The 62-year-old’s stomach became distended. “I told him a thousand times to go see a doctor,” says Scott Wolfeil, a neighbour. But Glickman would always refuse, saying he did not trust doctors. Finally, he couldn’t even make it down the steps to walk his dog. Eventually, his sister Gloria came with her husband Ed, and despite Glickman’s protestations, took him to a doctor. Weeks later, on 11 December, Gloria called to tell Wolfeil the sad news: his friend Paul had died of heart failure.

The struggle, however, was not over. Gloria replaced Stanley as plaintiff, and the roller-coaster legal ride began once more. Since then, various hearings have left the Glickmans unable to press their case against the government or former CIA director Richard Helms, but they have been given leave to proceed against Gottlieb. And so, after 16 years of legal struggle and nearly half a century of uncertainty, the family of Stanley Glickman will finally get their day in court.

The trial is expected to be brief; it may be over in a week. The Glickman side has continued seeking new witnesses, and surprises are possible, even likely. The government is expected to stress seeming inconsistencies: for example, the fact that Glickman only “remembered” the club foot after being prompted. And there is the matter of the stutter: Gottlieb’s former CIA colleague Dr. Gittinger says that, if Gottlieb had been there, Glickman would have noticed his stutter, something he never mentioned.

Yet every person interviewed describes Glickman as scrupulously honest. “Even Dr Klein, who examined him for the government, would agree,” says Dr Grinspoon, the LSD expert. “He was a straight shooter. He said, yes, yes Gottlieb had a club foot, but he didn’t remember the stutter, and wasn’t going to say he did.”

Glickman’s family and friends believe he would have wanted them to continue the case. “Stanley had no interest in a monetary settlement,” says Grinspoon. “He wanted the American people to know there was an Agency that could act so arrogantly, so irresponsibly towards one of its citizens. He was terribly concerned that the story get out.”

***

P.S. A New York jury decided against the Glickman family. For more on that, see

http://www.salon.com/people/rogue/1999/05/06/cia

P.P.S. In 2012, Olson’s sons filed suit in the US District Court in Washington, DC seeking compensatory damages and access to documents withheld by the CIA. The case was dismissed, but, in the ruling, the judge wrote something very interesting about it:

While the court must limit its analysis to the four corners of the complaint, the skeptical reader may wish to know that the public record supports many of the allegations that follow, farfetched as they may sound.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Government Experiments on Americans — LSD and MK-ULTRA

Sitting in his presidential palace in 1991, Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein and his Culture Minister Hamad Hammadi drafted a letter to Mikhail Gorbachev, President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). Hussein and Hammadi hoped that the U.S.S.R. would help save Iraq from the West’s barrage. Hammadi, who understood the shifts in world affairs, told Hussein that the war was not intended “only to destroy Iraq, but to eliminate the role of the Soviet Union so the United States can control the fate of all humanity”. Indeed, after the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S.S.R. fell apart and the United States emerged as the singular superpower. The age of U.S. unipolarity had dawned.

A jubilant U.S. President George H.W. Bush inaugurated a “New World Order”, namely “a world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle”. It is the U.S., he intimated, that lives by the “rule of law” and it is the enemies of the U.S. — “actual and potential despots around the world” — that live by the “rule of the jungle”. In this new world, “there is no substitute for American leadership”, said Mr. Bush, and so “in the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability”. Enemies of the U.S. — tyrants and despots — would face the full-spectrum domination of the U.S. military. Mr. Bush’s predecessor, Ronald Reagan, had already wanted to go after “misfits, looney tunes and squalid criminals” who opposed U.S. policy, but he was held back by the U.S.S.R. and by popular liberation struggles in Africa and Latin America. The collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the weakened Third World bloc provided the U.S. with a tremendous opportunity.

The humanitarian facade

George H.W. Bush’s successor Bill Clinton gave the idea of intervention its liberal patina. His National Security Adviser, Anthony Lake, crafted the notion of “rogue states” — those countries that remain outside “the family of democratic nations”. Mr. Lake’s examples included Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

shutterstock_357175940 (3)

Orlok | Shutterstock.com

The U.N.-backed sanctions regime sought to weaken Iraq to the point of collapse. No pretext allowed the West to tackle the other countries. It was Yugoslavia, instead, that faced the barrage of “humanitarian intervention”, the new term of art for Western bombardment in the service of protecting civilians. The killing of 45 Kosovar Albanians in Racak in January 1999 provided the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) with the reason to intervene. China and Russia refused to provide U.N. authorisation. It did not stay NATO’s hand, which bombed Yugoslavia into pieces. Older theories to preserve state sovereignty — such as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and the 1934 Montevideo Convention — went by the wayside. If the West decided that a conflict demanded intervention, then the full force of Western power would be brought to bear on those whom the West determined to be the “bad guys”. This was the gist of humanitarian interventionism.

What counted as a disaster worthy of intervention? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the UN, acknowledged that the U.S.-driven sanctions on Iraq had led to the death of half-a-million children. “I think this is a very hard choice,” she said, “but the price, we think the price is worth it.” In other words, it was acceptable to allow half-a-million Iraqi children to die in order to maintain the strangulation of Iraq. This death toll — near the low estimate of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 — could be tolerated if Western interests had been served. Later, when Western clients such as Israel and the countries of the African Great Lakes massacred tens of thousands, there was no outcry about genocide and for intervention. It had become clear by the 1990s that the idea of humanitarian intervention had been reduced to a fig leaf for Western interests.

New language for intervention

U.S. President George W. Bush used the language of civilian protection in 2003 to conduct a war of aggression against Iraq. The U.S. war broke Iraq’s infrastructure and state institutions as well as dented the pretensions of humanitarian intervention. The chaos that followed was authored by the regime change war of 2003. Humanitarian intervention now seemed illegitimate — it burned in the fires of Baghdad. Western liberals hastened to refashion the doctrine. They turned to the United Nations, which had been battered by its subordination to Western interests in the 1990s.

Under Kofi Annan’s watch, the U.N. endorsed the new idea of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005. This new doctrine asked that sovereign states respect the human rights of their citizens. When these rights are violated, then sovereignty dissolves. An outside actor endorsed by the U.N. can then come in to protect the citizens.

Once more, no precise definition existed for who gets to define the nature of a conflict and who gets to intervene. Reverend Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, president of the U.N. General Assembly, released a Concept Note that raised questions about the new R2P doctrine. D’Escoto called R2P “redecorated colonialism” and said that “a more accurate name for R2P would be the right to intervene”. The atmosphere for a critique of the West, despite the catastrophe in Iraq, did not exist. Ninety-two U.N. member states — including Brazil, India and South Africa — spoke in favour of R2P. Mexico, India and Egypt did raise the fear of unilateral coercion, although they settled into their seats when reminded that R2P required UN Security Council authorisation. Failure to act in the case of Israel’s punctual bombardment of Gaza drew several comments from member states during the debate around R2P. Singapore’s delegation suggested that “the judgment of whether a government has failed in its responsibility to protect must be taken by the international community without ‘fear or favour’”, a standard that would be difficult to meet given the West’s stranglehold on the U.N. institutions. Rev. Brockmann’s warning was unheeded. Humanitarian interventionism remained in the arsenal of the West.

The test for R2P came not during Israel’s bombing of Gaza in Operation Cast Lead (2008-09), after which a U.N. report found prima facie evidence of war crimes. It came a few years later in Libya. An uprising against the Libyan government in February 2011 provided the opportunity to test R2P. During the Yugoslavian war, the Kosovo Liberation Army had made it clear that they used their fighters in strategic ways so as to provoke a response from the Yugoslavian army; massacres of civilians, they felt, would be the best way to bring in Western air power on their side and turn any conflict to their advantage. The rebels in Libya (and later in Syria) had much the same strategic assessment. If they could elicit state violence, then they might be able to assert their right to international protection. This could only work — as the Palestinians find — if the adversary of the rebels was an enemy of the West. Egged on by the French and the Gulf Arabs, the U.S. pushed the U.N. Security Council to anoint their intervention with an R2P resolution. This is indeed what occurred. NATO went hastily from protection of civilians to regime change. Washington celebrated the success of the intervention — not for Libya’s sake, but for the sake of humanitarian intervention. Finally, the idea had been salvaged.

Preventing mass atrocities

In August 2011, the U.S. government established an Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) to collect intelligence on potential mass atrocities. The APB sought to drive the narrative of what would count as an atrocity and when the West should intervene with the U.N.’s blessings. But the APB has not been able to do its work effectively. What appeared as a successful intervention in Libya was seen in Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — the BRICS states — as a dangerous precedent. India’s then-Ambassador to the U.N., Hardeep Singh Puri, told me in early 2012 that the Libyan example would prevent any U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria. The BRICS countries now saw that protection of civilians actually meant regime change whose aftermath was horrendous. In other words, it was the Libyan example that proved Rev. Brockmann right and saw the halting emergence of the new age of multipolarity.

Critics of humanitarian intervention are not callous about the horrors of war and genocide. Sovereignty cannot be a shield for massacre of civilians. Yet, at the same time, proponents of intervention watch disasters unfold and then wait till the last minute when a military operation becomes necessary. They do not want to acknowledge the long-term reforms needed to prevent the escalation of conflict into genocidal territory.

The critics worry that humanitarian intervention of the Western variety ignores causes and produces terrible outcomes. Mr. Puri warns, in a forthcoming book, of perilous interventions, namely military actions that lead to chaos and increased suffering. Could there be other interventions that are not perilous? Rev. Brockmann suggested that an antidote to mass atrocities might come from global financial reform, the redistribution of wealth and U.N. Security Council reform. Violence, he argued, is an outcome of grotesque inequality. R2P did not address the protection of civilians from the multiple horsemen of the 21st century apocalypse — illiteracy, illness, poverty, joblessness and social toxicity. These are the authors of crisis. Bombs cannot defeat them.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New Facade for Regime Change: A Brief History of Humanitarian Interventionism

Who Runs Washington? The Long Reach of Big-Pharma

June 4th, 2016 by Tony Cartalucci

Like a mythical sea monster, the true nature of a Wall Street-London centered global corporatocracy is often talked about but rarely seen. However, on rare occasions, a tentacle breaks the surface and affords the public an opportunity to examine and assess its true, gargantuan dimensions.

Just such a moment occurred when leaked diplomatic letters from the Colombian Embassy in Washington D.C. revealed just how far the United States government is willing to go on behalf of the corporate-financier interests that clearly shape the entirety of its foreign policy.

24234234333

The Intercept would report in its article, “Leaks Show Senate Aide Threatened Colombia Over Cheap Cancer Drug,” that:

Leaked diplomatic letters sent from Colombia’s Embassy in Washington describe how a staffer with the Senate Finance Committee, which is led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned of repercussions if Colombia moves forward on approving the cheaper, generic form of a cancer drug.

The drug is called imatinib [Gleevec]. Its manufacturer, Novartis, markets the drug in Colombia as Glivec. The World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines last year suggested it as treatment not only for chronic myeloid leukemia, but also gastrointestinal tumors. Currently, the cost of an annual supply is over $15,000, or about two times the average Colombian’s income.

The repercussions included threats to derail the $450 million “Peace Colombia” initiative aimed at ending decades of fighting in the South American nation that has claimed nearly a quarter of a million lives.

Leveraging peace and stability in Colombia to force Bogotá to capitulate to pharmaceutical giants like Novartis seems extreme, but upon closer examination of other episodes in recent history – including the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the subversion of Libya and Syria, and admitted US ambitions to encircle and contain China, such coercion is a common feature of the Wall Street-London centric “international order” Washington eagerly promotes.

What is perhaps most appalling about this most recent episode is that Novartis’ “patent” is for a drug developed using public funding over several decades through the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Indeed, in 1990, NIH-funded researcher Dr. Brian Druker began developing model systems integral to bringing “Glivec” to market. He would eventually partner directly with Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) before clinical trials began.

The NIH’s own report, “Fighting Cancer: Ushering in a New Era of Molecular Medicine (.pdf),” would proudly admit:

The NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI), along with many other public and private organizations, played a vital role in developing Gleevec®. 

The nature of pharmaceutical giants building fortunes upon publicly funded research, with Gleevec serving as a primary example, was in even the subject of an entire paper published by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the title, “Public R&D Investments and Private-sector Patenting: Evidence from NIH Funding Rules (.pdf).”

Who Runs Washington? 

If corporate-financier interests would jeopardize the peace and stability of an entire nation to maintain a monopoly over a single pharmaceutical – developed not even by them, but by publicly funded research – what would these same sort of corporate-financier interests do if the stakes were infinitely higher – say as high as pushing through a region-wide trade deal that would give such interests monopolies not over a single chemical compound, but over entire industries?

It is clear that elected representatives in Washington, London, and across the rest of the European Union do not represent the interests of those who elected them. Instead, they are clearly subject to and instruments of corporate-financier special interests – not just from across the pharmaceutical industry, but from a variety of industries ranging from finance and banking to big-oil, big-ag, and big-defense.

Understanding this simple truth – demonstrated unequivocally amid Washington’s latest row with its “ally” Colombia – is the first step in formulating a means to rebalance this inequity.

Dealing With Unwarranted Influence 

The leaks revealing Washington’s handling of Colombia, however, provide a valuable potential means of confronting and confounding this immense, unwarranted influence in the immediate future.

The leaks take pressure off the Colombian government itself and put the narrative into the hands of third parties who can more credibly pass on the information to the public. Other nations facing behind-the-scenes coercion might likewise use the “leaked communique” method to take pressure off of themselves, and shift it onto the immense corporate-financier interests bearing down on them.

For the pharmaceutical industry specifically – which has attempted to guard its monopolies under the pretext of providing humanity with invaluable, irreplaceable products and services essential for humanity’s well-being – since pharmaceuticals and other medical therapies are indeed essential matters of life and death, they should be nationalized and the “intellectual property” held by these corporations – paid for by public funding – should be rendered as opensource. This arrangement would be not entirely unlike how the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) approaches space exploration.

For corporate-financier special interests in general, it is essential for both individual nations and local communities around the world to create alternatives to these monopolies and begin the process of systematically and permanently boycotting and replacing them. Not only will this redistribute wealth pragmatically rather than politically, it will create a more equitable balance of power geopolitically.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Runs Washington? The Long Reach of Big-Pharma

Albert Camus and the Prohibition to Prohibit

June 4th, 2016 by Edward Curtin

And, without even noticing it, the inhabitants of the developed countries would pass, with the end of the Cold War, from the nuclear state to the promise of a state eugenics, from the atomic bomb to the genetic bomb – something which would have been impossible without the ‘information bomb.’   –   Paul Virilio, Ground Zero

Not many writers stand the test of time; one that has, whose work has indeed grown more significant since his death in 1960, is the French Nobel Laureate, Albert Camus.

I was reminded of this recently when a festival of performances, films, readings, discussions, and other events was held in New York City celebrating his life and work.  The occasion for  “Camus: A Stranger in the City” was the 70th anniversary of his three month visit to New York City, the only time he came to the United States.

Camus’ sudden death in a car crash, shocking though it was, seems sadly fitting for a writer who spent a lifetime fighting the absurdity of death in all its guises.  That an unused train ticket was found in his pocket only added to the pathos.  He was 46 years old and, in his own mind, only beginning to hit his stride as a writer.

We, however, who are left to contemplate the fate of the man who made the word “absurd” so popular, would do well to consider the exemplary work he left as his legacy.  For as a true artist motivated by an anguished love for the beauty and suffering of human beings, he confronted issues that continue to haunt our world.  In particular, I think his ideas of measure (mesure, f) and limits, rooted as they were in nature and people of flesh and blood, not some abstractions or pseudo-realities, speak to us today in a profound way.

Were Camus alive today, he would no doubt be struck by the constant stream of news reports exemplifying the hubris of our technological rationality, a mode of thinking that has made a fetish out of technology, worships efficiency, and considers any critical protest as irrational.   For Camus was deeply influenced by ancient Greek philosophy.  “Greek thought was always based on the idea of limits,” he wrote.  “Nothing was carried to extremes, neither religion nor reason, because Greek thought denied nothing, neither reason nor religion …. And, even though we do it in diverse ways, we extoll one thing and one alone: a future world in which reason will reign supreme.”

He would be appalled by the arrogance of a nation led by technocratic experts and politicians who have embraced the power of pure reason devoid of values.  Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, the embrace of technical reason, which is innately amoral, has caused many of the problems we seem unable to remedy.  These include environmental catastrophe, high-tech wars, GM foods, drone killings, drug addiction, and nuclear weapons, to name but a few.  For such problems created by technology, our esteemed leaders have technological answers.  The high-priests of this technological complex – organization types all – use the technology and control the information which they then present as “facts” to justify their actions.  The absurdity of this vicious circle is lost on them.  Their unstated assumption: We have a prohibition to prohibit.  If it can be done, it will be done.  We have no limits.

Camus thought differently: “In our madness, we push back the eternal limits, and at once Furies swoop down upon us to destroy.  Nemesis, the goddess of moderation, not of vengeance, is watching.  She chastises, ruthlessly, all those who go beyond the limit.”

Here are just a few recent headlines that would surely have attracted his attention.

“IVF: First genetically modified human embryos ‘could be created in Britain within weeks.’ “ (The Independent, 1/13/16)

“Scientists Talk Privately About Creating a Synthetic Human Genome” (New York Times, 5/14/16)

“In Search For Cures, Scientists Create Embryos That Are Both Animal and Human” (NPR, 5/18/16)

GM babies, the manufacture of babies without biological parents, part-human part-animal creatures – these are on the drawing board.  While the elite media report these developments, they try simultaneously to discount the possibility that these technological discoveries will ever become realities.  Yet average people sense otherwise: that the theology of technological “progress” operates according to the law of the prohibition to prohibit. Can do, will do.

Camus, who grew up poor and in love with nature, would no doubt see in these developments our bewitchment by the Promethean god of reason and progress.  God being dead since we have murdered him – as he was fond of quoting Nietzsche – our scientists and political leaders think of themselves as gods.  “We have conquered in our turn, have set aside the bounds, mastered heaven and earth.  Our reason has swept everything away.  Alone at last, we build our empire upon a desert.”

But of course the scientists think otherwise. “I don’t consider that we’re playing God or even close to that,” claims Jason Roberts, a bioethicist at Arizona State University. “We’re just trying to use the technology that we have developed to improve people’s lives.”

Of course such rationally organized experts in a technocracy never say that what they are doing harms people’s lives since their reasoning is circular.  What they “have developed” must be good and for the improvement of humanity since they developed it out of good intentions. That they might have developed something pernicious is beyond their ken.

Thus Camus might ask: what, anyway, is a bioethicist?  Are ethics something you go to school for?  Are they a specialty?  Are they tacked onto a person?

The three headlines quoted above are about birth, how to control and manipulate it.  Birth’s conjoined opposite, death, has traditionally been the other limit to human control.  It, too, has come to be seen by the technocrats as simply another obstacle to be overcome. The high-tech guru Ray Kurzweil is one among many high priests of the scientific/technological faith for whom death is simply another limit to surpass.  They expect to accomplish this in the relatively near future.  That they are serious would make Camus grin or grimace with irony.

For Camus, as for so many of our greatest writers of the past, his work revolved around the issue of death and the human need to face it lucidly.  That meant not explaining it away or justifying it; in short, not presuming to know the unknowable but accepting limits to human knowledge.  That was – and is – a tall order in this “century of fear,” as Camus dubbed the 20th century (an appellation perfectly apt for the 21st as well), but which also could be called the time of knowledge lust, the time in which human presumptuousness has reached new heights.

The uncanny Romanian born writer, E. M. Cioran, author of The Trouble with Being Born, presciently wrote in 1973 that “when we have worn out the interest we once took in death, when we realize we have nothing more to gain from it, we fall back on birth, we turn to a much more inexhaustible abyss.”

This turn to birth has happened, and Camus would notice.  I think he would feel compelled to link the current technological obsession to control birth with the inevitability of death, and would have linked both to our prohibition to prohibit.  Nothing is off-limits today, since there are no limits to be off.  People who think they are gods have none.

For in our great uncertainty, we have sought knowledge, not wisdom, as an end in itself.  Afraid of the loss of God and the traditional consolation of personal immortality, we have, through our scientific and technological obsessions, transgressed ancient limits and usurped the traditional power of God over life and death.  “While the Greeks used reason to restrain the will,” Camus wrote, “we have ended by placing the impulse of the will at the heart of reason, and reason has therefore become murderous.” A world verging on nuclear annihilation is the logical consequences of such scientific willfulness.  Avid for the conquest of totality, we have become the children of excess.

Camus would take note of Barack Obama’s speech on his visit to Hiroshima.  He would note the great irony of the President of the only country that has used nuclear weapons – the ultimate technological achievement of a society unmoored from limits – saying that “death fell from the sky and the world was changed.”  Yes, death just fell.  No one dropped nuclear bombs to kill as many people as possible.  No one was responsible.  Things happen. Death falls.

Camus would observe with Gallic irony the use of an abstraction by a technocratic leader whose hubris knows no limit; who, while saying that the souls of the victims “ask us to look inward,” is outwardly overseeing a trillion dollars investment in new nuclear weapons and continuing the Bush administration’s pursuit of a working ABM system.  He would note the hypocrisy of Obama’s statement that “we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them [nuclear weapons],” as he embraces them and provokes Russia with military moves into Eastern Europe.

It is worth noting that with the invention of nuclear weapons, the power over birth, life, and death so many people believe belonged to God, was commandeered by those who invented the weapons.  No doubt to “help people.” With that bit of technological magic, they became as gods.  The sacred canopy that once gave people religious consolation was replaced by a mushroom cloud in a symbolic transfer of unimaginable consequences.

The temptation to simplify existence through the use of abstractions and ideologies was Camus’ great enemy.  In an age of relativism and rampant nihilism masked as belief, he discovered the existence of a human nature, an affirmation that demanded limits to human activity.  In The Rebel he dethroned the various impulses toward divinization and absolutism that he saw in Western history.  Evil is ineradicable; one must rebel against it, not become it by playing God.  The impulse to become a God leads to nihilism and murder.

Absolute faith in the rightness of one’s cause, whether it be political or religious or a fusion of the two, lay at the root of this mania that inevitably led to violence.  The alternative to such absolutism was the modesty of the rebel, the rebel being one who is in perpetual revolt against injustice and human degradation but who is unwilling, in the name of truth and righteousness, to place the end before the means and destroy what one is supposedly trying to save.  For such admonitions Camus was attacked by the left and the right.

War, capital punishment, murder, suicide – forms of death-dealing – were his themes.  He opposed all in the name of an acknowledgement of ignorance that recognized human limits.  In the name of an insane reason – the modern God – we have turned our backs on this world and strike out for the heavens “until the atom too bursts into flames, and history ends in the triumph of reason and the death agony of the species.”

It was Einstein who is alleged to have coined the term “information bomb” used by Paul Virilio in the epigraph above. Virilio claims that the computer generated information age with its constant whirligig of an overload of “facts” and “news” has created a technological fundamentalism destructive of social memory and clear thinking.  Speed being essential to this mode of existence, it becomes nearly impossible for people to grasp the technological rationality behind it since they are so caught up in it.  A “caste of technology monks” has invented a mode of communication that knows no limit, “eluding any precautionary principle, the systems of information transmission have become bombs which keep on exploding in people’s minds, generating ever more complex and extensive accidents, creating that “uncanny identity which always makes it seem that actions are reported before they are performed, often the mere possibility of an action.”  Such a dizzyingly disembodied experience of the world through a limitless medium that skewers time and space needs Camus to call us back to essentials. In The Rebel he wrote, “Heraclitus, the inventor of the notion of the constant change of things, nevertheless set a limit to this perpetual process.  This limit was symbolized by Nemesis, the goddess of moderation and the implacable enemy of the immoderate.  A process of thought which wanted to take into account the contemporary contradictions of rebellion should seek its inspiration from this goddess.”

In his last novel, The Fall, he left us Jean Baptiste Clamence, a nihilist worthy of our times, a lawyer dedicated to abstract justice, a phony actor who, in the name of absolute sincerity, lies in order to mask his destructive nihilism that knows no bounds. He reminds me of our power elites. His maxim cuts to the heart of our modern madness: “When one has no character, one has to apply a method.” No doubt a reasonable one.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Albert Camus and the Prohibition to Prohibit

Two years ago, President Obama said he had no strategy to combat the Islamic State. The U.S. is still not waging war against ISIS or “jihadists of any brand in Syria.” The international iihadist network is a U.S. imperial asset. “The general aim of the Obama administration’s jihadist policy, now deeply in crisis, is to preserve the Islamic State as a fighting force for deployment under another brand name, under new top leadership.”

Washington has no substitute for the jihadists, who have been a tool of U.S. policy since the last days of President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The U.S. claim that it is waging a global “war on terror” is the biggest lie of the 21st century, a mega-fiction on the same historical scale of evil as Hitler’s claim that he was defending Germany from an assault by world Jewry, or that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a Christianizing mission. In reality, the U.S. is the birth mother and chief nurturer of the global jihadist network – a truth recognized by most of the world’s people, including the 82 percent of Syrians that believe “the U.S. created the Islamic State.” (Even 62 percent of Syrians in Islamic State-controlled regions believe this to be true.)

Only “exceptionalism”-addled Americans and colonial-minded Europeans give Washington’s insane cover story the slightest credibility. However, it is dangerous in the extreme for any country to state the fact clearly: that it is the United States that has inflicted Islamic jihadist terror on the world. Once the charade has been abandoned; once there is no longer the international pretense that Washington is not the Mother Of All Terror, what kind of dialogue is possible with the crazed and desperate perpetrator? What do you do with a superpower criminal, once you have accused him of such unspeakable evil?

“It is the United States that has inflicted Islamic jihadist terror on the world.”

President Vladimir Putin came closest last November, after Russia unleashed a devastating bombing and missile campaign against the Islamic State’s industrial scale infrastructure in Syria – facilities and transportation systems that the U.S. had left virtually untouched since Obama’sphony declaration of war against ISIS in September of 2014. The Islamic State had operated a gigantic oil sales and delivery enterprise with impunity, right under the eyes of American bombers. “I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products,” said Putin. “The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon.” Russian bombers destroyed hundreds of the oil tankers within a week, and cruise missiles launched from Russian ships on the Caspian Sea knocked out vital ISIS command-and-control sites.

Putin’s derision of U.S. military actions against ISIS shamed and embarrassed Barack Obama before the world – an affront that only a fellow nuclear superpower would dare. Yet, even the Russian president chose his words carefully, understanding that deployment of jihadists has become central to U.S. imperial policy, and cannot be directly confronted without risks that could be fatal to the planet. Simply put, Washington has no substitute for the jihadists, who have been a tool of U.S. policy since the last days of President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

The Islamic State had operated a gigantic oil sales and delivery enterprise with impunity, right under the eyes of American bombers.

That’s why, in August of 2014, President Obama admitted “We don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with ISIS. It had been thirteen years since 9/11, but none of the U.S./Saudi-sponsored jihadists had ever “gone off the reservation,” spitting on the hands that fed them, attacking the al-Qaida fighters (al-Nusra) that are the real force behind so-called “moderate” anti-Assad “rebels,” and threatening to overthrow the Saudi and other Persian Gulf monarchies. Obama had no strategy to combat ISIS, because the U.S. had no strategy to fight jihadists of any brand in Syria, since all the other terrorists worked for the U.S. and its allies.

Obama is still not waging a “war” against the Islamic State – certainly not on a superpower scale, and not nearly as vigorously as did the far smaller Russian forces before their partial withdrawal in March of this year. The New York Times last week published an article that was half apology, half critical of the U.S. air campaign in ISIS territory. The Americans blamed their lackadaisical air campaign on “poor intelligence,” “clumsy targeting,” “inexperienced planners,” “staffing shortages,” “internal rivalries” and – this from a nation that has caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since World War Two – “fear of causing civilian casualties.” However, the Pentagon now claims to have hit its stride, and is concentrating on blowing up the Islamic State’s money, targeting cash storage sites, resulting in reductions in salaries of about 50 percent for ISIS troops. The U.S. military says it has destroyed about 400 ISIS oil tankers. (The Russians claim to have destroyed a total of 2,000.)

As a counterpoint, the Times quoted David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who planned air campaigns in Afghanistan in 2001 and in the Persian Gulf in 1991. He called the current U.S. air campaign against the Islamic State “symbolic” and “anemic when considered relative to previous operations.”

The Russian president chose his words carefully, understanding that deployment of jihadists has become central to U.S. imperial policy.

The U.S. has averaged 14.5 air strikes a day in the combined Syrian and Iraqi theaters of war, with a peak of 17 a day in April. That’s far lower than NATO’s 50 strikes a day against Libya in 2011, 85 strikes a day against Afghanistan in 2001, and 800 a day in Iraq in 2003. It’s way below Russia’s 55 Syrian strikes a day – 9,000 total strikes over a five and a half month period – by an air force a fraction of the size of the 750 U.S. aircraft stationed in the region (not counting planes on aircraft carriers, or cruise missiles).

The numbers tell the tale: the U.S. is not carrying on a serious “war” against ISIS troop formations, which remain aggressive, mobile and effective in Syria. The Pentagon’s claim that fear of inflicting civilian casualties should be dismissed outright, coming from an agency that has killed between 1.3 million and 2 million people since 9/11, according to a 2015 study by Physicians for Social Responsibility.

American excuses concerning “poor intelligence,” “clumsy targeting,” “inexperienced planners,” “staffing shortages,” and “internal rivalries” might even contain some kernels of truth, since one would expect gaps in gathering intelligence and targeting information on jihadists that were considered U.S. assets, not enemies. And, there is no question that “internal rivalries” do abound in the U.S. war machine, with CIA-sponsored jihadists attacking Pentagon-sponsored jihadists in Syria – the point being, the U.S. backs a wide range of jihadists that have conflicts with one another.

The U.S. is not carrying on a serious ‘war’ against ISIS troop formations, which remain aggressive, mobile and effective in Syria.

The U.S. plays up the killing of Islamic State “leaders” and the blowing up of money caches. This is consistent with what appears to be the general aim of the Obama administration’s jihadist policy, now deeply in crisis: to preserve the Islamic State as a fighting force for deployment under another brand name, under new top leadership. The Islamic State went “rogue,” by the Americans’ definition, when it began pursuing its own mission, two years ago. Even so, the U.S. mainly targeted top ISIS leaders for elimination, allowing the main body of fighters, estimated at around 30,000, to not only remain intact, but to be constantly resupplied and to carry on a vast oil business, mainly with NATO ally Turkey. (The U.S. has also been quite publicly protecting the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra, from Russian bombing, despite U.S. co-sponsorship of a UN resolution calling for international war against al-Nusra.)

To a military man like retired general Deptula, this looks like a “symbolic” and “anemic” campaign. It’s actually a desperate effort to balance U.S. interests in preserving ISIS as a American military asset, while also maintaining the Mother Of All Lies, that the U.S. is engaged in a global war on terror, rather than acting as the headquarters of terror in world. To maintain that tattered fiction, at least in the bubble of the home country, requires the maintenance of a massive and constant psychological operations apparatus. It’s called the corporate news media.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on There is No U.S. War against ISIS; Instead, Obama is Protecting His “Assets”

The United Nations yesterday released its annual blacklist for armed groups and states that violate the rights of children during conflict. One new addition to the list includes the Saudi Arabia-led coalition that is currently engaged in a Yemen war, while killing and maiming children [1].

Saudi armed forces started a military campaign In Yemen last year to prevent Iran-allied Houthi rebels who followed the beliefs of Yemen’s ex President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, from controlling the country. As a result of the war, many civilians, including children have been killed during airstrikes [2].

According to a report released by United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon on Thursday, the coalition has been responsible for a number of incidents since the war’s commencement in March 2015. The United Nations recorded a “six fold increase” of children killed and maimed in 2015 in contrast to previous years. The Saudi coalition caused 60 percent of 510 deaths and 667 injuries involving children last year alone [3].

The United Nations report said violations against children in Yemen increased significantly as a result of the escalating conflict.

“In Yemen, owing to the very large number of violations attributed to the two parties, the Houthis / Ansar Allah and the Saudi Arabia-led coalition are listed for killing and maiming and attacks on schools and hospitals,” said the United Nations Secretary General in his annual report [3].

According to the United Nations, groups are blacklisted when they: “engage in the recruitment and use of children, sexual violence against children, the killing and maiming of children, attacks on schools and / or hospitals and attacks or threats of attacks against protected personnel, and the abduction of children” [2].

Other groups, such as the Houthis, Hadi forces and pro-government militia have been on the list for several years, and are labeled as “persistent perpetrators” against children’s rights. However violent the coalition has been in in the past, this is their first time being blacklisted by the United Nations [3].

DR Congo, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and Somalia were some other governments also included in the report. The US was mentioned indirectly, but the report faulted a US attack on a “Doctors Without Borders” hospital in Afghanistan and blamed it on “international forces.” While the US admitted to the attack, they denied it was a war crime. Although they are large contributors to the Saudi-led war against Yemen, this has never been mentioned in a United Nations Report [4].

Israel and Hamas were also not present in this year’s report, the inclusions of which are annual “hot topics” for debate.

Notes 

[1] “UN Adds US-Supported Saudi Coalition to ‘List of Shame’ for Killing Children in Yemen”, Nadia Prupis, Common Dreams, June 3, 2016.

[2] “U.N. adds Saudi coalition to blacklist for killing children in Yemen”, Michelle Nichols, Reuters, June 2, 2016.

[3] “UN blacklists Saudi Arabia-led coalition for ‘killing and maiming’ children in Yemen air strikes”, Lizzie Dearden,Independent, June 3, 2016.

[4] “Saudi Arabia Blacklisted By UN For Killing Children In Yemen”, MintPress News Deak, MintPress News, June 3, 2016.

Tiarne Blackwell is a final-year journalism student who is trying to make her mark in the world. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.N. Blacklists Saudi Arabia Coalition for Killing Children in Yemen

Michel Temer’s interim government has moved rapidly to reverse 13 years of social programs advanced by the democratically elected Workers Party, despite increased turmoil in his beleaguered administration.

In two weeks, the highly-orchestrated rightwing impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, viewed by many Brazilians as a coup, has been beleaguered by a combination of incompetence by the Temer government and a series of leaked audio files implicating key cabinet ministers in their plotting of the “impeachment” as a means to derail a far-reaching corruption probe.

The façade of Michel Temer’s legitimacy unraveled just days into his administration, when Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo released an audio recording and transcript of a conversation between the country’s Planning Minister, Romero Juca, and oil executive Sergio Machado, discussing how to put Temer into office to “stop the bleeding” from the so-called Car Wash Investigation into petroleum giant Petrobras.

At the time, Juca also served as the president of the Brazilian Democratic Movement, the same political party of the chief participants in the impeachment, Temer, Senate leader Renan Calheiros, and disgraced former lower-house leader Eduardo Cunha. Juca stepped down from office immediately following the release of the news story.

On Monday, it was Fabiano Silveira who became the second official to resign his post in the Temer Administration, after a second leaked recording exposed Brazil’s Transparency Minister, who is tasked with combating corruption, offering advice to Calheiros on how to undermine the Car Wash corruption probe, in which he, along with most of the country’s high-ranking government officials, is implicated.

In the two weeks that Temer’s transition government has held power, it has moved to unravel the country’s social welfare state, eliminating the minister of culture, and has moved to replace regional commitments and the BRICS alliance with renewed deregulated system of trade with the United States. Temer, to many Brazilians is systematically reversing 13 years of policies advanced by the Workers Party.

With the once vibrant South American economic powerhouse reeling under a neoliberal agenda, Loud & Clear’s Brian Becker sat down on Wednesday with Aline C. Piva and Juliana Moraes, of the group Brazilian Expats for Democracy, to discuss what might happen next.

“Brazilians have taken to the streets,” said Piva. “When Michel Temer first assumed control of the government he started a rollback of the social policies that have been in effect for a decade and a half in Brazil. He cut back social programs and he extinguished the minister of culture. In less than one week he rolled back 13 years of social achievement.”

The current administration is evidently corrupt, but what about Dilma Rousseff?

“There are no investigations under Dilma Rousseff’s name for corruption, and there is nothing that would show that she is a corrupt politician,” explained Moraes. “What we are seeing is that the people who are looking to oust her actually have dirty records. The current interim president is supposed to be somebody who is unelectable. He has dirty records, which mean corruption charges against him, so for the next eight years he is not supposed to even be in office.”

She also explained that the recent release of audio files exposing Romero Juca’s coup plot and Fabiano Silveira’s plans to undermine the corruption probe have led to cries for Temer to go, with many protesters labeling him “Golpista” for “coup leader.”

Was this coup orchestrated to force US-backed neoliberal economics on Brazil?

“Absolutely,” said Piva. “The first day of Temer’s administration made clear that the neoliberal agenda is back in place in Brazilian politics.”

The activist explained that Temer’s administration has moved to revoke or offset existing commitments in Latin America, the developing world, and with Russia and China in favor of a push toward US-centric bilateral trade deregulation.

“Jose Serra, the new minister of foreign affairs, in his first speech, made very clear that Brazil is going to roll back the policies that led to more independence in the region,” said Piva.

Moraes took a stronger line, comparing the present situation to the US-backed 1964 Brazilian military coup, noting similar involvement in the proceedings by the US ambassador. “Now we have Liliana Ayalde, the current ambassador to Brazil and the former ambassador to Paraguay in 2008 to 2011, when there was a coup there, who is writing op-ed in the right-wing newspaper O Globo about how Brazil is an essential market for American corporations, a must-play for US business.”

She said that America aims to undermine the multilateral associations established by Brazil’s Workers Party with South American countries, and also looks to fracture the BRICS economic alliance for challenging the domination of the World Bank and the IMF. “Yes, there is some involvement by the US,” stated Ayalde.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil Revolts as Michel Temer Forces Austerity, US Dirty Tricks Exposed

Russia genuinely wants conflict in Syria resolved diplomatically. Otherwise, it can continue interminably.

America wants endless war, Assad ousted, pro-Western puppet governance installed and Syrian sovereignty destroyed.

Intractable East/West positions show no signs of changing. Endless war rages, escalation likely.

So-called cessation of hostilities proved farcical. Peace talks were dead on arrival. Washington and its rogue partners support terrorist groups ravaging Syria. US air power and special forces on the ground aid them.

No so-called moderate rebels exist, one of many Big Lies about Obama’s dirty war, the pure evil face of imperialism, continuing without mercy no matter who succeeds him.

Washington wants Russian airstrikes on Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists halted, according to Sergey Lavrov – so nonexistent moderate rebels won’t be hit.

Moscow calls combating and defeating ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups ravaging Syria top priority. Otherwise, endless war will continue.

“(T)errorism is our common threat, and there should be no doubt about that,” Lavrov stressed. Jabhat al-Nusra is using a pause in attacks on its positions to rearm, regroup and add other terrorist groups to its ranks.

Separately, Al Jazeera reported “Putin may deploy special operations forces on the ground in Syria (to combat terrorists), a move that might be made to ensure ‘a decisive victory.’ “

According to former deputy foreign affairs minister Andrei Fyodorov,

(t)his is under discussion. There are plans for this.

This is a delicate issue for our military. There are serious doubts that any participation by Russia on the ground would be favourable or complicate the negotiation process and lead to further disagreements with the US.

At the same time, unnamed political and military officials believe deployment is needed to defeat the scourge of terrorism.

According to Fyodorov, “(f)rom the Russian point of view, Assad should control 70% of Syria, and that way you can hold elections and they would be favourable for (him). That is why the issue of ground operations is becoming more actual.”

Political analyst Sergey Strokan said Moscow can’t afford to lose Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and commercial hub pre-war, large parts of it destroyed, much of its population displaced.

According to Al Jazeera, “some analysts suggest a ‘Stalingrad’ in Syria is…need(ed)” – a decisive battle to turn the tide and hasten war’s end, “requir(ing) (Russian) ground troops” along with its formidable air power.

Will Washington respond in kind if Russia deploys combat troops to Syria? Will confrontation between both countries follow? Syria already is a dangerous flashpoint. Is something much more serious coming?

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s Next in Syria After Ceasefire and Peace Talks Failed?

It has been obvious from the start that a core objective of the impeachment of Brazil’s elected president, Dilma Rousseff, was to empower the actual thieves in Brasilia and enable them to impede, obstruct, and ultimately kill the ongoing Car Wash investigation (as well as to impose a neoliberal agenda of privatization and radical austerity). A mere 20 days into the seizure of power by the corruption-implicated “interim” President Michel Temer, overwhelming evidence has emerged proving that to be true: Already, two of the interim ministers in Temer’s all-white-male cabinet, including his anti-corruption minister, have beenforced to resign after the emergence of secret recordings showing them plotting to obstruct that investigation (an investigation in which they, along with one-third of his cabinet, are personally implicated).

But the oozing corruption of Temer’s ministers has sometimes served to obscure his own. He, too, is implicated in several corruption investigations. And now, he has been formally convicted of violating election laws and, as punishment, is banned from running for any political officefor eight years. Yesterday, a regional election court in São Paulo, where he’s from, issued a formal decree finding him guilty and declaring him “ineligible” to run for any political office as a result of now having a “dirty record” in elections. Temer was found guilty of spending his own funds on his campaign in excess of what the law permits.

In the scope of the scheming, corruption, and illegality from this interim government, Temer’s law-breaking is not the most severe offense. But it potently symbolizes the anti-democratic scam that Brazilian elites have attempted to perpetrate. In the name of corruption, they have removed the country’s democratically elected leader and replaced her with someone who — though not legally barred from being installed — is now barred for eight years from running for the office he wants to occupy.

Just weeks ago, Dilma’s impeachment appeared inevitable. Brazil’s oligarchical media had effectively focused attention solely on her. But then, everyone started looking at who was engineering her impeachment, who would be empowered, what their motives were — and everything changed. Now her impeachment, though still likely, does not look nearly as inevitable: Last week, O Globo reported that two senators previously in favor were now re-considering in light of “new facts” (the revealed tapes of Temer’s ministers), and yesterday, Folha similarly reported that numerous senators are considering changing their minds. Notably, Brazilian media outlets stopped publishing polling data about the public’s views of Temer and Dilma’s impeachment.

Meanwhile, opposition grows to this attack on democracy both domestically and internationally. Protests aimed at Temer are becoming increasingly large and intense. Two dozen members of the British Parliament denounced impeachment as a coup. Three dozen members of the European Parliament urged termination of trade negotiations with Brazil’s interim government on the ground that it lacks legitimacy. The anti-corruption group Transparency International announced it wasterminating dialogue with the new government until it purged corruption from its new ministries. The New York Times this week, reporting on the resignation of the anti-corruption minister only 20 days after he was installed, described it as “another blow to a government that seems to limp from one scandal to the next just weeks after Mr. Temer replaced Dilma Rousseff.”

Demonstrators run amid a cloud of tear gas during a protest organized by the Homeless Workers Movement, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Wednesday, June 1, 2016. The movement organized the protest against acting President Michel Temer and in support of suspended President Dilma Rousseff.  (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

Demonstrators run amid a cloud of tear gas during a protest organized by the Homeless Workers Movement, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, June 1, 2016.

Photo: Andre Penner/AP

But perhaps nothing quite captures the dangerous farce that Brazilian elites are attempting to perpetrate like the fact that their chosen leader is now literally banned from running for the office into which he has been installed because he has been convicted of breaking the law. This isn’t merely the destruction of democracy in the world’s fifth most populous country, nor the imposition of an agenda of privatization and attacks on the poor for the benefit of international plutocrats. It’s literally the empowerment of dirty, corrupt operators — outside of democratic norms — cynically undertaken in the name of combating corruption.

* * * * *

Last night at an event in Rio de Janeiro, I was asked — as I always am at such events — about possible U.S. involvement in the change of government. Here are four minutes of my answer:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Credibility of Brazil’s Interim President Collapses as He Receives 8-Year Ban on Running for Office

Below is a video of what most Syrians are seeing and experiencing of the war, titled “Living in the crosshairs”

The original video link of the May 29th 2016 video English subtitles is here.

It refers to attackers being the “Free Syrian Army” (who were founded by Riad al-Asaad, no relation to Bashar al-Assad — and spelled and pronounced differently — and he was a proponent of a fundamentalist Sunni Syrian constitution). It also refers to (and shows victims of) the “canisters” which the FSA is firing westward, from the Aleppo city area that the FSA controls, into the city’s “Midan District,” which is controlled by the Syrian government.

.

.

The FSA is America’s chosen group of fighters (Barack Obama’s terms for them are ‘the moderate opposition’ and ‘moderate rebels’, but they’re just the people that the U.S. government overtly back — not back covertly like Syria’s branch of Al Qaeda and some other groups). All these groups are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, and, though they often cooperate with one-another, like with Al Qaeda in Syria (called “Al Nusra”), and ISIS (also called “ISIL” and “Daesh”), the groups also occasionally attack each other, because each of the groups is trying to increase its territory and wants to emerge victorious to control all of Syria, or of as much of Syria as possible, in the final settlement.

Virtually all members of each one of these groups are jihadists, but different foreign countries are backing different ones of these groups, and America’s preferred group happens to be the FSA — the group that’s firing these “canisters.”

At 1:46 in the video, the flag of the “Sultan Murad Faction” is being flown; at 1:50 it’s the flag of Al Nusra. So, this time the groups are all working together, because of their shared goal of conquering the Syrian government in the Midan District, which they’ve apparently just done here, at least for the time being. The Sultan Murad group are backed by Turkey (which, under Erdogan, has become a fundamentalist-Sunni country, like the Arab monarchies are, but without the oil). Al Qaeda is mainly backed by the Sauds, U.S. allies against Assad.

Each of these groups is bankrolled by somewhat different financial interests, but all of those interests are united in their desire to overthrow the non-sectarian government that has been ruling in Syria, and that the U.S. CIA has been trying, ever since 1949, to overthrow and replace by a fundamentalist Sunni government (which will favor the fundamentalist-Sunni Sauds, our allies). Though the majority of Syrians have always supported a non-sectarian Syria, various factions of Sunni Islam in fundamentalist-Sunni foreign countries have (especially after the severe 2007-2010 drought in Syria, and the consequent intense “Arab Spring” anti-government movement in Syria during 2011) supplied weapons and fighters to jihadists to overthrow Assad, and they also finance propaganda to recruit jihadists from all around the world, to fight in Syria and maybe become heavenly martyrs in this ‘holy war’ or jihad, against the ‘infidel’ non-sectarian Syrian government, which, moreover, is led by the Shiite Bashar al-Assad — and all Shiites should be killed, according to such fundamentalist Sunni teachings (which originate in, and are led by, Saudi Arabia).

The United States is allied here actually with the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and with their friends the Thani family who own Qatar, and also with their friends the Sabah family who own Kuwait, and also with the six royal families who own UAE; and all of these fundamentalist-Sunni royal families are aiming to supply their oil and gas, and pipelines for oil and gas, selling into the world’s largest energy-market, Europe. Those pipelines would be built through Syria, which is the reason why the U.S. and its Gulf-state allies want to take Syria over, or at least to conquer enough of a strip through what today is Syria, so as to enable construction of these pipelines into Europe.

Whereas America’s goal in this is mainly to strangle Russia, which is the biggest current supplier of oil and gas into the European market, the main goal of the royal Arab families is to expand their markets, to grab a bigger share of Europe’s energy sales. Pipelined oil and gas tends to be cheaper and therefore more cost-competitive than trucked or shipped oil and gas; so, this is a “pipeline war,” to expand markets.

That’s what the Syrian war is all about. Whereas for America it’s to conquer Russia; for the Arab royals, it’s to supply a bigger share of Europe’s energy-imports. For Turkey, it’s to grab a share of the oil-sales stolen by these jihadists, oil from Iraq and Syria, and also to serve within NATO as the agents of royal Arab families, a bridge between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council. That bridge is a valuable and profitable function to fulfill.

The millions of refugees that are being produced by this war, many of whom are fleeing to Europe, are just the results, basically, of this land-clearing operation in Syria, to get rid of the people who are supporting the current Syrian government, which is allied with Russia, instead of with the U.S. and its allies.

So: those “canisters” are intended to terrify enough Syrians to flee, so that (it’s hoped) enough land can be cleared of population, in order for the desired pipelines to be built.

And Syrians know this. Consequently, not only are the various jihadist groups despised by from two-thirds to around 80% of the Syrian public, but at least 55% of Syrians would vote for Bashar al-Assad to be the country’s leader, in any free and fair election — and Obama knows this, which is the reason why he has strenuously opposed democracy in Syria, and even Ban ki-Moon has (though very quietly) condemned Obama’s position that rejects democracy in Syria. Furthermore, the Syrian people overwhelmingly (by 82%, to be exact) cite the U.S. as being the main source of the immense suffering they face.

In other words: terrorizing the population is good, not bad, from the standpoint of the U.S. and its allies — and many Syrians know this. But the few anti-Assad fighters who loathe ISIS and who have been praised by the U.S. government don’t necessarily know or understand this. The few anti-Assad fighters who, for whatever reason (be it that they’re competing against ISIS, or maybe even that they genuinely detest ISIS) have tried to help the U.S. CIA against ISIS, have even been stunned to find the U.S. government uninterested. It doesn’t make sense to them.

To clear the land, terror is good, not bad; the CIA mustn’t get in the way, and they don’t. It’s one reason why those FSA fighters who had taken seriously the U.S. government’s anti-ISIS rhetoric, have, in many cases, subsequently become disillusioned, and cooperate now with al-Nusra and other such groups, which are only marginally less extremist than ISIS is. At least ISIS isn’t lying to them, like the U.S. government does.

Since the European governments are allied with the U.S., those governments are torn about what to do with the refugees that the U.S.-and-allied operation is producing (and is intended to produce). At least up till now, far more Europeans hate the refugees than hate the U.S. government, and so the problem is merely a political annoyance to EU leaders, not yet a cause for breakup of the Western Alliance (European countries’ alliance with the U.S. government), which still seems strong, and which is still strongly supported by Europeans (including even by the ones who hate these refugees — refugees who are result of that very alliance, which they support).

Though this land-clearing operation creates a nuisance in Europe, it’s far more than that, a life-and-death matter, in Syria. For Arab aristocracies, it’s being done mainly for business (it’s not about ideology, except Sunni versus Shia); but for America’s aristocracy, it’s mainly for power: conquering Russia, by getting rid of Russia’s allies, surrounding Russia, then going in for the kill — unless the Russian government first submits and posts a white flag of surrender (in which case the West will take over Russia’s oil and gas etc., ‘peacefully’).

Perhaps the Western Alliance will continue as it is. But maybe it won’t. For the millions of Syrians in the midst of the hell that Washington and its allies are causing there, a lot might depend on whether it will continue as it is. Without the Western Alliance, the foreign jihadists who are destroying their country would have to leave. Those jihadists are utterly dependent upon the support of Barack Obama, King Saud, Tayyip Erdogan, Angela Merkel, and the other leaders of the Western Alliance. None of those leaders can continue this ongoing invasion of Syria, without the continuing support of their Western comrades. The destruction of Syria is a team-effort. But maybe the team will fall apart before it can achieve the type of victory that’s required for real ‘success’. Which side will give up this war first?

One thing’s for sure: What Syrians see of their war is not going to endear them to The West. And this also means: it’s not going to endear them to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. Will it endear them to the EU? Certainly not if the EU turns them away as refugees. However, if the EU separates from the U.S., then maybe, just maybe, there can emerge favorable relations between Europe and the secular Arabs who have long constituted the majority of Syrians. The problem for them has been the U.S. government and the fundamentalist Sunni Arab royal families. The question then is: Will Europeans continue to be allied with them? Or, if not, then how soon will the Western Alliance break up?

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Most Syrians See of Their War: “Living in the Crosshairs”

A 20-year-old woman missing since late April was found dead on May 16, 2016. The suspect is a former Marine who is a civilian employee of the U.S. military at Kadena Airbase. Local police report that he confessed to the woman’s rape and murder, and told them the location of her corpse. This crime comes barely six weeks after a U.S. sailor assigned to Camp Schwab was arrested for the rape of a Japanese woman in a Naha hotel. Following that crime, Lt. General Lawrence Nicholson, III Marine Expeditionary Force commander, visited Prefectural Governor Onaga Takeshi to ”express my deepest regret and remorse at the incident.”

What General Nicholson called “the incident” is one of more than 500 crimes designated as heinous under Japanese law, including approximately 120 rapes, committed by U.S. forces in Okinawa since it reverted from U.S. military occupation to Japanese administration in 1972. As Takazato Suzuyo points out in her interview below, the 120 reported rapes are only “the tip of an iceberg” since most rapes in Okinawa and elsewhere go unreported.

The April rape and murder was committed on the eve of President Obama’s highly publicized trip to Japan for the G-7 Summit and a visit to Hiroshima for a speech advocating nuclear weapons reductions. Shortly after Obama’s arrival, he held a meeting with Prime Minister Abe Shinzo to discuss the rape and murder in Okinawa. During their stern-faced appearance before the cameras that followed, Abe told reporters “this is an unforgivable crime, and I have expressed our anger.” Obama expressed his “deepest regrets.”

Shimabukuro Rina

Yet official efforts were already underway to downplay and trivialize this latest atrocity as “the Okinawa issue” (沖縄問題), and not the responsibility of the Japanese and U.S. governments for imposing 73% of the American military presence in all of Japan on this small island prefecture. Expressing his hope that the crime would not affect Obama’s trip, Japan’s ambassador to the United States Sasae Kenichiro remarked dismissively that “the Okinawa issue is the Okinawa issue [and] should not overshadow the fundamental objective of the alliance.”

After the March rape, General Nicholson made what turned out to be an empty promise to tighten discipline and prevent a recurrence. Following the rape and murder in April, the 30,000 U.S. troops in Okinawa have been ordered not to drink alcohol off-base or visit clubs and bars.

Conspicuously absent is any mention of proposed changes in the U.S. military presence that might lighten Okinawa’s disproportionate burden of bases. Such was not quite the case after three American servicemen raped a twelve-year-old girl in 1995. Following highly publicized consultations between the U.S. and Japanese governments, it was announced that the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station would be closed. But this turned out to be a bait-and-switch when it was revealed that plans were simply to move what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called “the world’s most dangerous base” to another location in Okinawa. Two decades later, with Okinawans resisting the new base construction, Futenma remains open and active.

In the statement and interview below, women in Okinawa reject meaningless apologies and cosmetic curfews, demanding withdrawal of American forces as the only way they can live safely in Okinawa.

Known victims of sexual violence perpetrated by the U.S. military: The tip of an iceberg

An Interview with Takazato Suzuyo on the rape and murder of Shimabukuro Rina

Former US Marine
Kenneth Shinzato, 20 May 2016

The male suspect—a civilian employee of the U.S. military, formerly a member of the U.S. Marines—has been arrested on suspicion of disposing of a corpse. Heinous crimes committed repeatedly because of the presence of U.S. military bases have taken the worst possible form. We asked Takazato Suzuyo of Women Against Military Violence to put this crime in the historical context of human rights violations against the Okinawan people subjected to structural violence form a permanently stationed military.

No end to crimes and accidents involving the US military.

When Okinawa was returned to Japan [in 1972], U.S. bases in Okinawa went from constituting 50 percent of all U.S. bases in Japan to 70 percent. Among them, the vast majority of Marine forces were concentrated in Okinawa, circumstances in which crimes were bound to occur.

18 percent of Okinawa’s land is bases, but this is just the amount of land that is cordoned off with fences where U.S. soldiers and employees live and work. Anyone associated with U.S. forces can pass through the fences freely, unlike us citizens. As a result, all of Okinawa has been sacrificed to the U.S. military. Under these circumstances, most of the victimisation has occurred outside the bases rather than inside them.

Okinawan Women Against Military Violence points out that reported crimes are only the tip of the iceberg.

Since U.S. military occupation of Okinawa ended in 1972, there have been more than 500 heinous crimes, and approximately 120 rape cases, but these figures do not reflect the many victims who don’t report the crimes. There is no official data for the period before 1972. The group Women Against Military Violence has been collecting information about sexual assault from that time based on data from newspapers and documents as well as evidence from the occupation-era Government of the Ryukyu Islands. In the 71 years since the Battle of Okinawa, large numbers of Okinawan women have been victims of sexual violence.

In 2005, when a 10-year-old girl was the victim of an indecent assault, a woman came forward to report that 20 years previously when she was a high school student, she had been raped by three American soldiers. In a letter to the then-Governor Inamine Keiichi she wrote, “American soldiers are roaming our streets unrestricted. Close the bases immediately!” She did not take the case to court, so itis not included among the 120. I wonder how many more victims are invisible in the available figures? There are social factors that stop victims from prosecuting or raising their voices, and I think they enable the crimes of American forces stationed here. We must view these statistics in the context of this reality.

After the rape at a Naha hotel in March, another woman came forward to tell that she hadbecomepregnant after being raped by a U.S. soldier a year earlier. Parents also reported that their middle-school daughter hadbecomepregnant after being raped, but that they had terminated the pregnancy without notifying police.

On May 20, the day after the suspect was arrested, 16 women’s groups held a press conference and presented their written demand to both the Japanese and U.S. governments to close the U.S. bases.

We had discussed the option of treading softly for a time in consideration of the victim and her family because the circumstances of the crime were so heart-wrenching. But when we thought of why it had occurred, we knew we could not remain silent. On the day of the arrest, we decided to get together on very short notice and speak out.


Media coverage

Fear-mongering insinuators on television ask why a woman would walk alone in the dark place where the victim went missing, implying that she was somehow at fault, and obscuring the fact of a heinous crime committed.

Media coverage perpetuates this “rape myth,” not only when the U.S. military is involved, but by persistently questioning the responsibility of sexual assault victims. Ignored is the difficulty of finding one’s voice when overcome with panic. Victims are repeatedly asked how much they resisted, which only compounds their suffering in Japan where the crime of rape is inadequately addressed. The media should report on this issue without invading the privacy of victims, their families, and others.

How we should view official responses from the U.S. and Japan.

While the victim was still missing, I was much surprised to hear Washington’s response emphasizing that the potential suspect was not military, but civilian personnel. On the one hand, officials were denying any connection to the crime, yet clearly stating that the U.S. government was involved.

We now see the emptiness of the pledge by III Marine Expeditionary Force commander Lt. General Nicholson, after the March rape in Naha, to “tighten discipline” and “prevent recurrence;” and, of his claim that Japan and the U.S. military are “good neighbours.” The violence emanating from the bases must end now!

Following each crime, we protest and a temporary curfew is put in placeuntil the uproar dies down. but then another crime is committed. These measures are only an expedient to placate opposition voices. Meanwhile, the U.S. military remains as soldiers stationed here are replaced one after the other.


Denouncing structural violence within the military.

In 2012, the Department of Defence announced that in one year there were an estimated 19,000 sexual assaults inside the U.S. armed forces. The rape of a woman soldier by her superior officer that she reported at a press conference in Washington had occurred on a base in Okinawa.

Soldiers in the Battle of Okinawa, as well as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, have been trained to use their weapons for killing those said to be their enemies. This is true of all armies. Trained to impose their will by force, they are sent to the battles. To wage war, they must lose their humanity. The perpetrators of crimes in Okinawa should be held responsible, yet the unequal Status of Forces Agreement remains in effect and U.S. troops are not reduced. Thus the ultimate responsibility for these crimes lies with the U.S. and Japanese governments. There is no solution other than the withdrawal of troops. The so-called “consolidations and reductions” proposed in the past will only result in redistributions. It is because forces were not withdrawn after reversion that crimes and accidents continue to this day.

May 20, 2016

Mr. Barack Obama, President of the United States

Ms. Caroline Kennedy, United States Ambassador to Japan

Mr. Lawrence D. Nicholson, United States Military Okinawa Area Coordinator (OAC)

Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan

Mr. Yoshihide Suga, Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan

Mr. Takeshi Onaga, Governor of Okinawa Prefecture

Letter of Demand to Mourn the Victim of the Murder linked to a Former U.S. Marine, to Fully Investigate the Circumstances, and to Immediately Withdraw U.S. Military Forces from Okinawa.

Yesterday, May 19, a woman who had been missing since the end of April was found dead, and a former U.S. Marine was arrested as the suspect in her murder. As we face the horror of this crime with rage and pain welling up within us, we grope for words.

But we’ve also begun to hear remarks from those unresponsive to our outrage. They seek to downplay this horrible crime and evade their responsibility, treating it as part of a political game. In such circumstances, we cannot be silent, and have gathered here to raise our voices.

First of all, we mourn the loss of a precious life that has been taken from us. We demand that people who cared for her not be deprived of the time and occasion to remember her.

We cannot calm our raging hearts as we try to imagine the terror and agony she must have felt. Those of us who live in Okinawa are shocked beyond words as we recognize that this could have happened to us. So we stand together in pain and suffering.

Countless times we have been hurt by statements and attitudes that demean the victims of military violence in Okinawa, where the continuing presence of military bases and troops has been forced on us for decades. We strongly demand that the dignity of the victims be respected.

In mid-March this year, a U.S. sailor sexually assaulted a woman at a hotel in Naha. At that time, Lt. General and US Military Okinawa area commander Lawrence D. Nicholson apologized to Okinawa Prefecture’s Governor Takeshi Onaga. “Today, I come here to represent 27,000 uniformed members, 17,000 families, 4,000 civilians, 50,000 Americans.” A mere two months have passed. The U.S. military has failed again to keep its promises to “enforce strict discipline” and “take preventive measures.” Their empty pledges have no credibility.

We have always insisted that the military is an organization of structural violence and does not protect human security in times of war or peace. Military bases and troops have profoundly destroyed human bodies and spirits inside and outside the fences around them. We urge each and every member of the U.S. forces, civilian employees of the military, and their families in Okinawa to join us in mourning and outrage, and to voice your protest in solidarity with us. Please do not act as if this has nothing to do you.

We strongly urge both the U.S. and Japanese governments, US military forces, and Okinawa Prefecture to face the reality imposed by the presence of bases and troops, and to take actions responsibly. For these purposes, we demand the following of them:

  1. We demand that those who have been close to the victim receive a proper apology and care.
  2. We demand that the facts of the incident be thoroughly investigated, and that the perpetrator be rigorously punished.
  3. We demand that all military bases and troops in Okinawa be withdrawn so that we can achieve a truly safe society for the people living here.

Signers:

Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence, Committee for One-Stop Assistance Center, Rape Emergence Intervention Counselling Center Okinawa (REICO), Group on Gender Issues, Women’s Groups Liaison Council Okinawa, Japan Womens’ Council I Okinawa, New Japan Women’s Association Okinawa, Okinawa Prefecture Mothers’ Congress Liaison Committee, Okinawa Teachers Union, Okinawa Senior High School Teachers Union, Okinawa Association of Retired Teachers, Okinawa Association of Retired Senior High School Teachers, SEALDs Ryukyu, Mothers Against War Okinawa, Naha Broccoli, Citizens Group Wankara, Peace Camp Okinawa Preparatory Committee, Project Disagree, Concerned Students in Okinawa Prefecture, Nago Council against the Construction of the U.S. On-Sea Heliport and for Peace, No Helipad Takae Resident Society, We Planning, Okinawa Korea People’s Solidarity, WILPF Kyoto, Citizens’ Association for the Study of International Law, Yomitan Network for Opposing the Strength of Torii Station and Making the Best Use of the Municipal Ordinance of Village Autonomy, “Start from here, now”, Okinawan Studies 107, Hawaii Peace and Justice, HOA: Hawaii Okinawa Alliance, las barcas Journal, monaca (Movement of Nonames Against Campus Abduction), Iinagu Women’s Group to Support Mayor Inamine and Nago City Government, Anna Group in Miyako, Tida no Fua Group to Make Peaceful Future for the Islander Children, Okinawa Prefectural Association for Popularization of the Peace Constitution, Okinawa Civil Liberties Union

May 22nd, 2016

Translation by Emma Dalton

Introduction by Steve Rabson

Takazato Suzuyo is a long-time feminist peace activist who has analyzed the interplay between sexism and militarism from the experiences of women in Okinawa and is a founder of Okinawan Women Against Military Violence. Her work has inspired global feminist peace movements for structural understanding of violence against women. She helped create Okinawa’s first rape crisis center to provide hotline and face-to-face counseling to victims of sexual violence. In 1995, she played a key role in mobilizing a mass protest against US military bases in Okinawa following the rape by three US servicemen of a twelve-year old girl.

Steve Rabson is Professor Emeritus, Brown University and an Asia-Pacific Journal Contributing Editor. A former U.S. serviceman on Okinawa, he is the author of The Okinawan Diaspora in Japan: Crossing the Borders Within, University of Hawaii Press.

Emma Dalton. Lecturer, La Trobe University, Australia, is the author of Women and Politics in Contemporary Japan (Routledge).

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Okinawa Responses to Rape and Murder by Former US Marine

Below is an incomplete list of “rescue” videos showing “kids being rescued” from “rubble” after “Syrian/Russian bombing” prepared by the U.S./UK financed Syria Civil Defence aka the “White Helmets”.

The group was created with the help of Purpose Inc, a U.S. company specialized in regime change NGO operations. Purpose Inc is also behind Avaaz which early on peddled fake war on Syria video propaganda. The White Helmets are financed, like all “Free Syrian Army” media propaganda, by USAID with some $23 million and by the UK Foreign Office with a total of some £23 million. The Netherlands and Japan also donated money to the scheme. The group was build up and trained since mid 2013 by a “former” UK military intelligence operator residing in Abu Dhabi. These are propaganda artists camouflaged as humanitarians.

The “White Helmets” cooperate closely with al-Qaeda. One of its leaders was recently deniedan entry visa to the United States. More details about the group researched by Vanessa Beeley can be found here and here.

Back to the “rescue” videos. That shtick started in late 2013.

After that great marketing success the movie script was serialized. Since then a new version of a “child rescued” video appears every other month or so. Here are just a few of these with all of them following the same script.

This May 25 video is typical. Someone fiddles with professional rescue air pressure mats to show off but those mats are never put to use. Someone else digs with his hands under or behind a concrete slab which has a rather large opening on the side. A smiling and laughing child, totally unharmed and its favorite pupped in hand, is pulled from under or behind the concrete slab to lots of Allah Akbar shouting by the (always male) bystanders. Not shown: kid gets the promised candies for such great performance.

Other typical features of these movies, see this one, are smoke (grenades) in the streets, dramatic but small open fires nearby, dust or some red color on the children’s face or arms. The camera is often used in a hectic, intentionally amateurish first person view, a style extensively developed in the 1999 horror clip Blair Witch Project. Sometimes sounds of additional “bomb impact” bangs or screaming/wailing women are added.

All the above videos are just as (un-)real as the faked “Hero Boy” video showing a “Syrian boy ducking sniper fire to rescue a trapped girl”. Fake “opposition” videos have been a majorfeature of the media war on Syria. These fakes are often easily recognizable as such. We can be sure that the media professionals at the BBC and other outlets know that these are not real rescue scenes. They distribute them nonetheless.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US-UK Financed “White Helmets” “Humanitarian Organization”. Fake Syria “Child Rescue” Videos

Washington Military Planners Have Gone Mad

June 4th, 2016 by F. William Engdahl

To read the Western mainstream media, we would be led to believe that the big, bad Russian Bear, with Vladimir Putin atop, shaking a fistful of nuclear warheads, is confronting the West in the most threatening manner imaginable.

We should believe Russia is provoking at every turn, frothing at the mouth and threatening to invade the Baltic countries and perhaps all Western Europe. We would feel quite justified, as the propaganda spin of Washington claims, to protect America’s European allies from surprise Russian nuclear attack by surrounding Russia with anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems.

So we as citizens in the Western NATO countries have little reaction at all when we read some days ago that the Obama White House announced it had activated the first phase of its anti-ballistic missile defense system (BMD), known as AEGIS, in an air base in Deveselu, Romania. Poland will be next to become activated with Washington’s Aegis.

896744The Aegis Ashore system has been officially put into operation and can already launch SM-3 interceptor missiles. The system includes 24 anti-aircraft SM-3 missiles. At the same time the Pentagon is placing its BMD installations in Japan and South Korea and possibly, Australia, aimed at China. Our perception of world reality is primarily shaped for us by what we read in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or hear on CNN or BBC. We sigh a small sigh of relief that our world is now more secure. Nothing is farther from reality. That’s a grave error.

On May 13, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, alongside officials representing the United States and European NATO members, announced the activation of a new missile system, based in Romania. Stoltenberg announced,

“The United States’ Aegis ashore system is declared certified for operations.”

The new missile network is based at Romania’s Deveselu military air base. The US is also building another new US missile base in Poland. On the same day Deveselu missile base was opened for “business,” construction began on the US missile base near Redzikowo, Poland. Both will operate under the direct command of the US Department of Defense. The Pentagon insists both are intended to protect Europe from Iran (sic!). Shall we call that a pretty pathetic propaganda deception of Washington? I would say so. Both and other systems are directly intended for Russia and those “unarmed” Aegis missiles are potentially nuclear-capable and carry Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles.

The Romanian missile base is positioned less than 400 miles from Russia’s main Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol, Crimea. AEGIS is able to fire short and long-range missiles.i Neither Romania nor Poland will have any say over its use, even though their territory will be the target of any pre-emptive Russian reaction.

Commenting on the event, the New York Times openly acknowledged, “The launch-pad violates a 1987 treaty intended to take the superpowers off their hair-trigger nuclear alter, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, by banning land-based cruise and medium-range missiles with a range from 300 to 3,400 miles.”

US and NATO officials insist that AEGIS is directed against Iran and other small states viewed by Washington as “rogue states,” and poses no threat to Russia or China, something absurd on the surface.

The reality, that Russia is the target of the Romanian Aegis system was made plain by the remarks at the opening ceremony by Romanian President Klaus Ioannis. Ioannis made clear that the new installation is part of broader plans to use his country as a staging area for NATO activities throughout Eastern Europe and the Black Sea.

Of course the Black Sea is home to Russia’s naval Black Sea Fleet in Russian Crimea. Admitting that the real target of the missiles is the Russian Federation, Ioannis called on NATO leaders to maintain a “permanent naval presence” in the Black Sea, as part of a military buildup aimed at making a “credible and predictable presence of Allied forces on the eastern flank.” A glance at the map shos that the only nation bordering the Black Sea not either in NATO or controlled by pro-NATO regimes is the Russian Federation.

During his swearing in some days before the Aegis opening US Army General and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Curtis Scaparrotti, warned that Russia “is striving to project itself as a world power.” He declared that US forces in Europe must “enhance our levels of readiness and our agility in the spirit of being able to fight tonight if deterrence fails.” That sounds pretty “hair-trigger” to me.

Russia made clear it does not greet the news of Aegis deployment with grace or joy. Russia’s President Putin told news agencies, “This is not a defense system. This is part of a US nuclear strategic potential brought on to a periphery. In this case, Eastern Europe is such a periphery…Those people taking such decisions must know that until now they have lived calm, fairly well-off and in safety. Now, as these elements of ballistic missile defense are deployed, we are forced to think how to neutralize the emerging threats to the Russian Federation.”

Russian commentator Konstantin Bogdanov told the New York Times, “The antimissile sites in Eastern Europe might even accelerate the slippery slope to nuclear war in a crisis. They would inevitably become priority targets in the event of nuclear war, possibly even targets for preventive strikes… Countries like Romania that host American antimissile systems might be the only casualties, whereas the United States would then reconcile with Russia ‘over the smoking ruins of the East European elements of the missile defense system.”

Possible Russian response

Many Washington “think-tank generals,” neo-conservative academic hawks and even senior Pentagon professional military generals, more concerned with lobbying for a bigger defense budget than for reality, seem to believe the United States is invulnerable and that their drip-drip escalation against Russia and also China in recent years will restore their vanishing sole superpower global hegemony. It won’t, and in fact may end up obliterating the United States mainland as well as Europe, even if it costs Russians dearly.

A well-respected Cold War military veteran originally from the Soviet Union, later in French intelligence, writing under the nom de plume, The Saker, recently outlined in detail what the United States and NATO can expect from Russia if Washington foolishly continues to escalate US troop deployments on Russia’s doorstep in the Baltics, activates more of its BMD missile defenses–which, by the way, as Vladimir Putin pointed out, are also capable of being easily converted to carry nuclear warheads.

Saker correctly points out that Washington’s AEGIS kinetic BMD system at present is no real military threat to Russia’s military defense capabilities. It is the escalation that they see that alarms Moscow. That, especially since Washington’s February, 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine, and the lock-step obedience as literal vassals, of every EU head of government to Washington orders since, even at their own economic expense.

As a consequence, Russia has begun to prepare for the “unthinkable.” Keep in mind Russians abhor war, having lost perhaps up to 30 million souls in the 1940’s only to see the latecomer, USA, who jumped in in 1944, after the Russians has been taking the vast bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany, claim themselves as “victor.” Yet, through history going back to the Great Schism of 1054, Russians, when forced in existential crises, are capable of defending against all odds.

Saker describes the Russian current response strategy which has been quietly in preparation since the Cheney-Bush Administration announced plans in 2007 for a US BMD in Poland and the Czech Republic:

“The Russian effort is a vast and a complex one, and it covers almost every aspect of Russian force planning, but there are four examples which, I think, best illustrate the Russian determination not to allow a 22 June 1941 to happen again:

• The re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army (in progress)

• The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (done)

• The deployment of the Sarmat ICBM (in progress)

• The deployment of the Status-6 strategic torpedo (in progress)”

Three of the four points are especially worth describing in detail. Saker describes the Iskander-M: “The new Iskander-M operational tactical missile system is…extremely accurate, it has advanced anti-ABM capabilities, it flies at hypersonic speeds and is practically undetectable on the ground…This will be the missile tasked with destroying all the units and equipment the US and NATO have forward-deployed in Eastern Europe…”

Then he details Sarmat ICBM, in progress. After noting that during the Cold War, the SS-18, the most powerful ICBM ever developed, was scary enough. ” “The RS-28 ‘Sarmat’ brings the terror to a totally new level. The Sarmat is…capable of carrying 10-15 MIRVed warheads which will be delivered in a so-called “depressed” (suborbital) trajectory and which will remain maneuverable at hypersonic speeds. The missile will not have to use the typical trajectory over the North Pole but will be capable of reaching any target anywhere on the planet from any trajectory. All these elements combined will make the Sarmat itself and its warheads completely impossible to intercept.”

Then Russia’s Status-6 strategic torpedo: “The Status-6 torpedo would be delivered from an ‘autonomous underwater vehicle’ with advanced navigational capabilities but which can also be remote controlled and steered from a specialized command module. The vehicle can dive as deep as 1 kilometer at a speed up to 185km/h with a range of up to 10,000km (over 6,200 miles). The Status-6 system can target aircraft carrier battle groups, US navy bases (especially SSBN bases) and, in its most frightening configuration, it can be used to deliver high-radioactivity cobalt bombs capable of laying waste to huge expanses of land. The Status-6 delivery system would be…capable of delivering a 100 megaton warhead which would make it twice as powerful as the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated, the Soviet Czar-bomb (57 megatons). Hiroshima was only 15 kilotons.” Saker adds, “Keep in mind that most of the USA’s cities and industrial centers are all along the coastline which makes them extremely vulnerable to torpedo based attacks…the depth and speed of the Status-6 torpedo would make it basically invulnerable to interception.”

The Saker notes there are other equally serious possible Russian responses to any potential existential danger for the motherland, rodina, as Russians call their homeland.

Nuclear Primacy

The active USA BMD project began during Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. In 1972 the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) between Moscow and Washington placed severe limits on development or deployment of Ballistic Missile Defense, but didn’t prevent intense research on such systems. That was what President Ronald Reagan announced to the world in March 1983, when he launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which the press quickly dubbed, ‘Star Wars.’ When the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, Washington temporarily shelved full-scale work on deploying their BMD systems. But only temporarily, until the Cheney-Bush Administration in 2001.

Ballistic Missile Defense systems are the final element that could make a US nuclear first strike a possible live option. It would be aimed to take out any Soviet missiles that had somehow survived a US First Strike.

According to the late Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, former head of President Carter’s then-top secret SDI research, anti-missile defense remained in 2009, “the missing link to a First Strike” capability.

Already in 2003 at the onset of the illegal US invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon’s 2003 Nuclear Posture Review made clear that nuclear weapons were here to stay. The declared purpose of US nuclear weapons under the hawkish Cheney-Bush era was changing from nuclear deterrence (MAD) and weapon of last resort to a central, usable component of the US military arsenal. The unthinkable was being thought in Washington.

In September 2015 the Pentagon announced Washington’s decision to station 20 next-generation advanced nuclear bombs of Type B61-12 in Germany, above the protests of leading but impotent German politicians. The B61-12 is in fact a brand new nuclear weapon with vastly improved military capabilities, and the most expensive nuclear bomb project ever. I noted in an article then, that Washington’s deployment of new nuclear weapons in Germany, “is no minor affair as it brings the likelihood of nuclear war by miscalculation between the United States and Russia one giant step closer and it makes the German Republic a direct high-priority target in any such escalation.”

If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I see a psychopath leap at me with a drawn knife clearly aiming to kill, I have a moral responsibility to defend my life with all my means. Likewise, as Kremlin planners carefully monitor the actions of the US military and State Department since declaration of plans to install its Ballistic Missile Defense in NATO Western European lands back in 2007, after the Cheney-Bush Administration unilaterally tore up the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty of 1987 to free itself to deploy its BMD systems, and now with deployments of NATO and US troops and tanks at the periphery of Russia as well as around China, both countries are taking deadly seriously the growing danger to their very existence through an “unthinkable” US nuclear first strike.

As a nice cheery footnote, the state-owned China paper, Global Times, in its May 29, 2016 edition reported that China will send a submarine armed with nuclear missiles into the Pacific for the first time. The paper, making an official Beijing Government response to Washington’s military Asia Pivot, added that China has been adopting an “effective nuclear deterrence” strategy, with much fewer nuclear warheads than the West powers. Also, China is the only one among the nuclear powers to announce a no-first-use policy. It means that China’s nuclear deterrence lies in its capability to strike back… As Sino-US tensions build, it is necessary for China to strengthen its capability for nuclear retaliation. It will help with balance in the Asia-Pacific region and enhance the US willingness to seek peace with China.

It is vital that the still sane among us clearly understand how utterly mad, as in insane, not in Mutual Assured Destruction, the Washington missile defense and Russia provoking strategy of the past two decades, especially the past two years, is. Unlike US Defense Secretary Ash Carter, I for one am not willing to end up in a thermonuclear ash heap.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Military Planners Have Gone Mad
Trump-Speech-1

Donald Brings Show Biz to Politics: Will America Survive a Trump Administration?

By Sam Ben-Meir, June 03 2016

At his last and final White House Correspondents’ Dinner, President Obama quipped that “the end of the republic never looked better.” With Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, and Hillary Clinton beginning to steadily lose ground to him in national…

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_2

Trump University and Selling Images

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 03 2016

The problem with the critics of Trump University is that they only provide a veneer for a collective tendency in US political life. Image counts and those with stellar university educations (consider the current President, of constitutional law fame) do…

Hillary Clinton speaking to the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference.

Clinton’s Anti-Trump Rant Ignores Her Own High Crimes

By Stephen Lendman, June 03 2016

On Thursday, touting her foreign policy record without explaining its lawlessness, Clinton delivered a 30-minute anti-Trump rant focussing on US foreign policy and US-NATO led wars,  a demagogic litany  devoid of substance, more proof of the danger humanity faces if…

US-Nuclear-War

The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

By Robert Parry, June 03 2016

Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In…

sanders-clinton

Sanders Takes LEAD Over Clinton In California

By Washington’s Blog, June 03 2016

The Los Angeles Times reports:  A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll has found … [Sanders] has battled Clinton to a draw among all voters eligible for the Democratic primary, with 44% siding with him to 43% for Clinton. ***…

usa-élections

The US Elections and the Criminalization of American Politics

By Patrick Martin, June 03 2016

With the US primary campaigns drawing to a close, the two parties of the US ruling elite, Democrats and Republicans, are preparing to nominate candidates who may be subject to criminal indictment between now and the general election.The Republicans…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Will America Survive a Trump Administration?

The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

June 3rd, 2016 by Robert Parry

Hillary Clinton made a strong case for why handing the nuclear codes over to a President Donald Trump would be a scary idea, but there may be equal or even greater reason to fear turning them over to her. In perhaps the most likely area where nuclear war could break out – along Russia’s borders – Clinton comes across as the more belligerent of the two.

In Clinton’s world view, President Vladimir Putin, who has been elected multiple times and has approval ratings around 80 percent, is nothing more than a “dictator” who is engaged in “aggression” that threatens NATO following the U.S.-backed “regime change” in Ukraine.

“Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep,” she declared. But stop for a second and think about what Clinton said: she sees Russia responding to an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine – which installed a virulently anti-Russian regime on Russia’s border – as Moscow acting aggressively “on NATO’s doorstep.”

That’s the same NATO, whose job it was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union, that — following the Soviet Union’s collapse — added country after country right up to Russia’s border. In other words, NATO muscled its way into Russia’s face and has announced plans to incorporate Ukraine as well, but when Russia reacts, it’s the one doing the provoking.

A U.S. government photograph of Operation Redwing's Apache nuclear explosion on July 9, 1956.

Image: A U.S. government photograph of Operation Redwing’s Apache nuclear explosion on July 9, 1956.

Clinton’s neoconservative interpretation of what’s happening in Eastern Europe is so upside-down and inside-out that it could ultimately become the flashpoint for a nuclear war between Russia and the West.

While she sees Russia as the “aggressor” against NATO, the Russians see NATO moving troops up to its borders and watch the deployment of anti-ballistic-missile systems in Romania and Poland, thus making a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia more feasible. Russia has made clear that it views these military deployments, just kilometers from major Russian cities, as an existential threat.

In response, Russia is raising its alert levels and upgrading its strategic forces. Yet, Hillary Clinton believes the Russians have no reason to fear NATO’s military encirclement and no right to resist U.S.-supported coups in countries on Russia’s periphery. It is just such a contradiction of viewpoints that can turn a spark into an uncontrollable inferno.

What might happen, for instance, if Ukraine’s nationalist — and even neo-Nazi — militias, which wield increasing power over the corrupt and indecisive regime in Kiev, received modern weaponry from a tough-talking Clinton-45 administration and launched an offensive to exterminate ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and to reclaim Crimea, where 96 percent of the voters opted to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia?

A President Hillary Clinton would have talked herself into a position of supporting this “liberation” of “Russian-occupied territory” and her clever propagandists would surely present this “heroic struggle” as a war of good against evil, much as they justified bloody U.S. invasions of Iraq and Libya which Clinton supported as U.S. senator and Secretary of State, respectively.

What if the Ukrainian forces then fired missiles striking Russia’s naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, killing some of the 20,000 Russian troops stationed there and inflicting damage on Russia’s Black Sea fleet? What if Kremlin hardliners finally got their way and unleashed the Russian army to launch a real invasion of Ukraine, crushing its military, rumbling through to Kiev and accomplishing their own “regime change”?

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

Image: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

How would President Hillary Clinton respond? Would she put herself in the shoes of Russia’s leaders and search for some way to de-escalate or would she get high-and-mighty and escalate the crisis by activating NATO military forces to counter this “Russian aggression”?

Given what we know about Clinton’s tough-talking persona, the odds are good that she would opt for an escalation – and that could set the stage for nuclear war, possibly starting because the Russians would fear the imminence of a NATO first strike, made more possible by those ABM bases in Romania and Poland.

Clinton’s Non-Nuclear Wars

There are other areas in the world where a President Hillary Clinton would likely go to war albeit at a sub-nuclear level. During the campaign, she has made clear that she intends to invade Syria once she takes office, although she frames her invasions as humanitarian gestures, such as creating “safe zones” and “no-fly zones.”

In other words, although she condemns Russian “aggression,” she advocates aggressive war herself, seemingly incapable of recognizing her hypocrisies and only grudgingly acknowledging her “mistakes,” such as her support for the invasion of Iraq.

So, on Thursday, even as she made strong points about Trump’s mismatched temperament for becoming Commander-in-Chief, she flashed a harsh temperament of her own that also was unsettling, although in a different way.

Trump shoots from the lip and has a thin skin, while Clinton is tightly wound and also has a thin skin. Trump lets his emotions run wild while Clinton is excessively controlled. Trump engages in raucous give-and-take with his critics; Clinton tries to hide her decision-making (and emails) from her critics.

Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin taking the presidential oath at his third inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2012. (Russian government photo)

It’s hard to say which set of behaviors is more dangerous. One can imagine Trump having free-form or chaotic diplomatic encounters with allies and adversaries alike, while Clinton would plot and scheme, insisting on cooperation from allies and demanding capitulation from adversaries.

Clinton sprinkled her speech denouncing Trump with gratuitous insults aimed at Putin and undiplomatic slaps at Russia, such as, “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin. We cannot let that happen.”

In short, there is reason to fear the election of either of these candidates, one because of his unpredictability and the other because of her rigidity. How, one might wonder, did the two major political parties reach this juncture, putting two arguably unfit personalities within reach of the nuclear codes?

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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Bigger Nuclear Risk: Trump or Clinton?

SBU massively detain and torture applies to the supporters of the militia of Donbass, said Assistant UN Secretary General for Human Rights Ivan Simonovic.

Even before the publication of the report of Simonovic said that in some areas’ lack of respect for human rights “from Kiev became a daily and regular, according to RIA” Novosti “with reference to the Times.

The report prepared by the United Nations, describes the hundreds of cases of illegal arrests and ill-treatment of detainees by both the rebels and representatives of government agencies.

However, the report for the first time demonstrates the scale and brutality torture program, which is supported by the Government of Ukraine. The report also speaks of the five secret prisons for detainees, who have created the Ukrainian authorities.

In addition, Simonovic told about specific cases of beatings and torture of detainees who committed the alleged SBU.

In 2005 year Ukraine acceded to the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention against Torture. States parties to the Protocol attending the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture delegation. They have the right without notice to inspect any place.

In late May, the UN experts to combat torture interrupted visit to Ukraine after they were denied entry into certain areas of the country, where, as expected, a number of persons illegally kept secret services.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on United Nations Accuses Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) of Torture

Here’s last week’s good news on America’s war fronts: finally, there’s light at the end of the tunnel!

From one end of the Greater Middle East to the other, things are looking up for Washington. A U.S. Air Force drone struck for the first time in Baluchistan province and took out the leader of the Taliban with two Hellfire missiles (whereupon the Pakistani government denounced Washington for violating the country’s sovereignty). The action was taken, President Obama later announced, as part of “our longstanding effort to bring peace and prosperity to Afghanistan.” (Admittedly, you may not have heard much about such peace and prosperity recently with fierce fighting raging on Afghan battlefields, the Taliban gainingground, the government in its usual pit of corruption, and the country maintaining its proud position as the uncontested global leader in the production and sale of opium.)

Soon after, the president paid a historic visit to Vietnam and finally put to bed memories of a disastrous American war there in the only way conceivable — by ensuring that American arms and munitions would once again be allowed to flow freely into that country. And while he was at it, he sternly rebuked China (without mentioning it by name) for its actions in the waters off Vietnam.  “Nations are sovereign,” he said, “and no matter how large or small a nation may be, its territory should be respected.”

On the other side of the Greater Middle East, U.S. Green Berets were photographed in northern Syria engaged with Kurdish rebels in fighting aimed at someday retaking Raqqa, the “capital” of the Islamic State. Several of those soldiers were wearing the insignia of the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Forces, or YPG (which the Turkish government considers a terrorist outfit), even as the Pentagon continued to insist that theirs was a non-combat role. In other words — in the good news category — those boots, whatever the photos might seem to indicate, were not actually on the ground. Meanwhile, some genuinely upbeat news arrived in the midst of a little distinctly out-of-date bad news. Members of the U.S. team now conducting the air war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq told New York Timesreporter Eric Schmitt that, despite thousands of air strikes, their predecessors had essentially botched the job, thanks to “poor intelligence collection and clumsy process for identifying targets.” Fortunately, they were now in charge and the results were stunning. The Islamic State was finally being hit in its pocketbook, where it truly hurts, damaging its “ability to pay its fighters, govern, and attract new recruits.”

“Every bomb now has a greater impact,” reported U.S. air war commander Lieutenant General Charles Brown Jr. Yes, after 15 years of American air war across the Greater Middle East, it seems that, from Pakistan to Syria, the Obama administration has finally found the winning formula. If, as Schmitt’s piece indicated, you want confirmation of that, who better to turn to than the very people who have gotten the formula right?  Having no access to similar in-the-know figures capable of throwing light on the subject of Washington’s ongoing conflicts, TomDispatch instead turned to outsider Andrew Bacevich, author most recently of a groundbreaking book, America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, to assess the recent spate of upbeat news from America’s war zones. We sent him directly into that infamous Vietnam-era tunnel of darkness to see what might be glimpsed so many decades later when it comes to the American way of war, and here’s his report. Tom

Milestones (Or What Passes for Them in Washington) 

A Multi-Trillion-Dollar Bridge to Nowhere in the Greater Middle East 

By Andrew J. Bacevich

We have it on highest authority: the recent killing of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan marks “an important milestone.” So the president of the United States has declared, with that claim duly echoed and implicitly endorsed by media commentary — theNew York Times reporting, for example, that Mansour’s death leaves the Taliban leadership “shocked” and “shaken.”

But a question remains: A milestone toward what exactly?

Toward victory? Peace? Reconciliation? At the very least, toward the prospect of the violence abating? Merely posing the question is to imply that U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world serve some larger purpose.

Yet for years now that has not been the case. The assassination of Mansour instead joins a long list of previous milestones, turning points, and landmarks briefly heralded as significant achievements only to prove much less than advertised.

One imagines that Obama himself understands this perfectly well. Just shy of five years ago, he was urging Americans to “take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.” In Iraq and Afghanistan, the president insisted, “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.”

“These long wars,” he promised, were finally coming to a “responsible end.” We were, that is, finding a way out of Washington’s dead-end conflicts in the Greater Middle East.

Who can doubt Obama’s sincerity, or question his oft-expressed wish to turn away from war and focus instead on unattended needs here at home? But wishing is the easy part. Reality has remained defiant. Even today, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that George W. Bush bequeathed to Obama show no sign of ending.

Like Bush, Obama will bequeath to his successor wars he failed to finish. Less remarked upon, he will also pass along to President Clinton or President Trump new wars that are his own handiwork. In Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and several other violence-wracked African nations, the Obama legacy is one ofever-deepening U.S. military involvement.  The almost certain prospect of a further accumulation of briefly celebrated and quickly forgotten “milestones” beckons.

During the Obama era, the tide of war has not receded. Instead, Washington finds itself drawn ever deeper into conflicts that, once begun, become interminable — wars for which the vaunted U.S. military has yet to devise a plausible solution.

The Oldest (Also Latest) Solution: Bombs Away

Once upon a time, during the brief, if heady, interval between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 when the United States ostensibly reigned supreme as the world’s “sole superpower,” Pentagon field manuals credited U.S. forces with the ability to achieve “quick, decisive victory — on and off the battlefield — anywhere in the world and under virtually any conditions.” Bold indeed (if not utterly delusional) would be the staff officer willing to pen such words today.

To be sure, the United States military routinely demonstrates astonishing technical prowess — putting a pair of Hellfire missiles through the roof of the taxi in which Mansour was riding, for example. Yet if winning — that is, ending wars on conditions favorable to our side — offers the measure of merit by which to judge a nation’s military forces, then when put to the test ours have been found wanting.

Not for lack of trying, of course. In their quest for a formula that might actually accomplish the mission, those charged with directing U.S. military efforts in the Greater Middle East have demonstrated notable flexibility. They have employed overwhelming force and “shock-and awe.” They have tried regime change (bumping off Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, for example) and “decapitation” (assassinating Mansour and a host of other militant leaders, including Osama Bin Laden). They have invaded and occupied countries, even giving military-style nation-building a whirl. They have experimented with counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention, retaliatory strikes and preventive war. They have operated overtly, covertly, and through proxies. They have equipped, trained, and advised — and when the beneficiaries of these exertions have folded in the face of the enemy, they have equipped, trained, and advised some more. They have converted American reservists into quasi-regulars, subject to repeated combat tours. In imitation of the corporate world, they have outsourced as well, handing over to profit-oriented “private security” firms functions traditionally performed by soldiers. In short, they have labored doggedly to translate American military power into desired political outcomes.

In this one respect at least, an endless parade of three- and four-star generals exercising command in various theaters over the past several decades have earned high marks. In terms of effort, they deserve an A.

As measured by outcomes, however, they fall well short of a passing grade. However commendable their willingness to cast about for some method that might actually work, they have ended up waging a war of attrition. Strip away the light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel reassurances regularly heard at Pentagon press briefings or in testimony presented on Capitol Hill and America’s War for the Greater Middle East proceeds on this unspoken assumption: if we kill enough people for a long enough period of time, the other side will eventually give in.

On that score, the prevailing Washington gripe directed at Commander-in-Chief Obama is that he has not been willing to kill enough. Take, for example, a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed penned by that literary odd couple, retired General David Petraeus and Brookings Institution analyst Michael O’Hanlon, that appeared under the pugnacious headline “Take the Gloves Off Against the Taliban.” To turn around the longest war in American history, Petraeus and O’Hanlon argue, the United States just needs to drop more bombs.

The rules of engagement currently governing air operations in Afghanistan are, in their view, needlessly restrictive. Air power “represents an asymmetric Western advantage, relatively safe to apply, and very effective.” (The piece omits any mention of incidents such as the October 2015 destruction of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in the Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz by a U.S. Air Force gunship.) More ordnance will surely produce “some version of victory.” The path ahead is clear. “Simply waging the Afghanistan air-power campaign with the vigor we are employing in Iraq and Syria,” the authors write with easy assurance, should do the trick.

When armchair generals cite the ongoing U.S. campaign in Iraq and Syria as a model of effectiveness, you know that things must be getting desperate.

Granted, Petraeus and O’Hanlon are on solid ground in noting that as the number of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan has decreased, so, too, has the number of air strikes targeting the Taliban. Back when more allied boots were on the ground, more allied planes were, of course, overhead. And yet the 100,000 close-air-support sorties flown between 2011 and 2015 — that’s more than one sortie per Taliban fighter — did not, alas, yield “some version of victory.” In short, we’ve already tried the Petraeus-O’Hanlon take-the-gloves-off approach to defeating the Taliban. It didn’t work. With the Afghanistan War’s 15th anniversary now just around the corner, to suggest that we can bomb our way to victory there is towering nonsense.

In Washington, Big Thinking and Small

Petraeus and O’Hanlon characterize Afghanistan as “the eastern bulwark in our broader Middle East fight.” Eastern sinkhole might be a more apt description. Note, by the way, that they have nothing useful to say about the “broader fight” to which they allude. Yet that broader fight — undertaken out of the conviction, still firmly in place today, that American military assertiveness can somehow repair the Greater Middle East — is far more deserving of attention than how to employ very expensive airplanes against insurgents armed with inexpensive Kalashnikovs.

To be fair, in silently passing over the broader fight, Petraeus and O’Hanlon are hardly alone. On this subject no one has much to say — not other stalwarts of the onward-to-victory school, nor officials presently charged with formulating U.S. national security policy, nor members of the Washington commentariat eager to pontificate about almost anything. Worst of all, the subject is one on which each of the prospective candidates for the presidency is mum.

From Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford on down to the lowliest blogger, opinions about how best to wage a particular campaign in that broader fight are readily available. Need a plan for rolling back the Islamic State? Glad you asked. Concerned about that new ISIS franchise in Libya? Got you covered. Boko Haram? Here’s what you need to know. Losing sleep over Al-Shabab? Take heart — big thinkers are on the case.

As to the broader fight itself, however, no one has a clue. Indeed, it seems fair to say that merely defining our aims in that broader fight, much less specifying the means to achieve them, heads the list of issues that people in Washington studiously avoid. Instead, they prattle endlessly about the Taliban and ISIS and Boko Haram and al-Shabab.

Here’s the one thing you need to know about the broader fight: there is no strategy. None. Zilch. We’re on a multi-trillion-dollar bridge to nowhere, with members of the national security establishment more or less content to see where it leads.

May I suggest that we find ourselves today in what might be called a Khe Sanh moment? Older readers will recall that back in late 1967 and early 1968 in the midst of the Vietnam War, one particular question gripped the national security establishment and those paid to attend to its doings: Can Khe Sanh hold?

Now almost totally forgotten, Khe Sanh was then a battlefield as well known to Americans as Fallujah was to become in our own day. Located in the northern part of South Vietnam, it was the site of a besieged and outnumbered Marine garrison, surrounded by two full enemy divisions. In the eyes of some observers, the outcome of the Vietnam War appeared to hinge on the ability of the Marines there to hold out — to avoid the fate that had befallen the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu slightly more than a decade earlier. For France, the fall of Dien Bien Phu had indeed spelled final defeat in Indochina.

Was history about to repeat itself at Khe Sanh? As it turned out, no… and yes.

The Marines did hold — a milestone! — and the United States lost the war anyway.

In retrospect, it seems pretty clear that those responsible for formulating U.S. policy back then fundamentally misconstrued the problem at hand. Rather than worrying about the fate of Khe Sanh, they ought to have been asking questions like these: Is the Vietnam War winnable? Does it even make sense? If not, why are we there? And above all, does no alternative exist to simply pressing on with a policy that shows no signs of success?

Today the United States finds itself in a comparable situation. What to do about the Taliban or ISIS is not a trivial question. Much the same can be said regarding the various other militant organizations with which U.S. forces are engaged in a variety of countries — many now failing states — across the Greater Middle East.

But the question of how to take out organization X or put country Y back together pales in comparison with the other questions that should by now have come to the fore but haven’t. Among the most salient are these: Does waging war across a large swath of the Islamic world make sense? When will this broader fight end? What will it cost? Short of reducing large parts of the Middle East to rubble, is that fight winnable in any meaningful sense? Above all, does the world’s most powerful nation have no other choice but to persist in pursuing a manifestly futile endeavor?

Try this thought experiment. Imagine the opposing candidates in a presidential campaign each refusing to accept war as the new normal. Imagine them actually taking stock of the broader fight that’s been ongoing for decades now. Imagine them offering alternatives to armed conflicts that just drag on and on. Now that would be a milestone.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s “Sinkhole Wars” for the Greater Middle East

Trump University and Selling Images

June 3rd, 2016 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The problem with the critics of Trump University is that they only provide a veneer for a collective tendency in US political life. Image counts and those with stellar university educations (consider the current President, of constitutional law fame) do not necessarily guarantee better performances in office.  Political craft is not always benefited by ivy league credentials.

In US history, the famously bookish John Quincy Adams succumbed to the knives of political reality for his over-tutored bearing. Before brawn and men of action, he stood little chance.  President Teddy Roosevelt also decided that brawn mixed with some vague concept of American manhood was needed for presidential valour.

As for the latest presidential contender in the mix of alpha wonders, we have Donald Trump, who has made certain segments of the commentariat flush with fear.  His latest pothole is supposedly that of the failed Trump University experiment.

John Cassidy, writing for The New Yorker, wonders whether

“one of the world’s leading democracies [will] elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant rip-off, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?”[1]

The attack on the university itself tends to also provide a false alibi for the sanctity of education systems more generally.  The impression given is that the Trump University project is a grotesque aberration in the field of tertiary education.

Again, as with so much regarding Trump, trawling through the filth reveals a broader social critique, one that will not be discussed.  Many universities have succumbed to managerial hog wash, used as additive for greater deceptions.  Grants are given without evidence of worth, a self-nourishing cycle of perpetuation; performance indicators suggest a bureaucratic assessment of what is, in many ways, incapable of assessment.  Students are monetised, papers are categorised according to economic value and rankings.

There is little doubt that Trump University seemed particularly rotten.  It was so rotten it has become the subject of a class-action suit by disgruntled users who, quite frankly, should have known better.  Take the words of a former salesman for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg.

According to his unsealed testimony, “Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.”[2]  How shocking.

That selling image and constructed “realities” pervasive in Trump land has migrated as a pursuit to university is hardly a surprise.  His university ended up advertising “graduate programs, post graduate programs, doctorate programs” but did nothing of the sort.  Many an institution has fallen foul of such behaviour.

Politicians themselves have received degrees from universities of dubious stature, irrespective of what political system we wish to peruse.  (Forget scholarship, which is regarded in the profit-driven institution as an evil to be abstained from.)  The politician, the actor, the salesman, the university charlatan – all share something in common.

The Clinton campaign’s response to Trump University does the rounds about its dubious quality and deep deception, ignoring the common practice employed by innumerable institutions in an effort to milk that grand mine commonly known as students. (The campaign statement refers to “exploitation” being “the name of the game at Trump University.”)

The modern university student, as management policy at university seems to direct, are more akin to units of spread sheet value, fought over by respective departments and bled over in the name of self-interest.  Out of this indecent scrap was born the notion of the student as both client and consumer. Be gone, notions of the teacher and pupil as sacred participants in an encounter of knowledge.  Welcome, the service provider!

People are – and here, the tragedy of education is all too real – regularly defrauded, taken for the ride of well sold promises in the education (gnashing teeth here) sector.  Instructors are tasked with the broader issue of “goals” and “missions” that sound all too often like business projections. Managers and committees constantly speak about culture change and “improvements”. Much of this urinary activity is passed off as decent, passable work, which can be happily calculated as part of that most lauded of nonsenses: the workload.

The Clinton campaign message continues: “Trump University employed startlingly unqualified instructors.”[3]  The statement insists that “One former employee remembers being disturbed by the fact that a member of her sales team who had previously sold jewellery was promoted to be a real-estate instructor.” A better example might have been astrophysics, but even the Clinton campaigners fail to see the difference.

Trump University served one essential purpose: churning out genetic copies of its founder by selling false idols. It sold deceptions and productive lies. It was a perfect symptom of the ultimate financial disease, engendering misguided attitudes that came unstuck in the Great Financial Crisis.

Rather than seeing it as an exceptional manifestation, one can only understand that failed tertiary enterprise as a broader academic and institutional one, typical of what modern university life has become.  Forget the real estate remit, which should have been treated with a good pinch of salt from the start.  As for Trump himself, a failed businessman (or educator) in the White House would hardly be a remarkable feat.  That office has seen all sorts.

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

Notes:

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

[2] http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think

[3] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/everything-you-need-know-about-massive-scam-was-trump-university/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=20160601feed-trumpU

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump University and Selling Images

Algeria on the Edge of a “Soft Coup”

June 3rd, 2016 by Juanma Olarieta

First there were the color-named “revolutions” in the countries that emerged from the fall of the Soviet Union; then the Balkan War fractured Yugoslavia, a leader of the non-aligned countries,; then there was the so-called Arab Spring, and now might be the turn of Algeria, where presidential elections are to be held in 2019.

The destabilization of these countries was not randomly chosen: Algeria has always been a bastion for the Third Word and it’s currently defending the Damascus Government with unusual energy in the Arab World, because for the last 25 years it has been one of the first countries to suffer jihadist attacks.

Recently, it was known that General Nazzar had travelled to Paris to secretly meet with Hollande’s agents. Nazzar was one of the key promoters of the 1992 coup d’Etat, which later unleashed a brutal war against jihadism in Algeria.

Nevertheless, on September 13 last year, Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika started a military purge that specially affected the Département du Renseignement et de la Sécurité (DRS) —the Algerian intelligence services. General Toufik, who was in charge of the DRS since 1990, was deposed and, with him, left his assistants, such as General Hassan, director of counterespionage, who has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The chief of the purged agents is General Nezzar, who has come to Paris to show Hollande that he will be able to take the country’s reigns.

The coup in Algeria is evidently linked to a struggle that plays out in the highest political ranks, which is getting ready for the upcoming elections.

Once deposed, Algerian military and spies started talking and their confessions were published in the media that depends on the Broadcasting and Communications Center, which was until recently financed by General Toufik.

For example, the private news station Khabar has made public a two-hour-long interview with Colonel Mohamed Tahar Abdesselem, who was in charge of the Middle East Section of the DRS. Among the information he gave out in the interview, Colonel Abdesselem described the 1992 coup d’Etat.

That Coup took the form of an “interruption of elections”. In the first parliamentary electoral round, the islamists of the Islamic Salvation Front won and they were left with no choice: the militaries had to take over the country.

The Colonel describes that the election was staged. Actually, the coup had been prepared since 1990, when General Nezzar was appointed Minister of Defense and General Toufik was appointed director of the DRS.

Militaries were willing to accept almost every scenario, except for the electoral victory of the Islamists. The Colonel had warned this to the Islamist leader, Abassi Madani —they had both met while they were in jail. When he learned about the relationship between the Colonel and the Islamic leader, General Toufik deposed him, along with 10 other of his officials.

Evidently, in this narration, the major characters of the plan are missing: the imperialist forces, wchich never show their faces. In this case, we are referring to the French imperialists and the reason for the Coup and for the Colonel’s deposition, which was to safeguard the good relations between Algeria and France, as the Algerian TV said.

France can’t deal with the fact that things aren’t going as they planned on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea. Not in the 1992 elections, nor in the 2019 ones.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Algeria on the Edge of a “Soft Coup”

Sanders Takes LEAD Over Clinton In California

June 3rd, 2016 by Washington's Blog

The Los Angeles Times reports:

 A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll has found … [Sanders] has battled Clinton to a draw among all voters eligible for the Democratic primary, with 44% siding with him to 43% for Clinton.

***

Democratic primary election for president poll

Does this mean that it’s time for Sanders supporters to celebrate?

Not yet …

Clinton still has a 10-point lead among likely voters:

Democratic primary election for president poll

So unless the Sanders campaign steps up its get-out-the-vote effort, he’ll lose.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sanders Takes LEAD Over Clinton In California

As was reported following the assassination of prominent Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres in March, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton erased all references to the 2009 coup in Honduras in the paperback edition of her memoirs, “Hard Choices.” Her three-page account of the coup in the original hardcover edition, where she admitted to having sanctioned it, was one of several lengthy sections cut from the paperback, published in April 2015 shortly after she had launched her presidential campaign.

A short, inconspicuous statement on the copyright page is the only indication that “a limited number of sections” — amounting to roughly 96 pages — had been cut “to accommodate a shorter length for this edition.” Many of the abridgements consist of narrative and description and are largely trivial, but there are a number of sections that were deleted from the original that also deserve attention.

Colombia

Clinton’s take on Plan Colombia, a U.S. program furnishing (predominantly military) aid to Colombia to combat both the FARC and ELN rebels as well as drug cartels, and introduced under her husband’s administration in 2000, adopts a much more favourable tone in the paperback compared to the original. She begins both versions by praising the initiative as a model for Mexico — a highly controversial claim given the sharp rise in extrajudicial killings and the proliferation of paramilitary death squads in Colombia since the program was launched.

The two versions then diverge considerably. In the original, she explains that the program was expanded by Colombian President Álvaro Uribe “with strong support from the Bush Administration” and acknowledges that “new concerns began to arise about human rights abuses, violence against labor organizers, targeted assassinations, and the atrocities of right-wing paramilitary groups.” Seeming to place the blame for these atrocities on the Uribe and Bush governments, she then claims to have “made the choice to continue America’s bipartisan support for Plan Colombia” regardless during her tenure as secretary of state, albeit with an increased emphasis on “governance, education and development.”

By contrast, the paperback makes no acknowledgment of these abuses or even of the fact that the program was widely expanded in the 2000s. Instead, it simply makes the case that the Obama administration decided to build on President Clinton’s efforts to help Colombia overcome its drug-related violence and the FARC insurgency — apparently leading to “an unprecedented measure of security and prosperity” by the time of her visit to Bogotá in 2010.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Also found in the original is a paragraph where Clinton discusses her efforts to encourage other countries in the Americas to join negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement during a regional conference in El Salvador in June 2009:

So we worked hard to improve and ratify trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and encouraged Canada and the group of countries that became known as the Pacific Alliance — Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile — all open-market democracies driving toward a more prosperous future to join negotiations with Asian nations on TPP, the trans-Pacific trade agreement.

Clinton praises Latin America for its high rate of economic growth, which she revealingly claims has produced “more than 50 million new middle-class consumers eager to buy U.S. goods and services.” She also admits that the region’s inequality is “still among the worst in the world” with much of its population “locked in persistent poverty” — even while the TPP that she has advocated strongly for threatens to exacerbate the region’s underdevelopment, just as NAFTA caused the Mexican economy to stagnate.

Last October, however, she publicly reversed her stance on the TPP under pressure from fellow Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. Likewise, the entire two-page section on the conference in El Salvador where she expresses her support for the TPP is missing from the paperback.

Brazil

In her original account of her efforts to prevent Cuba from being admitted to the Organization of American States (OAS) in June 2009, Clinton singles out Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as a potential mediator who could help “broker a compromise” between the U.S. and the left-leaning governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Her assessment of Lula, removed from the paperback, is mixed:

As Brazil’s economy grew, so did Lula’s assertiveness in foreign policy. He envisioned Brazil becoming a major world power, and his actions led to both constructive cooperation and some frustrations. For example, in 2004 Lula sent troops to lead the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti, where they did an excellent job of providing order and security under difficult conditions. On the other hand, he insisted on working with Turkey to cut a side deal with Iran on its nuclear program that did not meet the international community’s requirements.

It is notable that the “difficult conditions” in Haiti that Clinton refers to was a period of perhaps the worst human rights crisis in the hemisphere at the time, following the U.S.-backed coup d’etat against democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004. Researchers estimate that some 4,000 people were killed for political reasons, and some 35,000 women and girls sexually assaulted. As various human rights investigators, journalists and other eyewitnesses noted at the time, some of the most heinous of these atrocities were carried out by Haiti’s National Police, with U.N. troops often providing support — when they were not engaging them directly. WikiLeaked State Department cables, however, reveal that the State Department saw the U.N. mission as strategically important, in part because it helped to isolate Venezuela from other countries in the region, and because it allowed the U.S. to “manage” Haiti on the cheap.

In contrast to Lula, Clinton heaps praise on Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff, who was recently suspended from office pending impeachment proceedings:

Later I would enjoy working with Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s protégée, Chief of Staff, and eventual successor as President. On January 1, 2011, I attended her inauguration on a rainy but festive day in Brasilia. Tens of thousands of people lined the streets as the country’s first woman President drove by in a 1952 Rolls-Royce. She took the oath of office and accepted the traditional green and gold Presidential sash from her mentor, Lula, pledging to continue his work on eradicating poverty and inequality. She also acknowledged the history she was making. “Today, all Brazilian women should feel proud and happy.” Dilma is a formidable leader whom I admire and like.

The paperback version deletes almost all references to Rousseff, mentioning her only once as an alleged target of NSA spying according to Edward Snowden.

The Arab Spring

By far the lengthiest deletion in Clinton’s memoirs consists of a ten-page section discussing the Arab Spring in Jordan, Libya and the Persian Gulf region — amounting to almost half of the chapter. Having detailed her administration’s response to the mass demonstrations that had started in Tunisia before spreading to Egypt, then Jordan, then Bahrain and Libya,

Clinton openly recognizes the profound contradictions at the heart of the U.S.’ relationship with its Gulf allies:

The United States had developed deep economic and strategic ties to these wealthy, conservative monarchies, even as we made no secret of our concerns about human rights abuses, especially the treatment of women and minorities, and the export of extremist ideology. Every U.S. administration wrestled with the contradictions of our policy towards the Gulf.

And it was appalling that money from the Gulf continued funding extremist madrassas and propaganda all over the world. At the same time, these governments shared many of our top security concerns.

Thanks to these shared “security concerns,” particularly those surrounding al-Qaeda and Iran, her administration strengthened diplomatic ties and sold vast amounts of military equipment to these countries:

The United States sold large amounts of military equipment to the Gulf states, and stationed the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet in Bahrain, the Combined Air and Space Operations Center in Qatar, and maintained troops in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, as well as key bases in other countries. When I became Secretary I developed personal relationships with Gulf leaders both individually and as a group through the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Clinton continues to reveal that the U.S.’ common interests with its Gulf allies extended well beyond mere security issues and in fact included the objective of regime change in Libya — which led the Obama administration into a self-inflicted dilemma as it weighed the ramifications of condemning the violent repression of protests in Bahrain with the need to build an international coalition, involving a number of Gulf states, to help remove Libyan leader Muammar Gaddhafi from power:

Our values and conscience demanded that the United States condemn the violence against civilians we were seeing in Bahrain, full stop. After all, that was the very principle at play in Libya. But if we persisted, the carefully constructed international coalition to stop Qaddafi could collapse at the eleventh hour, and we might fail to prevent a much larger abuse — a full-fledged massacre.

Instead of delving into the complexities of the U.S.’ alliances in the Middle East, the entire discussion is simply deleted, replaced by a pensive reflection on prospects for democracy in Egypt, making no reference to the Gulf region at all. Having been uncharacteristically candid in assessing the U.S.’ response to the Arab Spring, Clinton chose to ignore these obvious inconsistencies — electing instead to proclaim the Obama administration as a champion of democracy and human rights across the Arab world.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Hard Choices”: Hillary Clinton’s Memoir Deletions in Detail

The official statement from the G7 group, of leading industrialized countries, publicly exposes the entire G7 group, by basing on provable and even blatant lies, the group’s support for continuation of Barack Obama’s anti-Russia sanctions.

In its statement at the conclusion of the meeting of the G7 countries on May 27th, the G7 nations — the U.S. (who dictate to the others), plus the six others (who always do what they’re told): Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Canada, and UK — said in their joint statement (which I shall accompany here by links to relevant sources, plus comments and questions from myself, for the purpose of clarification):

We stand united in our conviction that the conflict in Ukraine can only be solved by diplomatic means and in full respect for international law, especially the legal obligation to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence [even though they don’t similarly deny the rights of Catalonians to separate from Spain, nor of Scotts to separate from UK, if that’s what the people there want]. We reiterate our condemnation of the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia [as those links show, the illegality was actually Obama’scoup in Kiev, not what either the Crimeans or Russia did] and reaffirm our policy of its non-recognition and sanctions against those involved [those being sanctions solely against Russia, for having accepted the request of 97% of Crimeans to become Russian citizens, and for protecting Crimeans from being invaded by the Ukrainian army and air force].

We are concerned by continued violence along the line of contact in violation of the ceasefire [in the far-eastern Donbass portion of Ukraine]; we urge all sides to take concrete steps that will lead to the complete ceasefire required under the Minsk agreements. We also urge all sides to fulfill their commitments without delay with a view to holding local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions [the two regions that together make up Donbass, the part of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, whom Obama overthrew in February 2014] as soon as possible in accordance with the Minsk agreements. We emphasize our strongest support for full implementation of the Minsk agreements and the work of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group. We expect Russia [but not the Ukrainian government] to live up to its commitments and use its influence over the separatists to meet their commitments in full. [This passage acknowledges that Russia has only ‘influence’ over the separatists, not control over them, and yet only Russia is being demanded here to meet its alleged ‘commitments’, which would be precisely what, if Russia doesn’t control the separatists, and if Russia exercises no ‘influence’ at all on the other side, the Ukrainian government?] We stress the OSCE’s key role in helping to deescalate the crisis, and we call upon all sides, particularly the separatists [why ‘particularly’ the separatists — is this supposed to be an unbiased neutral statement, which it clearly is not?], to provide the organization’s monitors full and unfettered access throughout the conflict zone.

We recall that the duration of sanctions is clearly linked to Russia’s complete implementation of the Minsk agreements [yet again, the G7’s statement is clearly and singularly hostile against Russia, and supportive of thecoup-imposed Ukrainian government] and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty [but what about the right of self-determination of peoples, which even the West recognizes in the cases of Scotland’s right to separate from UK, and Catalonia’s right to separate from Spain — but NOT in Donbass’s and Crimea’s right to separate from Ukraine, though Donbass had voted 90% for Yanukovych, and Crimea had voted 75% for him, and the post-coup Ukrainian regime was rabidly hostile to them and calling the residents there ‘terrorists’ for rejecting Ukraine’s coup-government as their government?]. Sanctions can be rolled back when Russia meets these commitments [what ‘commitments’, that are only by one side of the dispute — and not even by one of the two sides in the dispute, neither by the Ukrainian government, nor by the separatists?]. However, we also stand ready to take further restrictive measures [here the warmongering G7 are actually threatening to increase sanctions against Russia, though their case for even having those sanctions is based entirely upon lies] in order to increase cost on Russia should its actions so require [according to what standard, and judged by whom — them?]. We recognize the importance of maintaining dialogue with Russia [but if this assertion weren’t a lie, then would their entire statement here be so incredibly one-sided and false as it so obviously is?] in order to ensure it abides by the commitments it[yet again referring only to Russia] has made as well as international law and to reach a comprehensive, sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis.

We commend and support the steps Ukraine is taking [can anyone but a full-fledged idiot fail to recognize how biased in favor of the Ukrainian government and against the Russian government — how totally one-sided — thisstatement is?] to implement comprehensive structural, governance and economic reforms and encourage Ukraine to continue and accelerate the process. We urge Ukraine to maintain and enhance the momentum in its fight against corruption and its judicial reform, including the Prosecutor General’s office. We are fully committed to providing long-term support to this end [does that mean anything more than providing yet more taxpayer-backed loans to get the bankrupt Ukrainian government even deeper into debt and austerity than it already is and to sell off in insider-rigged ‘auctions’ virtually the entire Ukrainian government?]. We also commend the work of the Ukraine support group of G7 Ambassadors in Kyiv.

Three underlying suppositions of that statement are:

1: All of the violations of the Minsk agreements were by Russia.

2: Russia controls what the independence forces in the separatist Donbass region of the former Ukraine do, and is therefore responsible for everything that those forces do, including any Minsk-violation they might commit.

3 (a corollary of 1&2): The Ukrainian government never violates the Minsk agreements, or else must suffer no sanctions for having done so: only Russia can be blamed for any failure to comply with the Minsk agreements.

All 3 are blatantly false.

1: Many of the violations were by the Ukrainian government, and most if not all the rest were by Donbass separatist forces firing back at forces attacking from the Ukrainian government. Self-defense against attacks from the other side doesn’t violate any agreement, and it certainly isn’t a violation of the Minsk agreements. (The residents of Luhansk and Donetsk had never agreed to be sitting ducks for Ukrainian soldiers and airmen intent upon killing them.)

2: Russia doesn’t control what the separatist forces do, but does provide essential assistance to those forces — and there is a big difference between providing such assistance, and having control over those forces.

3: Here are some direct and indisputable violations of the Minsk agreements, by the Ukrainian government (totally ignored by the G7’s statement, just cited here):

Measure 4 of the agreement — which was signed on 12 February 2015 — states that,

“Without delays, but no later than 30 days from the date of signing of this document [i.e., by no later than 13 March 2015], a resolution has to be approved by the Verkhovna Rada [parliament] of Ukraine, indicating the territory which falls under the special regime in accordance with the law ‘On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,’ based in the line set up by the Minsk Memorandum as of 19 September 2014.”

It wasn’t only a required action, but also an action required to have been taken by no later than a specific date, and it was not done. Instead, on 12 March 2015, Radio Free Europe headlined “A Bipartisan Cause In Washington: Arming Ukraine Against Russia” and reported that, “consensus appears to be snowballing among Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the U.S. capital on at least one issue: arming Ukraine. One exception, however, is the figure who matters most: President Barack Obama.” No reason was given for his hesitation on this, but by this time it was clear that Ukraine would be in stark violation already of the Minsk II accord — barely a mere month after its passage. The U.S. Congress can ignore international legalities and be unconcerned about the public appearance abroad (that America doesn’t really care about international legalities), but the U.S. President needs to keep up the legalistic front so as not to embarrass too much the leaders of America’s client-states such as Germany and France (which had initiated the Minsk agreements: after all, Obama’s agent who orchestrated the coup had said at the time, “F–k the EU!”; but there’s a limit to the public humiliation that even the most cooperative of the White House’s stooges can reasonably be expected to tolerate).

The crucial March 13th date came and went, without being mentioned in Western ‘news’ media. (And please note here that the 27 May 2016 G7 statement says “We also urge all sides to fulfill their commitments without delay,” but simply ignores that Ukraine didn’t only “delay,” Ukraine still refuses to comply.) Then, four days later, at the Fort Russ website on March 17th, appeared the headline “Back to war? Ukrainian parliament rejects the Minsk agreement”, and reported that, “A month after the Minsk agreement the masks are off. New weapons are coming, American instructors are in Ukraine, the IMF credit is approved. Time to get back to killing the kids of Donbass. Where are the sanctions on Kiev?” That information was unpublishable in the West’s ‘news’ media — their ‘journalistic’ standards exclude such ‘Russian propaganda’ as this. Truth doesn’t set these standards; power does, and the G7 (and their aristocracies’ ‘news’ media) have the power.

The Minsk II agreement set up a 13-stage process; and each stage beyond stage three, every stage from #4 on through #13, is in abeyance, because the Ukrainian government refuses to implement its side of them. As a consequence of Ukraine’s refusals, the G7 group are demanding intensification of the anti-Russia sanctions, on the basis of blaming Russia for all violations of the Minsk accords. Blaming Russia for all of them is the official ‘truth’, and the ‘news’ media comply with it. (Similarly, in 2002 and 2003, the ‘news’ media, in order to assist the U.S. government to eliminate another Russian-allied leader, Saddam Hussein, had complied with the official ‘truth’ about ‘Saddam’s WMD’ — that those nuclear-weapons equipments and materials still existed, and that they threatened the West, though the IAEA actually said that they had destroyed all of Saddam’s nuclear-weapons-related capabilities and materials in 1998, and the press simply hid this crucial information from the public, and allowed George W. Bush to state without challenge, citing “the IAEA, that they were six months away from developing a weapon” — an entirely fabricated charge against Saddam. Geoffrey Perret wrote (p. 349): “After inspections resumed in November 2002, the IAEA concluded that there were no nuclear weapons and no program to build them. That was why the Niger yellowcake story had to be cooked up.” So: Iraq was invaded on 19 March 2003, on entirely fabricated ‘evidence’, which an honest press would have exposed, instead of stenographically ‘reported’. And now, we’re heading into World War III, this way.)

Another item in Minsk II that has a deadline is #11: “Constitutional reform in Ukraine, with a new constitution to come into effect by the end of 2015, the key element of which is decentralisation (taking into account peculiarities of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, agreed with representatives of these districts).” That deadline, too, came and went, and is still being ignored by the G7 and ‘the West’; and the reason it hasn’t been complied with, not even after the deadline passed, has likewise been that Ukraine refuses to comply with it (which is the reason why the West’s ‘news’ media ignore it).

The extension or even intensification of sanctions, and the NATO buildup on Russia’s borders, are steps along the road to WW III, but Western ‘news’ media have been so effective at their function (propaganda), so that their respective publics are unconcerned about the risks of nuclear annihilation resulting, and about the increasing closeness of whatever event will spark such a global nuclear war, because those publics don’t even know the most important things that are happening in their ‘democratic’ countries.

Here’s a video at Fort Russ on 1 June 2016, showing “Texas visits frontline DPR positions”. But such evidence is irrelevant to the G7 leaders (Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Abe, Cameron, Renzi, Trudeau): they’ve got an entire world to destroy, and they’re too busy doing it, to care about evidence that shows them to be all liars. (Not a single oneof them said, to the G7’s proposed statement: NO — I will not sign this!!!)

Is the path to nuclear annihilation being created by an elite of hypocritical liars and a mass of their deceived suckers? Can anything destroy this path, and so block those liars from destroying the world? Will any major news medium in the West finally separate itself from the chorus of liars and start to report the terrifying truth of these matters — while there is still time left to avert global calamity?

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on G7 Boldly Displays Its Lies Regarding Anti-Russia Economic Sanctions
First published in May 2013
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect bees from neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a lawsuit against the agency, filed by beekeepers and environmental groups. Said Paul Towers, spokesperson for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), one of the groups involved in the lawsuit:

“Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an ag system in trouble.”

Lawsuit Maintains the Link Between Neonicotinoids and Bee Die Off Is ‘Crystal Clear’

Neonicotinoid pesticides are a newer class of chemicals that are applied to seeds before planting. This allows the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows, where it is expressed in the pollen and nectar.

These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive as well as to other species, such as songbirds.

Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA allowed the neonicotinoids to remain on the market despite clear warning signs of a problem.

It also alleges the EPA acted outside of the law by allowing conditional registration of the pesticides, a measure that allows a product to enter the market despite the absence of certain data.

European Food Safety Authority Ruled Neonicotinoids ‘Unacceptable’

The EPA’s continued allowance of neonicotinoids becomes all the more irresponsible in light of recent findings by other government organizations. Earlier this year, for instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report that ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.1 The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:

  • Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development
  • Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior
  • The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides. The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:2

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” Unfortunately, neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. In the US, virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids.

Serious Risks to Bees Already Established

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees.

Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

Serious honeybee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade but no one knows exactly why the bees are disappearing.

The phenomenon, dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is thought to be caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, although agricultural practices such as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides are receiving growing attention as more research comes in. As written in the journal Nature:3

“Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level, it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging, yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated.”

This is what the Nature study set out to determine, and it was revealed that bees given access to neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:

  • Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
  • A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
  • A higher death rate among worker bees
  • An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

Why the Food Supply Could Be Dependent on Urgent Action by the EPA

The EPA acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder,4 yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.5 In the US alone, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated, major food shortages could result.

There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

Four Steps to Help Protect the Bees

If you would like to learn more about the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee, check out the documentary film Vanishing of the Bees. If you’d like to get involved, here are four actions you can take to help preserve and protect our honeybees:

  1. Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
  2. Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
  3. Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden or other natural habitat. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
  4. Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neonicotinoids and Bee Die Off: GMO Agriculture and Chemical Pesticides are Killing the Bees

Su-34s of the Russian Aerospace Forces struck an oil refinery, situated on ISIS-controlled territory near the village of Ras al-Ain, in the al-Hasakah province. The strikes caused a large fire to break out in the factory. Russian warplanes have reportedly destroyed a military camp of Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham near the village of Horsh Tal Touna in rural Idlib and ISIS’ training camp in the Al-‘Arfi District of the Deir Ezzor city.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday that the timeline of not delivering airstrikes against armed groups that have not joined the cessation of hostilities in Syria will run out this week. Then those who have not joined the ceasefire will become a legitimate target regardless of the fact if they are in a terrorist list or not.

According to Russia’s Foreign Minister, the Russian military force remaining in Syria after a partial withdrawal is sufficient to counter terrorist threats remaining in the Arab country. Earlier this month, Russia proposed to the US to conduct joint air operations against al-Nusra, ISIS and other groups ignoring ceasefire in Syria. The US has rejected the proposal.

On June 1, a large convoy of the Syrian Arab Army reinforcements arrived to the city of Aleppo. The convoy reportedly included units of the SAA’s 4th Mechanized Division, the National Defense Forces and Kataebat Al-Ba’ath. These units strengthened the government forces that concentrated in order to conduct a military operation in the ‘Anadan Plain, northwest to Aleppo City.

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: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russian War Planes Strike Islamic State (ISIS) Oil Refinery and Military Base

At his last and final White House Correspondents’ Dinner, President Obama quipped that “the end of the republic never looked better.” With Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee, and Hillary Clinton beginning to steadily lose ground to him in national polls, it is time for millions of Americans to emerge from their nearly year-long state of denial and face the reality that Trump may very well be the 45th President of the United States.

To be sure, a lot can and will happen between now and November; however, to still think that a Trump defeat is a forgone conclusion is not only overly optimistic, but plays into the hands of Trump’s presidential bid, which has from the beginning never failed to capitalize on successfully defying expectations.

The truth is that Trump’s campaign has been, sorry to say, historic. Regardless of what happens in November, his run for the White House laid bare the limitations (or even irrelevance) of Washington’s once highly esteemed class of campaign advisors; the culpability of the media in its gluttonous coverage of Trump, which gave his campaign more exposure than all the other Republican nominees put together; the disaffection of the Republican base with its leadership; and the extent to which misogyny, xenophobia, and full blown racism still remain deeply entrenched within American culture. Trump’s campaign has forced us to admit that political correctness has worked not to actually reduce, but only repress, hatred and racism.

I would like to hazard, however, a perhaps controversial claim. If Trump wins the general election, it will not be because of those factors just mentioned (though they all played a role): it will be because there is something Americans love more than competent leadership, more than safety and security, more than even making a buck – and that’s entertainment.

Trump brings a level of show biz to politics that hasn’t been seen in modern times. This is emphatically not a mere extension of ordinary political theater, which has traditionally been about presenting heads of government as dignified, self-composed, legitimate and statesmanlike. In fact, Trump’s brand of crass political showmanship represents, among other things, the destruction of political theater – the rejection even of minimal standards of decency, courtesy, and respect.

The thing about reducing politics to mass entertainment is that it turns all the rules upside down: to be presidential is to be boring; to be concerned with evidence, rational arguments, and objective reality is to be stuffy, over-intellectual, and boring; to be respectful of difference and caring towards the less fortunate is to be self-hating, soft-hearted… and did I mention boring?

This poses a distinct problem for Clinton, because the very things which are generally regarded as her strengths – knowledge, experience, a cool temperament – could, in this topsy-turvy world, be turned against her to her opponent’s advantage.

One might like to suppose that Trump must invariably get trounced in a debate against Clinton, at least if he doesn’t start seriously cracking open the books, so to speak. His recent meeting with Kissinger may suggest that he is not unaware of this and is taking due precaution. But, sad to say, this gives the American public too much credit. The more knowledgeable and versed Clinton sounds, the more it will push away countless Americans who have rallied against such educated elites, thanks to Trump. Trump has tapped into a very American strain of anti-intellectualism.

Trump discovered something – he discovered what so many Americans really want, and it isn’t rational sounding policies, well-thought-out proposals that reflect the best that America stands for; and it sure isn’t a commitment to the endless struggle for truth and justice. What they want is best summed up by H. L. Mencken when he observed that

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.”

So let us turn finally to the question we posed above: will America survive a Trump administration? Yes. This country had had awful presidents in the past, but the United States is bigger than any one chief executive, regardless of how bloated, egomaniacal and hate-mongering. The question is, can we survive the complete absorption of politics into the culture of mass entertainment? That I’m not so sure about.

Dr. Sam Ben-Meir, professor of philosophy at Eastern International College. His current research focuses on environmental and business ethics.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald Brings Show Biz to Politics: Will America Survive a Trump Administration?

Six months into 2016 and the world looks decidedly nervous and edgy from a geo-political viewpoint. A dramatic oil price plunge has pushed producing nations into near crisis as the international scrap for market share follows a bid by a collapsing OPEC cartel to fight off American production. China’s economic woes continue to destabilise markets the world over. The USA is clearly becoming more hostile, even warlike towards Russia, who in turn appears to be gearing up to defend itself from increasingly belligerent and aggressive NATO commanders who are facilitating Europe’s encirclement of Russian borders. The latest weaponry pointed directly at Moscow does not help relations. The Western occupation of Middle Eastern countries continues to inflate the refugee crisis that in turn forments a highly toxic undercurrent of nationalism that is literally tearing the European Union apart.

The catastrophic failure of western foreign policy in the Middle East looks set to encourage Islamic terrorism in Europe. In the meantime populist rebellions emerge as rising inequality in the West sees neoliberalism literally devouring itself in an orgy of profit taking with the ensuing cost to humanity and the world ecology.

After the catastrophic events of two world wars and the peace that followed, the world order is crumbling. Capitalism and social democracy are both failed models as both seemed unable to curtail their extremes. At the moment there is nothing to replace either of these ideologies and so conflict, one way or another, looks set to dominate and dictate world economic events in the years ahead.

Add to the mix unsustainable growth, climate change, species destruction along with new technologies that enlarges globalisation it seems just as inevitable that resources will be fought over not negotiated.

After World War 2, America boasted 40 percent of global economic activity. Thirty years later that world domineering number had fallen to 23 per cent and last year was just 16 per cent of world output. America’s struggle to keep up has seen it actively attempt todestabilise more than fifty countries, 38 successfully toppled over the decades in its brutal struggle for economic domination as it asserts a global hegemony without care or accountability.

The US is obviously still the worlds strongest power militarily but it has seen collaborations such as China and Russia challenge that position strategically. Russia’s willingness to engage in Syria and support Iran is testament to its new found global confidence with China watching its back whilst it flexes its muscle in the South China Sea. US military resources are stretched to its limits.

The world order based around a state of relative international peace regarded as being overseen by the US, known as “Pax Americana” has come to an end. There are currently 17 countries involved in armed conflicts where 170,000 people lost their lives last year alone. That does not include terrorist groups with a grievance lying in wait all over the world to enact their version of vengeance.

Peaceful consensus applied by American muscle and strong-arm diplomacy along with its use of economic sanctions is no longer the world order of tomorrow as new technologies provides critical infrastructure and tactical advantages to their ‘partners’ as they are grudgingly known. Allied to that is the simple fact that as American economic activity continues to decline, so does its wealth and therefore ability to fund expensive wars all over the globe.

An increasingly globalised world is diluting the single power model. For the rest of the world, managing America’s declining influence will become a serious problem. Trump and Clinton are the embodiment of that failure.

As for Europe, it has it’s own tension strings pulling in different directions. Wave after wave of refugees from war torn territories and economic migrants from third world countries arrive, all of whom were let down by the West. This is the result of a joint global effort in failed foreign policy by all concerned. The net effect is a rising tide of nationalism from both ends of the extreme which was the essence of the last European conflict.

In the meantime, the United Nations is as impotent now as the League of Nations was when it fell into oblivion and is now just a club of businessmen and lobbyists. It has totally failed in preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration. It, like NATO is dominated by American neocon extremism, causing havoc on what remains of world peace.

The West has proved beyond any doubt that it cannot afford never-ending social welfare, the same with its hegemonic activities leading to grotesque inequality.

Trans-National trade agreements are no longer seen as trade agreements but more a hydra-like corporate take-over of civil life and hard won liberties. Millions are protesting TTIP, TTP, CETA whilst unelected bureaucrats negotiate away democratic principles behind closed doors.

The rise of nationalism, particularly in Europe is the result of the latter, believing that undiluted free trade has hollowed out domestic job markets. For Europeans, they have already had to deal with lower wages from their own Eastern borders as well as dealing with cheap imports from Asia but the prospect of more job cuts delivered by their own politicians in secret talks with a foreign power and uncontrollable immigration is a step too far.

Of course extreme nationalism creates new threats to the world order. Far from a 28-nation bloc trading freely with a common goal the EU is slowly heading down the road of protectionism and rapidly closing borders enforced by its people not its politicians. A wave of anti-refugee rallies and protests has swept across Europe. PEGIDA or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West held large protests in Prague, Amsterdam, Calais, Dublin, Warsaw and Birmingham and clearly demonstrate an alarming rise of popularity.

Germany, now beset with enormous political issues emanating from the very public arrival of over one million refugees threatens to bring down Angela Merkel’s government. The EU referendum in Britain which centres around immigration threatens to break up theentire EU project and if Marine Le Pen captures France’s presidency in 2017, a wave of nationalism across Europe will seem inevitable. Poland has ditched the previous government’s idea of joining the Euro, so has Hungary. Austria very nearly had a far-right head of state in an election which saw a poll of 49.7% against 50.3% for the left-wing elected candidate – the centre ground not represented at all.

There seems to be no Plan B to replace the failing ideologies of late. Conflict is a human condition, a pre-set reset and the bleak prospect of America’s failing economic and political domination looks set to plunge the West into the abyss in a last desperate attempt to keep its empire from inevitable collapse. The failure of the European project will be a catalyst to conflict as a vacuum could well be created with the fall of power within the walls of its parliament, the dissemination of its unpopular MP’s and their equally unacceptable trade agreements.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The World Order is Crumbling – “Pax Americana” Is Dying

Russia has accused the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Reuters news agency of spreading lies about its involvement in a series of airstrikes is Syria’s northwestern Idlib province.

“We urge people to remain critical of any horror stories spread by the ‘British tandem’ of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and Reuters news agency,” said Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov on Tuesday.

Earlier, the UK-based monitoring group reported that Russia carried out air raids on the province, and Reuters said they were “the heaviest bombardment there since a cessation of hostilities was agreed in February.”

Syrian Civil Defense members search on May 31, 2016 for survivors amid the rubble following airstrikes in Syria’s northwestern province of Idlib. (AFP photos)

Syrian Civil Defense members search on May 31, 2016 for survivors amid the rubble following airstrikes in Syria’s northwestern province of Idlib. (AFP photos)

The reports claimed that at least 23 civilians, among them seven children, were killed in the strikes which targeted several areas, including a hospital.

Reuters also quoted Turkish sources as saying that 60 civilians were killed and 200 more injured.

“No combat missions, let alone delivering airstrikes, have been performed by the Russian Air Force in Idlib province,” stressed Konashenkov.

“As we presented to the world the objective monitoring data, fully disproving their previous fabrications — neither the Observatory nor the agency even tried to listen and much less publish a denial,” he noted.

The allegations of Russia’s involvement in the incidents were not confirmed by the US either. “We’re still looking into what happened in Idlib. We don’t have a great sense of complete knowledge here of who’s responsible,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby.

Members of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and Civil Defense help a wounded victim into the back of an ambulance following air strikes that targeted many areas in Syria’s northwestern city of Idlib early on May 30, 2016. 

“We’re going to continue to work closely – inside the cessation of hostilities task force – with the Russians to try to figure out what happened here, and we’ll take it from there,” Kirby added.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said airstrikes against terrorist groups that have not joined a ceasefire in Syria will recommence this week.

Last week, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that it would temporally suspend its airstrikes against terrorists in Syria following a request by several groups who are willing to join the ceasefire.

Daesh and al-Nusra Front are excluded from the “cessation of the hostilities” agreement reached in late February as an attempt for facilitating peace talks.

Russian servicemen prepare a Russian Sukhoi Su-30SM fighter jet before departure on a mission at the Russian Khmeimim military base in Latakia province, in the northwest of Syria, on December 16, 2015. 

At the time, Konashenkov said the groups have asked for time to drive out the Nusra Front terrorists by themselves.

On September 30, 2015, Russia launched an air campaign against Daesh and other terrorist groups upon a request by the Damascus government. Later in mid-March, the bulk of Russian military forces were withdrawn from Syria.

Syria has been gripped by a foreign-backed militancy since March 2011. According to a February report by the Syrian Center for Policy Research, the conflict has claimed the lives of some 470,000 people, injured 1.9 million others, and displaced nearly half of the country’s pre-war population of about 23 million within or beyond its borders.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian Observatory, Reuters Spreading Lies about Russian Airstrikes

The “Democratic” Partitioning of Syria

June 3rd, 2016 by Andrew Korybko

The War on Syria is entering into a qualitative new phase, whereby it’s becoming increasingly clear to the world that the US is no longer capable of militantly pursuing its regime change ends against President Assad. Instead, a new strategy has sprung up by which the US is trying to shape the Syrian battlespace in such a way that the circumstances are created for a post-Daesh “federalization” of the country, one which would de-facto result in its internal partitioning along identity lines and the dramatic weakening of what had half a decade ago been the most solid and stable country in the Mideast.

It would also allow for the US to skillfully divide and rule the rest of Syria through the expected exploitation of formalized identity fault lines. Key to this scenario’s actualization are the Kurds, which are being pushed front and center into playing the on-the-ground vanguard role on the US’ behalf. The author earlier wrote an extensive three-part series about the PYD’s hate-filled manifesto which describes the “federalization” of Syria as one of its defining objectives, and the reader is welcome to reference those articles for specific information about the Kurds’ self-stated motivations and vision, but the present piece moves out of the realm of theory and into an investigation of how the US and its partners could operationalize this plan in practice.

The first part speaks on the present strategic situation in Syria and the role that the Race for Raqqa will have in determining the country’s post-Daesh future. Next, the article details the political posturing that will play out after the world’s most notorious terrorist group is defeated and how Syria could thenceforth become divided into the two competing electoral blocs of “federalist” and unitary supporters in the run-up to the forthcoming elections. Finally, the last part warns about the risk of an intra-patriot split between the unitary-supporting Ba’ath Party and Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), and how the SSNP could suddenly become the most influential party in all of Syria, especially if it defected to the “federalists”.

The Twelve-Month Countdown

The nature and pace of everything that’s happening in Syria right now is directly influenced by the UNSC Res. 2254 from December 2015, which states that a new constitution and election must be held under United Nations supervision within 18 months from that time. It also says that “all Syrians, including members of the diaspora” (refugees/immigrants), must be eligible to participate as well. Looking at the timeframe agreed to in the text, it’s clear that June 2017 is the deadline for this to happen. Furthermore, the document emphasizes “the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic”, meaning that none of the signatories – including the US – is officially in favor of the country’s de-jure dissolution. This clause is obviously subject to wide interpretation, since the Kurds argue that “federalization” still retains each of these four principles, while Damascus sees a unitary (non-“federalized”) state as the only solution and officially holds the position that “federalization” “directly threatens the integrity of our country, runs counter to the Constitution, contradicts the national concepts, even is at variance with the international resolutions and decisions.”

Nevertheless, while it’s expected that moreclashes might occur between the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the YPG (the PYD’s fighting wing) in the future, the US will for the most part likely restrain its ally and force it to go along with the UNSC’s agreed-upon democratic and electoral motions in resolving the War on Syria. Part of the reason for this charade is because the US wants its post-Daesh plans to have “international legitimacy” and for no member of the global community to object to the “legal”, “democratic”, and “electoral” fracturing of Syria into a federation of identity statelets. Of course, the Kurds will fight to prevent the SAA from liberating any of their occupied territory in the run-up to the new constitution and related elections, but they wouldn’t have any ‘plausible’ reason for further expanding their conquests after Daesh’s defeat and will predictably sit still and try to formalize their gains instead. The reason that the SAA wouldn’t move forward with liberating the rest of the country during this time is because the US and Russia might enter into an agreement to strictly enforce the SAA-YPG “line of control” immediately after the Race for Raqqa is finished. Chances are that Washington would move first by declaring that it would unilaterally strike the SAA if it encroaches on the Kurds’ conquered territories, with Moscow replying that it would do the same against the YPG if they attack the SAA.

Through this manner, a very cold and fragile ‘peace’ will settle over Syria, with the threat of decisive military intervention by each of the two most important Great Powers being the only thing that keeps the SAA and YPG from attacking one another and transforming the War on Syria into an actual civil war for the first time since it started. Neither Russia nor the US wants a larger confrontation between them – let alone one of a conventional military nature – so it’s likely that they’ll work hard to make sure that the “line of control” doesn’t substantially change until after the planned elections. The two major points of tension that could erupt during the twelve-month countdown to the USNC-mandated vote and constitutional reformation deadline are in Raqqa and North Aleppo, which the Kurds had threatened to annex into their prospective “federation”.

This is bound to produce conflict with the non-Kurdish locals, which might be one of the reasons why the Kurds have been clarifying that their “federation” isn’t just for them, but is composed of “Rojava and Northern Syria”, thus extending a branch of cooperation to other non-Kurdish anti-government groups in the occupied territories. Nevertheless, there will expectedly be some people and groups within this unilaterally “federated” boundary that haven’t lost their inclusive Syrian civic/civilizational patriotism and don’t fall for the exclusive ethnic-sectarian identity classifications that the US and its allies have tried so hard to force onto the country, and it’s here where the SAA could provide “behind-the-lines” support in aiding anti-“federalization” freedom fighter movements, Expectedly, this would potentially draw the militarized ire of both the US and YPG and prompt Russia to stick up for its ally and threaten direct action against the YPG in retaliation, thus keeping Syria in the global news even after Daesh is finished.

Post-Daesh Political Positioning

Despite the very real potential that the War on Syria has for progressively descending into a civil conflict between the SAA and YPG, it’s predicted that Russia and the US will keep a strong handle on their allies to make sure that this doesn’t happen. While clashes between the two might become more frequent, the post-Daesh “line of control” between them probably won’t change much at all in the absence of an all-out campaign by one side or the other, and both combatants will instead accept the reality of the situation and work on maximizing their political positions in the run-up to the elections and constitutional reform. The nationwide trend will be that the Kurds will try to have the other anti-government organizations coalesce around a “federalization” front, while Damascus will do the opposite in rallying its allies around the cause of a united and indivisible Syria.

Pro-“Federalization”:

Concerning the Kurdish-led “federalization” movement, the PYD will attempt to strike short-term political alliances with all “moderate rebel” Salafist groups that are allowed to participate in the election, convincing them that they all have a ‘shared interest’ in further weakening Damascus’ authority over the country (especially in the peripheral northern and eastern regions) in order to deepen their own newfound power by extent. For example, the Kurds would like to have their own quasi-independent statelets in the northern part of the country, just as the Salafists would like to introduce Islamic law over the areas that they currently control and influence. Even after Daesh’s conventional defeat and the liberation of Raqqa (or its annexation by the Kurds), some of the sympathetic locals will still retain their extremist views, and no amount of fighting will cleanse them of these corrupted ideals. The mental effects of five years of warfare and unipolar-supported ideological manipulation cannot be overturned in psychologically reintegrating the proponents of exclusive ethnic-sectarian identity politics into the inclusive nature of Syrian civic/civilizational patriotism in the one short year before the elections.

Needless to say, many of these people will agitate for some sort of Salafist political representation, even if the groups that eventually emerge out of these demands can’t legally affirm their public adherence to these ‘ideals’ as a precondition for running (and not violating existing Syrian law). In their quest to acquire as much de-facto “independence” as they can in order to impose Sharia law in the areas under their control and/or influence, these Salafist supporters have a plain strategic convergence with the Kurds, who also want quasi-“independence” but for secular ethno-nationalist reasons. These two groups wouldn’t naturally have anything else in common aside from this, and they’ve even fought against each other on numerous occasions in the past, but what could keep their short-term ‘marriage of convenience’ lasting into the indefinite future would be the unique structure of ‘compartmentalized autonomy’ that the Kurds are proposing for their “federation”. The reason why they’ve been promoting that their imagined political entity a “union” of “Rojava and Northern Syria” is because they know that they can’t realistically sustain their conquests since they’re actually a minority in the very regions of “Rojava” that they claim as their own. Thus, there’s an existential political need for them to team up with other anti-government groups in broadening their unilaterally proclaimed “federation” into including the nondescript region of “Northern Syria” and granting “autonomy” (including the right to Sharia law) to every non-Kurdish identity within it.

Another factor that needs to be included in the mix when discussing the Kurds’ pro-“federalization” allies are the millions of Syrian refugees and immigrants that left the country during the course of the war, many of which have strong anti-government sympathies. UNSC Res. 2254 mandates that they all have the right to participate in the political process, though once more it isn’t clear how this can happen in practice and is again a subject of divisive interpretation. Damascus might rightly state that only document-holding Syrians can vote in the elections, and further, that only those in countries where Syria still has a diplomatic presence are functionally eligible to do so in person, which in both cases is a necessary precaution in protecting against fraud. On the other hand, the US and its EU allies might assert that all refugees and immigrants must be able to vote no matter what their document status is and regardless if Damascus has an official presence in their new host country or not, potentially proposing “mail-in” ballots as a workaround measure in return for them agreeing to “recognize” the UNSC-decreed election. Damascus probably wouldn’t agree to this, but a compromise might be made if the EU allows Syrian embassies and consulates abroad to reopen, which would be an implicit recognition of the legitimate government and a major reversal of existing policy, though potentially a pyrrhic victory.

Pro-Unitary:

On the other side of things, Damascus will mobilize its wide base of civil society supporters in order to electorally protect Syria’s unitary nature and counter the Kurds’ “federalization” scheme. The government can count on the backing that it has received from the National Progressive Front, a broad umbrella of patriotic forces, in making sure that the next government is once more led by the ruling Ba’ath Party. This political group has presided over Syria for decades and is still by far the most popular, but it needs to prepare for a post-Daesh reality in which the pro-“federal” coalition of Kurds and Salafists acquires a loyal following in some corners of the country, particularly in the north, northeast, and east. There’s also the chance that patriotic citizens might vote against the Ba’ath Party and for one of the other myriad members of the National Progressive Front as a protest against what they perceive to be (or are influenced by the unipolar forces to believe is) the ruling party’s failed pan-Arabist ideology and corruption. Both factors on their own probably wouldn’t be enough to substantially affect the Ba’ath Party’s parliamentary majority, but taken together and concurrently occurring (especially when combined with the refugee/immigrant wildcard vote), they could eventually pose a sizeable threat. It’s already been described why certain constituencies would vote for the pro-“federal” Kurdish-Salafist coalition (other than out of reactionary regional identity motivations that play into the hands of the “federalists”), so now it’s time to explain how forces from within the patriotic coalition could leave the Ba’ath Party and eventually endanger its parliamentary majority.

Out of all the groups in the National Progressive Front, the one most likely to siphon off votes from the Ba’ath Party is the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). This Lebanese-founded organization has a very rich history and works towards the formal recreation of “Greater Syria”, which they describe in detail on their websiteas including most of the Fertile Crescent, Cyprus and parts of Turkey, Egypt, and Iran. Also called “Natural Syria”, one SSNP-affiliated author wrote that the Kurdish-inhabited areas of southeastern and southern Turkey fall under its domain as well, arguing that they historically formed a part of Syrian civilization that could bereestablished via the “golden opportunity” that “federalization” presents. The unofficial thinking goes that the SSNP – and as they see it, all of Syria (both present and “Greater”) – would unequivocally benefit through “federalization” because it would produce a mechanism through which the Turkish Kurds could then leave Ankara and join Damascus, somehow assuming that their wild pro-“independence” sentiments could be tempered and that all of these complicated interlocking processes could be achieved peacefully. Of course, the US would never allow its Turkish NATO ally to be dismembered on behalf of “Greater Syria” (though it might countenance this in favor of a unipolar-aligned independent “Kurdistan”) and it’s actually Syria itself which would likely be inadvertently dismembered in a boomerang fashion through its “federal” facilitation of “Greater Kurdistan”, but nonetheless, SSNP supporters are the most likely members of the National Progressive Front to be attracted to this dangerous and reactionary idea.

Additionally, the US establishment curiously seems to be on the verge of accepting the SSNP as a legitimate party in Syria, which is extraordinarily odd because it has hitherto only held out this “right” for the “moderate rebel” terrorists that it and its regime change coalition support. The reader should draw their attention to a March 2016 article by the influential Foreign Policy magazine, which while not known for the strength of its writing or the objectiveness of its assessments, is nevertheless a very reliable barometer in gauging the prevailing attitudes of the US foreign policy establishment. In the article titled “The Eagles of the Whirlwind”, one of the magazine’s Lebanese-based partners embedded themselves within the SSNP for some time and produced a surprisingly objective and fair report. What’s so remarkable about the article is that it didn’t distort or malign the SSNP’s activities or vision, despite speaking about how the group has fought on the side of the SAA in protecting the country from the type of foreign terrorists that the US and its allies actively assist. It’s pretty unprecedented that a high-profile and establishment-linked US outlet would do something like this, and because it’s such a pattern-breaker in bucking the conventional trend of the past five years, it must be seen as a part of a calculated strategy that will be explained in the next section.

The Intra-Patriot Split

What the US wants is that the SSNP splits the patriotic vote in the upcoming elections and forces the Ba’ath Party to enter into a coalition-like arrangement with it on a more formal and equal footing than it currently has under the National Progressive Front. The US seems to have identified the SSNP as the patriotic party most likely to siphon off votes from the Ba’ath Party, hence why it has appears to be on the verge of changing its position towards the group and readily accepting it as a political actor inside the country. The US is in a delicate position where it can’t directly interfere in the SSNP-Ba’ath relationship because it would soundly be rejected, so all that it can do is given unsolicited informational assistance to the group like what it did through the Foreign Policy article. The SSNP has patriotically fought tooth and nail alongside the SAA in defending the country, and its leader, Ali Haidar, was appointed from the then-opposition to be Minister of State and National Reconciliation Affairs in a strategically shrewd move by Damascus early on in the war. As is typical for someone who used to be opposed to the government, Haidar had some choice criticisms about the authorities and even once said that “there are extremists in the regime”, but his loyalty to Syria and President Assad’s decision to appoint him in the first place shouldn’t be doubted one bit.

Same Patriotism, Different Vehicles:

What the author wants to draw attention to, and which is also what he believes that the US is interested in, is that the rank-and-file SSNP members might have a more ambitious outlook for their party in the post-Daesh reality, especially considering that some of them are literally fighting on the frontlines and dying to protect their country, but a point which also shouldn’t be forgotten is that they’re also doing this in the name of their party and its ideals, too. For whatever their personal reasons may be, they’re not doing this on behalf of the Ba’ath Party but for their own political organization, though this of course does not make them less patriotic than any Ba’ath Party member who is risking their life for the same national cause. It does, however, allow for observers to analyze the driving logic behind this discrepancy and why some people would be willing to martyr themselves for Syria under the SSNP’s name and not the Ba’ath Party’s.

From an outsider’s standpoint, a plausible explanation is that the SSNP retains its decades-long opposition tradition at heart and does not appear to believe that Syria’s future is inherently connected with the fate of President Assad. In their eyes, Syria is a multi-millennial civilization that doesn’t base its survival on any one person, no matter the present circumstances, and that it is only through a convergence of pressings interests that finds them fighting on the same side as the government in patriotic defense of their shared homeland. Contrast this with the Ba’ath Party, which, while not deifying the Assad family, holds them in the highest regard as the stewards of the Syrian state and places enormous significance on their historic contributions to its development across the globally transformative period of the past 45 years. They too understand that Syria is a multi-millennial civilization that will continue to survive in spite of its present predicaments, but they believe that President Assad is by far the best and only person to lead their country during these trying times and under these historical circumstances.

Comparatively, a few points of strategic departure can be seen between the two parties. Both of them are patriotic and sincerely love their homeland, but they have different attitudes towards President Assad and the focus of Syrian foreign policy. The SSNP isn’t “anti-Assad” but it isn’t too enthusiastically “pro-Assad” either, with their current support of the Syrian President being mostly a reaction to the external treachery against him. In times of peace, they’d qualify as part of the patriotic opposition – proud advocates of their country, but differing with the ruling establishment within a legal and acceptable framework. Part of their differences with the Ba’ath Party would obviously be over President Assad because, like any opposition party, they’d prefer to see their own leaders running the government instead of the incumbent. Another divergence that the SSNP has with the Ba’ath Party is over the scope of Syrian policy, believing that it should be “Syria-centric” and not pan-Arabist, or in a more practical sense, should be focused more on Syria proper and the functional revival of “Greater Syria” than on engagement with the wider Arab world (which they don’t necessarily identify with, in any case).

To be fair, the Ba’ath Party and President Assad are more internally focused nowadays and will likely remain so well into the future as a result of the general Arab World’s treachery against Syria, though theydon’t share the SSNP’s vision of redrawing national borders and possibly entering into war with their neighbors or “federally” fragmenting their own state in order to achieve this. In that sense, the Ba’ath Party is much more moderate and realistic in its policies than the SSNP, though during times of war and the extraordinary duress that Syria has been under for half a decade non-stop already, it’s easy to see how people could become attracted to the SSNP’s relatively “radical” and unique brand of patriotism. When the country is under attack from external threats, such apparently minute differences between the SSNP and Ba’ath Party are mostly moot, but in the post-war aftermath and amidst a transitional period of political restructuring and constitutional revisionism, they take on a heightened meaning and could offer insight into the future behavior of both parties.

From The Fringe To The Forefront:

As it stands, the SSNP is the only party that could realistically divert patriotic votes from the Ba’ath Party and weaken the popular mandate of the governing majority. The reputation that its members have for being loyal and battle-hardened protectors of Syrian statehood was earned with the blood of countless martyrs and cannot be refuted, and their political leader is symbolically the minister of State and National Reconciliation Affairs, a post of substantial national importance for the future of Syria. It’s little wonder why the SSNP feels emboldened and enthusiastic about its future electoral prospects, mostly because it’s cultivated such sincere goodwill among broad segments of the population. Being a stereotypically leftist party, it eschews identity politics and is completely inclusive, thus mirroring the Ba’ath Party and providing its discontented or disillusioned members with a familiar organization through which to voice their dissent. It’s this ease of crossover appeal which plays strongest to the SSNP’s political advantages in the forthcoming election, but another of its major assets has to do with its marketing approach. Being an opposition party with scarcely any parliamentary representation right now and no realistic way to affect national policy, its members are unrestrained in emotively pandering to the most hyper-patriotic elements of society by speaking as ambitiously as they want about creating “Greater Syria” while having zero accountability for the consequences.

The combination of a well-earned reputation, flexible crossover appeal, and hyper-patriotic messaging makes the SSNP the most viable alternative to the Ba’ath Party within the National Progressive Front and the group most likely to attract votes from the ruling party’s constituency. This wouldn’t necessarily warrant much attention under normal circumstances, but in the context of the War on Syria and the US’ “Plan B” of “federalizing” the country in lieu of overthrowing the government, it becomes perhaps the single-most important electoral variable in the next 12 months. The Ba’ath Party absolutely needs to win a convincing majority of the votes in the next election in order to withstand the pressure coming fromthe pro-“federal” coalition that’s running against it, the latter of which, to remind the reader, is forecasted to be a cosmopolitan collection of Kurds, Salafists, and refugees-immigrants (the diaspora). Even if the former electoral patterns hold true under a newly revised political system and the Ba’ath Party comes out on top again, it would still need to command a sizeable presence of support in the prospectively “federalized” areas in order to prove the argument that this unilateral initiative is not the “will of the local people” living there and is thus subject to post-election law enforcement measures spearheaded by the SAA.

But, if a surging SSNP cuts into the Ba’ath Party’s vote and diverts part of the patriotic electorate over to its side, then this could weaken the ruling party and dampen its hopes of governing without entering into some sort of more formalized bilateral coalition with the SSNP than the multilateral and broad-based National Progressive Front. Under this new domestic political reality, the Ba’ath Party would need the SSNP in order to gain a qualitative edge to its already existing electoral support (perhaps to push it above a predetermined threshold of civil support, arbitrarily estimated at 60-70% with Kurds, Salafists, and the diaspora taking part), but reversely, this would also make it inordinately dependent on the SSNP for these very same reasons and thus propel the previously minor fringe party to the national forefront as the only organization capable of influencing the ruling party under this arrangement. The reason why this is such a salient issue is because the aforementioned strategic divergences between the two groups might come to the surface and motivate the newly empowered SSNP to begin flirting with “federalism” as a means of pressuring the Ba’ath Party into agreeing to some of its more radical political ideas/”reforms”. After all, the Ba’ath Party is completely opposed to “federalism” in any iteration whatsoever, but if it becomes dependent on its junior SSNP partner as an important pillar of its post-electoral support, then the later could coyly play around with the idea in order to scare its larger coalition partner into acceding to its demands (as per the “Western Democratic” playbook of coalition politics).

The Path To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions:

The worst thing that could happen is if the SSNP was actually serious about its commitment to “federalism” and wasn’t just using it as a part of its political game in gaining an upper post-electoral hand against the Ba’ath Party. There’s no reason to doubt the party’s patriotic credentials, but it might be that they become “too patriotic” in the sense of believing – however well-intentioned they may be – that “federalization” is the “golden opportunity” to realize their dream of “Greater Syria”. Should that happen, then the SSNP would find itself in open opposition with the Ba’ath Party and by pure coincidence on the same side of the issue as the US and its Kurdish-Salafist allies. It follows that the SSNP’s position on “federalism” is thus becoming an issue of premier national security importance in Syria, and that this might be the reason why the US has started to publicly display a positive attitude towards the party. It isn’t because the US has any working relationship with it whatsoever, but that Washington wants to present this minority (patriotic) opposition group as a more pragmatic foil to the Ba’ath Party in order to stir inter-Syrian tensions and undermine President Assad’s government after the upcoming elections.

The reader should remember how the “federalization” (internal partitioning) of Syria is the US’ “Plan B”, so it has every reason to present “federalization”-friendly groups and ones which could potentially become so in the best of light, thus explaining the unprecedentedly positive coverage that Foreign Policy gave to the SSNP in late March. Interestingly, whether by coincidence or design, that story came out shortly after the Kurds unilaterally declared “federalization” (which would have obviously been known to American strategic planners well in advance), so it may have been connected in some way. Again, the SSNP does not have any relationship with the US government and is totally opposed to it, which is why Foreign Policy used one of its local Lebanese partners to reach out to the group instead of relying on an American reporter. Nevertheless, the party has yet to issue any refutation that it was misled by the journalist, so it can be inferred that it was aware that the story was being written for a popular US establishment-representing magazine. There’s nothing wrong with any patriotic Syrian group or even the government itself doing media appearances with any US publication as a means of getting the truth out about the War on Syria, and this is something which should be commended in all ways and especially celebrated whenever it’s accurately reported, so it’s extremely unlikely that the SSNP even realized that they were being used by the US in order to indirectly present the party as a US establishment-approved actor.

The US’ motivations in doing so, like it was previously explained, are to begin a rough pilot program in familiarizing the West with this group, hoping that it will naturally and on its own come to accept the idea of “federalization” and become a leading proponent of it sometime in the future (possibly even after the elections and following a policy reversal). If this happens, then it would fulfill noted Canadian professor and Global Research founder Michel Chossudovsky’s definition of an “intelligence asset”, which he describes as sometimes “not be[ing] aware that they are supported and monitored by Western intelligence” in the first place. The US sees no chance that the SSNP would ever come to full power in Syria and make good on its “Greater Syria” claims against NATO-member Turkey(which in any case wouldn’t have Russia’s support because of Moscow’s unwillingness to go to war with the US over this issue), but identifies the group as being capable of breaking ranks with the Ba’ath Party if it decides to embrace “federalism” as its preferred vehicle for presumably furthering its ideological designs on the region. This would weaken the ruling party at the precise moment when it needs all of the pro-unitary support that it can muster in deflecting the US’ latest highly sophisticated asymmetrical aggression through the “Plan B” of “federalizing” (internally partitioning) Syria as a back-up to overthrowing the government.

Concluding Thoughts

The War on Syria is on the cusp of entering a new stage, with the US and its on-the-ground Kurdish-majority allies gearing up for a campaign to retake Raqqa, if CENTCOM head General Joseph Votel’s secret (and illegal) visit to northern Syriawas any indication. The immediate post-war environment will be shaped by the “federal” and unitary forces jostling among themselves for political positioning in the run-up to the forthcoming elections and constitutional redrafting mandated by UNSC Res. 2254. Scheduled to take place before the end of June 2017, there’s a little over one year left before all the pieces fall into place and the latest chapter of the War on Syria is politically brought a close (although possibly not finished in full). The US and its allies have signaled that they do not intend to legally dismember Syria, but that they are more than willing to go through “democratic” motions in de-facto splitting it up until a collection of “federalized” identity statelets instead. Everything will come down to the upcoming elections when the “federal” and unitary supporters dramatically face off in epically determining Syria’s domestic political future for the coming years, and it’s more important than ever that the Ba’ath Party gets as much political support as it can in staving off the Kurdish-Salafist (and potentially -diaspora) pro-“federalization” coalition.

The SSNP, while currently a very close, reliable, and trusted partner of the government, is at risk of being misled into supporting “federalization” out of the perception that this is the quickest and most efficient way of realizing its dream of “Greater Syria”. Furthermore, this party’s patriotic and battle-tested reputation makes it likely to perform very well at the polls, so it’s realistically capable of splitting the patriotic vote and decreasing the Ba’ath Party’s overall share. Just like with anything in life, capabilities have to be paired with intentions in order to gain workable value. If the SSNP’s intentions change from being pro-government to supporting its own ideological self-interests and embracing “federalization” in the run-up to the elections or changing its mind to do so thereafter (no matter if it truly believes that this is in the collective national/civilizational/”Greater Syrian” interest or not), then it could suddenly become the most pivotal player in all of Syria by tilting the tide towards this initiative and irreparably weakening the Ba’ath Party’s position in pushing back against it.

It might even be for this reason that the US establishment-representing Foreign Policy magazine gave such an uncharacteristic and unprecedented stamp of approval to the SSNP a few months ago in one of its hallmark articles, potentially wanting to familiarize the Western audience with the party in anticipation of later providing it with soft unsolicited informational support if this scenario ever materializes. After all, the US has nothing at all to fear from the SSNP and its “Greater Syria” ideology, but the SSNP and the rest of Syria has everything to fear from the US manipulating this idea for its own “federalization” purposes in “democratically” partitioning Syria after the defeat of Daesh.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Democratic” Partitioning of Syria

On Thursday, touting her foreign policy record without explaining its lawlessness, Clinton delivered a 30-minute anti-Trump rant focussing on US foreign policy and US-NATO led wars,  a demagogic litany  devoid of substance, more proof of the danger humanity faces if she succeeds Obama next year. Excerpts below: 

“He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.

This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.

We cannot put the security of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America.

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.”

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – ‘a very good brain.’

He also said, ‘I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.’ You know what? I don’t believe him.

He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a ‘third-world country.’ And he’s been saying things like that for decades.

Unlike him, I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft. I wrestled with the Chinese over a climate deal in Copenhagen, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the reduction of nuclear weapons with Russia, twisted arms to bring the world together in global sanctions against Iran, and stood up for the rights of women, religious minorities and LGBT people around the world.

And I have, I have sat in the Situation Room and advised the President on some of the toughest choices he faced.

So I’m not new to this work. And I’m proud to run on my record, because I think the choice before the American people in this election is clear.

I believe in strong alliances; clarity in dealing with our rivals; and a rock-solid commitment to the values that have always made America great. And I believe with all my heart that America is an exceptional country – that we’re still, in Lincoln’s words, the last, best hope of earth. We are not a country that cowers behind walls. We lead with purpose, and we prevail.

And 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.

That is not an outcome we can live with.

As I see it, there are some important things our next President must do to secure American leadership and keep us safe and our economy growing in the years ahead. These are all areas in which Donald Trump and I profoundly disagree. And they are all critical to our future.

First, we need to be strong at home.

….

America’s network of allies is part of what makes us exceptional. And our allies deliver for us every day.

Our armed forces fight terrorists together; our diplomats work side by side. Allies provide staging areas for our military, so we can respond quickly to events on the other side of the world. And they share intelligence that helps us identify and defuse potential threats.

Take the threat posed by North Korea – perhaps the most repressive regime on the planet, run by a sadistic dictator who wants to develop long-range missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon to the United States.

And it’s the legacy of American troops who fought and died to secure those bonds, because they knew we were safer with friends and partners.

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.

That’s why it is no small thing when he talks about leaving NATO, or says he’ll stay neutral on Israel’s security.

It’s no small thing when he calls Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers. We’re lucky to have two friendly neighbors on our land borders. Why would he want to make one of them an enemy?

….

Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I’ve said many times before, our approach must be ‘distrust and verify.’ The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In particular, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. They’re our closest ally in the region, and we have a moral obligation to defend them.

But there is no question that the world and the United States, we are safer now than we were before this agreement. And we accomplished it without firing a single shot, dropping a single bomb or putting a single American soldier in harm’s way.

Donald Trump says we shouldn’t have done the deal. We should have walked away. But that would have meant no more global sanctions, and Iran resuming their nuclear program and the world blaming us. So then what? War? Telling the world, good luck, you deal with Iran?

….

Fourth, we need to be firm but wise with our rivals.

Countries like Russia and China often work against us. Beijing dumps cheap steel in our markets. That hurts American workers. Moscow has taken aggressive military action in Ukraine, right on NATO’s doorstep. Now I’ve gone toe-to-toe with Russia and China, and many other different leaders around the world. So I know we have to be able to both stand our ground when we must, and find common ground when we can.

….

Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists.

As we saw six months ago in San Bernardino, the threat is real and urgent. Over the past year, I’ve laid out my plans for defeating ISIS.

We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up our support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground. We need to keep pursuing diplomacy to end Syria’s civil war and close Iraq’s sectarian divide, because those conflicts are keeping ISIS alive. We need to lash up with our allies, and ensure our intelligence services are working hand-in-hand to dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists. We need to win the battle in cyberspace.

And of course we need to strengthen our defenses here at home.

That – in a nutshell – is my plan for defeating ISIS.

What’s Trump’s? Well he won’t say. He is literally keeping it a secret. The secret, of course, is he has no idea what he’d do to stop ISIS.

Just look at the few things he’s actually said on the subject.

He’s actually said – and I quote –’maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS.’ Oh, okay – let a terrorist group have control of a major country in the Middle East.

Then he said we should send tens of thousands of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS.

He also refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS, which would mean mass civilian casualties.

It’s clear he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. So we can’t be certain which of these things he would do. But we can be certain that he’s capable of doing any or all of them. Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge.

….

A Trump Presidency would embolden ISIS. We cannot take that risk.

This isn’t reality television – this is actual reality.

And defeating global terrorist networks and protecting the homeland takes more than empty talk and a handful of slogans. It takes a real plan, real experience and real leadership. Donald Trump lacks all three.

And one more thing. A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that.

I’ve worked side-by-side with admirals and generals, and visited our troops in theaters of war. I’ve fought for better health care for our National Guard, better services for our veterans, and more support for our Gold Star families. We cannot put the lives of our young men and women in uniform in Donald Trump’s hands.

Sixth, we need to stay true to our values.

Trump says over and over again, ‘The world is laughing at us.’ He’s been saying this for decades, he didn’t just start this year.

He bought full-page ads in newspapers across the country back in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was President, saying that America lacked a backbone and the world was – you guessed it – laughing at us. He was wrong then, and he’s wrong now – and you’ve got to wonder why somebody who fundamentally has so little confidence in America, and has felt that way for at least 30 years, wants to be our President.

The truth is, there’s not a country in the world that can rival us. It’s not just that we have the greatest military, or that our economy is larger, more durable, more entrepreneurial than any in the world. It’s also that Americans work harder, dream bigger – and we never, ever stop trying to make our country and world a better place.

So yes, we have a lot of work to do to keep our country secure. And we need to do better by American families and American workers – and we will. But don’t let anyone tell you that America isn’t great. Donald Trump’s got America all wrong. We are a big-hearted, fair-minded country.

There is no challenge we can’t meet, no goal we can’t achieve when we each do our part and come together as one nation.

Every lesson from our history teaches us that we are stronger together. We remember that every Memorial Day.

This election is a choice between two very different visions of America.

One that’s angry, afraid, and based on the idea that America is fundamentally weak and in decline.

The other is hopeful, generous, and confident in the knowledge that America is great – just like we always have been.

Let’s resolve that we can be greater still. That is what I believe in my heart.

I went to 112 countries as your Secretary of State. And I never lost my sense of pride at seeing our blue-and-white plane lit up on some far-off runway, with ‘The United States of America’ emblazoned on the side. That plane – those words – our country represents something special, not just to us, to the world. It represents freedom and hope and opportunity.

I love this country and I know you do too. It’s been an honor and a privilege to serve America and I’m going to do everything I can to protect our nation, and make sure we don’t lose sight of how strong we really are.

Thank you all very much.

“I’m proud to run on my record,” she said. As first lady, US senator and secretary of state, she was and continues to be militantly pro-war.

In 1999, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade, a flagrant violation of international and constitutional law.

She lied about Slobodan Milosevic, saying “(y)ou cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”

The late Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia “barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power, using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.”

Lawless aggression became humanitarian intervention. An avenue to Eurasia was opened. A permanent US military presence was established. US imperialism claimed another trophy. Clinton’s public record shows the danger of her serving in high office.

She’s indifferent to human suffering, a monument to wrong over right, ideologically opposite what deserves popular support. Her public persona conceals her extremist views.

As first lady in the 1990s, she called Black youths “super predators (with) no conscience, no empathy.”

She urged the FBI to make “a very concerted effort (to) bring them to heel.” She supported “deporter-in-chief” Obama’s anti-immigrant agenda – deporting undocumented Latinos in record numbers, separating husbands from wives, parents from children.

She advocated racist get tough on crime laws, more police, more prisons, harsher sentences – an agenda directed at Blacks and Latinos “to keep them off the streets…for as long as it takes.”

She supports unrestricted nuclear cooperation with Israel and other US allies, flagrantly violating NPT provisions – endorsing the use of these super-weapons she calls peacekeeping deterrents.

As US senator and presidential candidate twice, she was and remains one of the largest recipients of campaign contributions from Wall Street and war-profiteers.

In the run-up to Bush’s 2003 Iraq war, she lied, saying “intelligence (sic) reports show that Saddam Hussein rebuilt his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”

“He has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…It is clear that if left unchecked, (he’ll) continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

At AIPAC’s 2008 convention, she said “(t)he United States stands with Israel now and forever,” claiming “our two nations are fighting a shared threat,” an invented one, she failed to explain.

Then and now, she backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel – as a 2008 presidential aspirant, saying I “want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran.”

“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

She supports preemptive, unilateral use of nuclear weapons, including against non-nuclear states.

She orchestrated the ouster of democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, fascist tyranny replacing him.

In 2010, her attempt to remove Ecuador’s Rafael Correa failed. In 2012, her dirty hands were involved in ousting Paraguay’s democratically elected President Fernando Lugo – what he called “a parliamentary coup against the will of the people.”

She orchestrated US-led NATO aggression on Libya, destroying Africa’s most developed country, transforming it into a failed state – an endless cauldron of violence, chaos and human misery.

She notoriously celebrated Gaddafi’s sodomized murder, infamously saying “(w)e came. We saw. He died” – the rant of a lunatic eager to kill again.

She conspired with Obama and other administration neocons to wage preemptive war on Syria, raging in its sixth year, responsible for the murder of around half a million, mostly civilians, and internally or externally displacing half the population.

In her Thursday address, she called America “an exceptional country.” Its sordid history shows otherwise.

Her anti-Trump rant ignored her longstanding criminal record, including using the Clinton Foundation as a suspected criminal enterprise, masquerading as an NGO charity, vulnerable to racketeering charges.

Calling Trump “not just unprepared (but) temperamentally unfit” to hold high office ignores the danger of her finger on the nuclear trigger, the threat of WW III with her as president.

Trump fired back, twittering “(c)rooked Hillary no longer has credibility – too much failure in office. People will not allow another four years of incompetence” – adding her performance was “terrible…pathetic.”

Anyone rising to presidential material in America isn’t fit for any public office. The prospect of Clinton or Trump succeeding Obama should scare everyone.

Neocons infesting Washington exert enormous influence. Four more years of endless wars are certain. Humanity’s fate hangs in the balance

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].  His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Clinton’s Anti-Trump Rant Ignores Her Own High Crimes

The U.S. claim that it is waging a global “war on terror” is the biggest lie of the 21st century, a mega-fiction on the same historical scale of evil as Hitler’s claim that he was defending Germany from an assault by world Jewry, or that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was a Christianizing mission. In reality, the U.S. is the birth mother and chief nurturer of the global jihadist network – a truth recognized by most of the world’s people, including the 82 percent of Syrians that believe “the U.S. created the Islamic State.” (Even 62 percent of Syrians in Islamic State-controlled regions believe this to be true.)

Only “exceptionalism”-addled Americans and colonial-minded Europeans give Washington’s insane cover story the slightest credibility. However, it is dangerous in the extreme for any country to state the fact clearly: that it is the United States that has inflicted Islamic jihadist terror on the world. Once the charade has been abandoned; once there is no longer the international pretense that Washington is not the Mother Of All Terror, what kind of dialogue is possible with the crazed and desperate perpetrator? What do you do with a superpower criminal, once you have accused him of such unspeakable evil?

President Vladimir Putin came closest last November, after Russia unleashed a devastating bombing and missile campaign against the Islamic State’s industrial scale infrastructure in Syria – facilities and transportation systems that the U.S. had left virtually untouched since Obama’s phony declaration of war against ISIS in September of 2014. The Islamic State had operated a gigantic oil sales and delivery enterprise with impunity, right under the eyes of American bombers. “I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products,” said Putin. “The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon.” Russian bombers destroyed hundreds of the oil tankers within a week, and cruise missiles launched from Russian ships on the Caspian Sea knocked out vital ISIS command-and-control sites.

Putin’s derision of U.S. military actions against ISIS shamed and embarrassed Barack Obama before the world – an affront that only a fellow nuclear superpower would dare. Yet, even the Russian president chose his words carefully, understanding that deployment of jihadists has become central to U.S. imperial policy, and cannot be directly confronted without risks that could be fatal to the planet. Simply put, Washington has no substitute for the jihadists, who have been a tool of U.S. policy since the last days of President Jimmy Carter’s administration.

That’s why, in August of 2014, President Obama admitted “We don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with ISIS. It had been thirteen years since 9/11, but none of the U.S./Saudi-sponsored jihadists had ever “gone off the reservation,” spitting on the hands that fed them, attacking the al-Qaida fighters (al-Nusra) that are the real force behind so-called “moderate” anti-Assad “rebels,” and threatening to overthrow the Saudi and other Persian Gulf monarchies. Obama had no strategy to combat ISIS, because the U.S. had no strategy to fight jihadists of any brand in Syria, since all the other terrorists worked for the U.S. and its allies.

Obama is still not waging a “war” against the Islamic State – certainly not on a superpower scale, and not nearly as vigorously as did the far smaller Russian forces before their partial withdrawal in March of this year. The New York Times last week published an article that was half apology, half critical of the U.S. air campaign in ISIS territory. The Americans blamed their lackadaisical air campaign on “poor intelligence,” “clumsy targeting,” “inexperienced planners,” “staffing shortages,” “internal rivalries” and – this from a nation that has caused the deaths of 20 to 30 million people since World War Two – “fear of causing civilian casualties.” However, the Pentagon now claims to have hit its stride, and is concentrating on blowing up the Islamic State’s money, targeting cash storage sites, resulting in reductions in salaries of about 50 percent for ISIS troops. The U.S. military says it has destroyed about 400 ISIS oil tankers. (The Russians claim to have destroyed a total of 2,000.)

As a counterpoint, the Times quoted David A. Deptula, a retired three-star Air Force general who planned air campaigns in Afghanistan in 2001 and in the Persian Gulf in 1991. He called the current U.S. air campaign against the Islamic State “symbolic” and “anemic when considered relative to previous operations.”

The U.S. has averaged 14.5 air strikes a day in the combined Syrian and Iraqi theaters of war, with a peak of 17 a day in April. That’s far lower than NATO’s 50 strikes a day against Libya in 2011, 85 strikes a day against Afghanistan in 2001, and 800 a day in Iraq in 2003. It’s way below Russia’s 55 Syrian strikes a day – 9,000 total strikes over a five and a half month period – by an air force a fraction of the size of the 750 U.S. aircraft stationed in the region (not counting planes on aircraft carriers, or cruise missiles).

The numbers tell the tale: the U.S. is not carrying on a serious “war” against ISIS troop formations, which remain aggressive, mobile and effective in Syria. The Pentagon’s claim that fear of inflicting civilian casualties should be dismissed outright, coming from an agency that has killed between 1.3 million and 2 million people since 9/11, according to a 2015 study by Physicians for Social Responsibility.

American excuses concerning “poor intelligence,” “clumsy targeting,” “inexperienced planners,” “staffing shortages,” and “internal rivalries” might even contain some kernels of truth, since one would expect gaps in gathering intelligence and targeting information on jihadists that were considered U.S. assets, not enemies. And, there is no question that “internal rivalries” do abound in the U.S. war machine, with CIA-sponsored jihadists attacking Pentagon-sponsored jihadists in Syria – the point being, the U.S. backs a wide range of jihadists that have conflicts with one another.

The U.S. plays up the killing of Islamic State “leaders” and the blowing up of money caches. This is consistent with what appears to be the general aim of the Obama administration’s jihadist policy, now deeply in crisis: to preserve the Islamic State as a fighting force for deployment under another brand name, under new top leadership. The Islamic State went “rogue,” by the Americans’ definition, when it began pursuing its own mission, two years ago. Even so, the U.S. mainly targeted top ISIS leaders for elimination, allowing the main body of fighters, estimated at around 30,000, to not only remain intact, but to be constantly resupplied and to carry on a vast oil business, mainly with NATO ally Turkey. (The U.S. has also been quite publicly protecting the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria, al-Nusra, from Russian bombing, despite U.S. co-sponsorship of a UN resolution calling for international war against al-Nusra.)

To a military man like retired general Deptula, this looks like a “symbolic” and “anemic” campaign. It’s actually a desperate effort to balance U.S. interests in preserving ISIS as a American military asset, while also maintaining the Mother Of All Lies, that the U.S. is engaged in a global war on terror, rather than acting as the headquarters of terror in world. To maintain that tattered fiction, at least in the bubble of the home country, requires the maintenance of a massive and constant psychological operations apparatus. It’s called the corporate news media.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on There is No U.S. War Against ISIS; Instead, Obama is Protecting His “Assets”
The Bank of America, Credit Agricole SA, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, and Nomura Holdings were named as defendants.

Five major banks and four traders were sued on Wednesday in a private U.S. lawsuit claiming they conspired to rig prices worldwide in a more than US$9 trillion market for bonds issued by government-linked organizations and agencies.

Bank of America Corp , Credit Agricole SA , Credit Suisse Group AG , Deutsche Bank AG and Nomura Holdings Inc were accused of secretly agreeing to widen the “bid-ask” spreads they quoted customers of supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds.

The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court by the Boston Retirement System said the collusion dates to at least 2005, was conducted through chatrooms and instant messaging, and caused investors to overpay for bonds they bought or accept low prices for bonds they sold.

“Only through collusion could a dealer quote a wider spread than market conditions otherwise dictate without losing market share and profits,” the complaint said. “Defendants reaped millions of dollar(s) in profits at the expense of plaintiff and members of the class as result of their misconduct.”

The Bank of America building is shown in Los Angeles, California Oct. 29, 2014. | Photo: Reuters

The proposed class-action lawsuit seeks triple damages, and follows probes by U.S. and European Union antitrust regulators into possible SSA bond price rigging.

Those probes are also examining the London-based defendant traders Hiren Gudka of Bank of America, Bhardeep Singh Heer of Nomura, Amandeep Singh Manku of Credit Agricole and Shailen Pau of Credit Suisse, Thomson Reuters’ IFR service reported in January.

Bank of America, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Nomura declined to comment on behalf of themselves and the traders who have worked for them. Credit Agricole did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit is one of many in the Manhattan federal court seeking to hold banks liable for alleged price-fixing in bond, commodity, currency, derivatives, interest rate and other financial markets.

One such lawsuit, concerning competition in the credit default swaps market, led last September to a $1.86 billion settlement with a dozen banks.

SSA bonds are sold in various currencies by issuers such as regional development banks, infrastructure borrowers including highway and bridge authorities, and social security funds.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Five Major Banks Rigged Nine Trillion Dollar Bond Market: Lawsuit

US Preparing for War on Russia and China?

June 3rd, 2016 by Stephen Lendman

Russian and Chinese sovereign independence are the main obstacles to unchallenged US global dominance.

America’s provocative military buildup close to their borders risks a likely inevitable confrontation – how serious the fullness of time will tell.

The risk of possible nuclear war should give world leaders serious concern about allying with America’s potentially catastrophic imperial agenda.

China may declare an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea to counter increasing US military provocations. Foreign aircraft and vessels could be interdicted for entering without authorization.

America and Japan refused to recognize Beijing’s East China Sea ADIZ, declared in 2013. It includes waters and territory claimed by other countries.

According to the Washington-based US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, “(a) Chinese ADIZ in the South China Sea could lead to tense mid-air encounters between US and Chinese aircraft”- the commission irresponsibly blaming Beijing for increasingly hostile US actions.

In February, US Pacific Command head Admiral Harry Harris criticized what he called “destabilizing and provocative” Beijing actions, saying America will ignore a South China Sea ADIZ if declared.

The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations states: “US military aircraft not intending to enter national airspace should not identify themselves or otherwise comply with ADIZ procedures established by other nations, unless the United States has specifically agreed to do so.”

Last week, US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned China about what he called building “a great wall of self-isolation,” claiming regional US allies “are voicing concerns publicly and privately at the highest levels, regional meetings and global forums.”

America seeks a different Asia/Pacific future, one it intends to dominate, he didn’t explain, claiming it’s committed to upholding freedom of navigation and commerce – by enforcing Washington rules, he left unsaid.

On June 1, China’s ambassador to America Cui Tiankai asserted his country’s right to defend its territorial claims and maritime rights.

He accused Washington of escalating regional tensions, abusing the freedom of navigation principle, warning America’s imperial agenda “risk(s) the very militarization we all wish to avoid.”

On Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Carter’s hostile remarks “laid bare the stereotypical US thinking and hegemony,” maintaining a Cold War era mindset.

Beijing “has no fear of and will counter any actions that threaten and undermine (its) sovereignty and security,” she stressed, accusing Washington of increasing Asia/Pacific militarism, a plot to undermine her nation’s sovereign independence.

US hegemonic aims threaten Russia the same way. Increasingly encroaching on its land and sea borders risks an eventual confrontation.

Possible nuclear war should focus global leaders on prioritizing ways to prevent it, starting with rejecting America’s imperial agenda – the greatest threat to world peace.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Preparing for War on Russia and China?

With the US primary campaigns drawing to a close, the two parties of the US ruling elite, Democrats and Republicans, are preparing to nominate candidates who may be subject to criminal indictment between now and the general election.

The Republicans have as their presumptive nominee Donald Trump, a man who made his billions through various scams and insider dealings. US newspapers have been filled this week with details of the fraudulent methods he employed to enhance his fortune. Court documents in the lawsuit joined by numerous former students at Trump University allege that the supposed training in real estate provided by the school was a fiction.

It was a fraud on two levels. At an enormous price, up to $35,000 for the “Gold Elite” program, students were told little more than “buy low” and “sell high.” As many as 5,000 students paid a total of $40 million for the worthless instructions, most of which could be obtained, according to press accounts, through a simple Internet search.

As for the claim that Trump would be personally involved in sharing his supposed real estate expertise, with instructors who “are handpicked by me,” the documents show that Trump played no role in the “education” program except allowing his name and face to be used to promote the venture, and then cashing the checks—his cut of loot was at least $5 million.

New York state attorney general Eric Schneiderman, appearing on two television interview programs Thursday morning, said, “We have laws against running an illegal, unlicensed university. This never was a university. The fraud started with the name of the organization.” He added, “It was really a fraud from beginning to end.”

While Trump U. accounts for only a small fraction of the real estate mogul’s personal wealth, the methods used were representative of his “business model” as a whole, and for that matter, of his presidential campaign, which has been focused largely on appealing to increasingly desperate sections of workers and the lower middle class, offering Trump’s billionaire persona as the solution to deepening economic afflictions.

There is something extraordinary in the fact that one of the principal parties of the ruling class is preparing to choose an individual like Trump as its presidential candidate. Despite the initial hypocritical criticisms of his vulgar and racist pronouncements, nearly all Republican Party leaders have now reconciled themselves with Trump, culminating in Thursday’s statement by House Speaker Paul Ryan that he will support his candidacy.

This can only explained in relation to broader social tendencies that have produced an immense degradation of American politics. Trump personifies the descent of corporate America into every more brazen methods of speculation, swindling and outright theft, which culminated in the economic crash of 2008. Over the past 40 years, the operations of the American ruling class have taken on an ever more parasitic character, with a mass of financial operations covering over a long-term industrial decline.

On the Democratic Party side, Hillary Clinton is currently under investigation for conducting all her government communications while Secretary of State on a private email server, an arrangement clearly intended to keep her correspondence under her control, regardless of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Later this summer she is expected to be interviewed by the FBI, which could lead to criminal charges over the mishandling of classified materials or perjury.

Clinton represents a more polished version of the same social processes that have created Trump. Bill and Hillary Clinton have accumulated a personal fortune topping $150 million by serving as speechmakers to corporate audiences, backed by their “fundraising” work at the Clinton Foundation, which connects corporate donors and charitable organizations in return for lucrative fees.

The foundation has become the center of a web of international influence-peddling that keeps the Clintons in front of their real constituency, the world’s billionaires, making them fabulously wealthy in the process.

Clinton is also more directly associated with the crimes of the state and the military-intelligence apparatus. The criminalization of the American financial aristocracy has found its reflection in foreign policy—in the casting aside of all legality and the adoption of torture, assassination and “preemptive war” as principal means for asserting the interests of the ruling class abroad.

It is significant that as the viability of her candidacy is being called into question as a result of the continued successes of her rival, Bernie Sanders, Clinton decided to focus a major speech in San Diego California on a critique of Trump’s foreign policy views. Clinton made her pitch to the military, based on the argument that she, and not Trump (or Sanders, or some other candidate) would be the most effective “commander-in-chief” of US imperialism.

Clinton focused her speech on the decision by President Obama and his top military and foreign policy advisers, including Clinton herself, to authorize the Navy Seal Team 6 raid that killed Osama bin Laden. She made no reference to the foreign policy debacle with which she is most closely identified, the US-NATO bombing of Libya, although it “accomplished” the same end. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was murdered in his home town of Sirte by US-backed rebels, an event that Clinton celebrated at the time with the infamous wisecrack, “We came, we saw, he died,” touching off gales of laughter among her claque of traveling aides.

Trump and Clinton are both products of the same process: the criminalization of the American ruling elite, as the methods of the mafia have come to predominate in both the operations of Wall Street and the practice of imperialist “statecraft.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US Elections and the Criminalization of American Politics

Economic Conflicts Threaten Global Trade War

June 3rd, 2016 by Nick Beams

The ongoing stagnation in the global economy, marked by falling investment and the emergence of overproduction in key basic industries, is fuelling the rise of trade war protectionist measures by the major powers, above all the United States.

Last week, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) launched an investigation into Chinese steel mills which have been accused by the United States Steel Corp of stealing secrets and conspiring to fix prices.

Chinese industrial overcapacity, especially in steel, will be on the agenda of the “strategic and economic” dialogue to be held between the US and China in Beijing next week. The US treasury undersecretary for international affairs, Nathan Sheets, recently called for China to allow its industries to “better reflect capacity and global demand conditions.” In other words, China should cut back production.

Overproduction in the Chinese steel industry has been blamed for an increase in cheap exports and the loss of jobs and plant closures in both Europe and the US.

Recent tariffs on imports of steel have boosted American prices, but authorities are looking for further measures. Industrial overcapacity was important “for the global economy and we hope to make some progress on it” in Beijing, Sheets told a meeting at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

The issue is fraught, however, with contradictions because many industrial companies in the US are dependent on cheap steel imports for their business models. Stuart Barnett, the head of the Chicago-based Barsteel Corp which supplies a range of manufacturers said the government had done a “pretty good job” of keeping out the cheapest steel imports. “But now the greatest fear we have is that China keeps cheap steel for itself and makes products that undercut other industries,” he said.

In other words, suppression of the increasingly ferocious struggle for markets and profits in one area of the industrial economy will see it resurface in another.

Pressure from the US for China to cut back production and exports were met with a sharp response from the Chinese government.

Speaking at a briefing in Beijing on Thursday, Zhu Guangyao, China’s vice-finance minister, said: “Trade disputes between China and the US should be addressed in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) principles. We are opposed to abusive trade remedy measures.”

There was an even stronger reaction from China’s Hebei Iron and Steel Group, the country’s largest steel producer. In a statement posted on its website on Thursday, it denounced the investigation by the US ITC.

“The protectionist behaviour taken by the US on purely groundless accusations by US Steel has seriously broken WTO rules, distorted the normal world steel trade and damaged the essential interests of Chinese steel mills and US steel users,” it said.

US Steel filed the complaint a month ago, claiming it was the victim of a Chinese computer hacking incident in 2011. The ITC has now taken up the case, identifying 40 Chinese steelmakers and distributors as being the subject of investigation.

Baosteel, China’s second-largest steelmaker, the world’s fourth-largest and a target for the ITC probe, said the US was in breach of WTO rules and urged the Chinese government to take all necessary measures to ensure the country’s steel industry received fair treatment.

The ITC case has raised concerns it could be the start of far broader measures, possibly including a wholesale ban on Chinese steel imports, according to Simon Evenett, a professor of international trade at University of St Gallen in Switzerland, who is engaged in monitoring protectionist measures.

“The big thing is really the potential scale of this case versus the pinpricks that we have seen unleashed over the past nine months,” he told the Financial Times. “This should be setting off alarms bells. It is really a nuclear option.”

The conflicts go beyond steel and extend to the entire functioning of the WTO, the international body in charge of regulating the global trading system. They are being fuelled by an aggressive push by the United States on two fronts.

Last week, the US told other WTO members it was vetoing the reappointment of Seung Wha Chang, a respected South Korean expert on international trade law, to a second term on the organisation’s appellate body which adjudicates on international trade disputes. Reappointment for a second term has been standard procedure in the past.

Washington cited several decisions that have gone against the US as a pattern of what it called “overreaching” and arriving at “abstract” decisions.

“The appellate body is not an academic body that may pursue issue simply because they are of interest to them or may be to certain members in the abstract,” the US declared. “It is not the role of the appellate body to engage in abstract discussions.”

Other members of the WTO, including Brazil, Japan and the EU say the US veto risks undermining the independence of the appellate body and the entire system. The EU said the US actions are unprecedented and pose “a very serious risk to the independence and impartiality of current and future appellate body members.”

The US move prompted a highly critical editorial in Wednesday’s edition of the Financial Times. The newspaper noted that in the wake of the collapse of the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations last year—largely as a result of the US decision to walk away from further discussions—the last thing the WTO needed was another blow to its authority. With the end of the WTO’s role in negotiating global trade deals, its only real remaining function was to adjudicate between governments over existing trade rules and order “miscreants to bring policies into compliance.”

“The fact that the US is now trying to subvert it by removing a judge who happens to disagree with the American viewpoint is seriously disturbing,” it said.

The episode, it continued, also vindicated, at least in this instance, “those critics of the US who say Washington favours global cooperation only insofar as it controls the international institutions that run it. This is a serious charge to which the US remains exposed.”

The issue of the appellate body is linked to another brewing conflict within the WTO. Following its ascension to WTO membership in 2001, China is this year seeking to be accorded “market economy status,” which would make it more difficult to prosecute Chinese companies for alleged dumping, i.e. selling goods at artificially low prices.

The US is reported to have been lobbying hard for the upgraded status not to be granted, against opposition from at least some European powers, as well as Britain. The British government has portrayed itself as China’s “best friend” in the West, as financial interests in the City of London seek to profit from expanded Chinese investment and financial activity. Britain has said that if China is accorded full market status, dumping charges could still be dealt with under WTO rules. But this does not appear to have had any impact on the push by the US to prevent its status being raised.

Under conditions of global overcapacity, persistently suppressed demand, and warnings of a productivity slowdown in major developed economies, global conflicts over trade are deepening, and, together with the endless promotion of economic nationalism, threaten a global trade war similar to that which emerged in the 1930s. In that period, the growth of protectionism served as the antechamber to world war.

Today, the growth of economic nationalism under conditions of another persistent world slump is likewise fuelling conflicts that threaten to erupt into another global conflagration.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Economic Conflicts Threaten Global Trade War

Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary Clinton if she stumbles again in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal, reports Robert Parry.

For months now, poll after poll have registered the judgment of the American people that they want neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump as the next President, but the two major parties seem unable to steer away from this looming pileup, forcing voters to choose between two widely disdained politicians.

The Republicans are locked in after Trump’s hostile takeover of the party’s selection process, but the Democrats have one final chance to steer clear, on June 7 when they hold several primaries and caucuses including New Jersey and California. If Bernie Sanders can upset Clinton in California – and/or if Clinton’s legal problems over her emails worsen – there remains a long-shot chance that the Democratic convention might nominate someone else.

As far-fetched as this might seem, some senior Democrats, including reportedly White House officials, are giving serious thought to how the party can grab the wheel at the last moment and avoid the collision of two historically unpopular political figures, a smash-up where Trump might be the one walking away, damaged but victorious.

Two Washington insiders – Democratic pollster and political adviser Douglas E. Schoen and famed Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein – have described panicky meetings of top Democrats worried over Clinton’s troubled campaign, with Schoen also describing private talks about possible last-minute alternatives.

I’ve heard similar tales of hushed discussions – with the fill-in options including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry or Sen. Sanders – but I still believe these fretful leaders are frozen by indecision and don’t have the nerve to pull Hillary Clinton’s hands off the steering wheel even to avoid disaster.

But at least I’m not alone hearing these frightened whispers. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Schoen, who served as a political aide to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, wrote: “There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president. …

“The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen. …. A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election.

“Democratic superdelegates — chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44 — would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy. …

“Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

“With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

“Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility.”

Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable.

Looking for a Fill-in

Schoen continued: “There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden — who has said that he regrets ‘every day’ his decision not to run — enters the race.

“Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing. …

“All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton — whether by dint of legal or political circumstances — is not the Democratic presidential nominee.”

In a CNN interview after last week’s scathing State Department Inspector General’s report on Clinton’s use of her home email server, Carl Bernstein said he was hearing similar speculation:

“I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall because of this distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she’s the one whose numbers are going south.

“And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination – which they’re no longer 100 percent sure of – and get President Obama out there to help her, he’s got a lot of credibility… But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble.”

On Tuesday, Clinton received a boost when California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed her – reflecting the Democratic establishment’s view that it is safer to leave Clinton at the wheel than try to wrestle it away and face the wrath of Clinton’s female supporters who insist that it’s “her turn” after she lost a hard-fought race to Barack Obama in 2008.

Trump also administered another self-inflicted wound with a bitterly defensive press conference about his fund-raising for veteran groups, and he suffered more bruises with the release of court evidence about high-pressure sales tactics used by the now-defunct Trump University.

Trump’s black Tuesday reminded Democrats why they were so hopeful that Trump might first blow up the Republican Party and then blow up his own campaign, letting Clinton win essentially by default. But the fragility of Clinton’s own position was exposed by last week’s IG report, which reinforced public perceptions that she is imperious, entitled and dishonest.

Voter Uprising

Ironically, the two parties reached this collision point from opposite directions. The Republican Party’s establishment wanted almost anyone but Trump but the party’s favored candidates fell victim to the reality TV star’s skill at exploiting their weaknesses – almost as if he were playing a high-stakes reality TV show.

In contrast, the Democratic Party’s leadership tried to arrange a coronation for Hillary Clinton by discouraging other candidates from challenging the powerful Clinton machine, arguing that a virtually uncontested nomination would save money and limit the exposure of Clinton’s political weaknesses.

But the unlikely candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent although he caucuses with the Senate Democrats, revealed both a powerful hunger for change within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s political vulnerabilities amid a season of voter discontent.

Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.

But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair, especially if more harm is inflicted by the FBI’s findings about her sloppy handling of government secrets. The Democrats see themselves stuck with a status-quo, legacy candidate at a moment when the public is disgusted with government dysfunction and demanding change.

Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.

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 hereor as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Waiting for California and the FBI’s Criminal Investigation on Hillary Clinton, Looking for a “Fill-In Candidate”?

In his recent piece for The Times newspaper in the UK, Viscount Matt Ridley argues that a new report from the American National Academies of Sciences (NAS) leaves no room for doubt that genetically engineered crops are as safe or safer, and are certainly better for the environment, than conventionally bred crops.

Ridley adheres to the belief that GM technology reduces insecticide use and speculates that future GM crops will be even safer, better for the environment and better for human health. He says that it is a disgrace that Greenpeace still campaigns against Golden Rice, a vitamin-enhanced variety that its backers claim could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

According to Ridley, opposition from rich westerners adds to the cost of bringing such crops to the market, which he argues restricts the spread of GM technology.

In discussing the labelling of GM food in the US, Ridley argues this leaves consumers with the impression that there is something wrong. He argues that the recent NAS report makes the point that genetic engineering is a method, not a category of crop, and it makes no sense to single it out for special labelling because regulation should be based on traits, not techniques. Ridley implies, therefore, that GM is no different from food that is boiled or roasted as its actual content remains unaffected.

Ridley finishes by saying the NAS report points out that “emerging genetic technologies have blurred the distinction between genetic engineering and conventional plant breeding to the point where regulatory systems based on process are technically difficult to defend.”

With a good dose of industry-inspired PR flurry, he concludes that because gene editing in particular will soon allow scientists to improve crops in ways that have none of the even theoretical risks that critics highlight, if Europe does not embrace biotech plants now, its agriculture will wilt.

Unfortunately, for readers of The Times, Ridley’s piece is the usual concoction of misrepresentations, falsehoods and blunders we have come to expect of pro-GMO puff pieces that rely on flawed sources and reports.

His major blunder is to have accepted at face value the NAS report.

Ridley basing his piece on a flawed NAS report

The NAS is compromised by the serious conflicts of interest within the NAS and its research arm, the National Research Council (NRC). Even studies relied upon by the NAS to show GMO safety are authored by people with conflicts of interest.

Indeed, the new report by Food & Water Watch “Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs” highlights the millions of dollars in donations received by the NAS and NRC from biotech companies.

On its website, GMWatch discusses the Food & Water Watch report, which documents the one-sided panels of scientists the NRC enlists to carry out its GMO studies and describes the revolving door of its staff directors who shuffle in and out of industry groups. The report also shows how it routinely arrives at watered-down scientific conclusions based on industry science.

Some 11 out of the 19 members of the NRC committee listed in the NAS report have ties to the GMO industry or to pro-GMO advocacy. The two reviews of animal data relied on by the NAS to claim GMO safety are authored by people who also have conflicts of interest (an analysis of these reviews and why they are misleading is here).

Readers are advised to read the Food & Water Watch Report to see for themselves the massive conflicts of interests that Ridley either remains ignorant of or wishes to gloss over in order to push a pro-GMO agenda.

GMWatch notes that the NAS committee member chosen to speak about the food safety aspect of the report to the online magazine The Conversation was Michael A. Gallo, emeritus professor of environmental and occupational medicine at Rutgers University. Gallo is a regular pro-corporate commentator who in 2004 defended farmed salmon in the wake of research showing it contained high levels of toxic PCB chemicals.

In his piece for The Conversation, Gallo makes false and misleading statements, which are apparently designed to reassure the public about the safety of GM foods. For example, he says that any changes seen in GMO feeding experiments were “within normal ranges”. GMWatch states that this is an unscientific statement of a type often used to dismiss significant differences found in GM-fed animals compared with the non-GM-fed controls and goes on to highlight how pro-GM scientists make “a nonsense of the scientific method” and to come up with conclusions designed to mislead.

GMWatch concludes:

“It is well established that conflicts of interest affect scientific outcomes and conclusions in every field that has been investigated, from tobacco to pharmaceuticals to GM crops and foods. The public deserves better than the NAS’s biased attempt to convince the public that GMOs are safe.”

It is not the first time advocates for GM like Matt Ridley have used flawed reports to push for this technology and to attempt to pass off tainted sources as ‘independent’ and thus beyond reproach (see this and this).

Readers may also wish to read these commentaries on the NAS report.

Rosemary Mason’s 44-page open letter response to Ridley

Matt Ridley’s piece in The Times may be regarded as part of the government’s on-going push to get GMOs into Britain and a timely intervention as the debate about glyphosate in the EU reaches a head. The final vote on renewing the licence for glyphosate use in the EU will take place on 6th June 2016. The British Government is supporting the European Food and Safety Authority’s assertion that it doesn’t cause cancer, despite the WHO saying it is “probably carcinogenic.”

In her 44-page open letter (1/6/2016) to Ridley and the editor-in-chief of The Times, Rosemary Mason responds to Ridley’s piece by saying, “I think I smell an industry rat.”

While Ridley takes about the safety of GM crops and reduced chemical use, Mason rubbishes such claims by referring to Charles Benbrook’s paper on the massive increases in glyphosate use in trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally (2016) which states that:

“Since 1974 in the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied, or 19 % of estimated global use of glyphosate (8.6 billion kilograms). Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called ‘Roundup® Ready’.”

If recent evidence demonstrates anything, it is that GM crops and glyphosate use are joined at the hip where industry profits are concerned. GMOs drive the sales of glyphosate.

As if to underline this, referring to Monsanto, Jack Kasky on Bloomberg reports:

“Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant is focused on selling more genetically modified seeds in Latin America to drive earnings growth outside the core US market. Sales of soybean seeds and genetic licenses climbed 16 percent, and revenue in the unit that makes glyphosate weed killer, sold as Roundup, rose 24 percent.”

In the same piece, Chris Shaw, a New York-based analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co states that “Glyphosate really crushed it,” implying it was a major boost to Monsanto’s profits.

The bottom line is sales and profit maximisation – and the unflinching and defence of glyphosate despite the cover up of its harm and the effects on communities in Latin America, where cancers, birth defects, infertility and DNA changes since being exposed to GM Roundup® Ready Crops are reported.

Mason draws Ridley’s attention to a recent piece in the New Eastern Outlook. William Engdahl discusses the relicensing of glyphosate in the EU by stating:

“What is amazing about the entire ongoing battle over glyphosate re-approval is that opposition and awareness that the EU Commission is willing by any means possible to bow to the chemical industry glyphosate weed-killer cartel and approve a probable carcinogen, is growing by leaps and bounds, and internationally. That awareness is in turn bringing light to the very dark corners of the world of GMO itself, something that Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Monsanto, Syngenta and friends are none too able to withstand. To date the EU Commission has received a staggering 1.5 million citizen petitions demanding they not re-approve glyphosate. The opposition to EU Commission approval of glyphosate has taken on a self-expanding character and that has the agribusiness weed-killer cartel alarmed. The process is exposing to the general public, for the first time in such a clear manner, the degree of corruption in not only Brussels but also in the so-called scientific bodies that advise it on what is safe and what not.”

Signed by individuals and groups representing 60 million US citizens, Mason also brings the Letter from America to the attention of Ridley, which warned David Cameron (and the rest of the EU) not to authorise GM crops. It confirmed the devastating effects on human health and the environment. GM is not about public good or feeding the hungry as lobbyists claimed, but about corporate control of the food system. It stated:

“Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors… These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us. Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns. Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology. EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.”

Most of the countries in the EU apart from Britain took that advice and opted out of GM (including Scotland, Wales and Ireland). .

Mason argues that glyphosate is a biocide: it kills life. She knows this from her direct experience on her nature reserve in the UK and cites various sources of evidence to highlight a correlation of the huge loss of biodiversity with GMOs and glyphosate use in the US, the massive adverse impacts on human health and links between herbicide use (including glyphosate) and antibiotic resistance.

In citing a wide array of sources throughout her letter, Mason also highlights the ongoing collusion between academia and biotech companies, not least Monsanto, resulting in fraudulent practices intended to deceive the public and fool it into accepting harmful but highly profitable products.

Readers are urged to read Mason’s open letter to Ridley in full here

In it, she outlines how GMOs, glyphosate and the increasingly globalised system of chemical-intensive food and agriculture have led not only to academic fraud but also to an increase in congenital anomalies in the UK, decreased mental acuity and adverse impacts on fetal and child development and a wide range of diseases and illnesses.

And she also takes apart Ridley’s claim about GM crops and new techniques being no different from conventionally bred crops and safer (as have others), highlights various conflicts of interest within prominent bodies which shape policy and public opinion and addresses the issue of Golden Rice that Ridley also misrepresents in his piece.

Ideology and self-interest driving the pro-GMO lobby

Whereas Ridley offers a short but prominent newspaper article based on a flawed report, industry-inspired clichés and falsehoods, Mason is compelled to respond with a 44-page, comprehensive and fully-referenced text that pulls together relevant scientific research on GMOs and glyphosate. At the same time, she highlights the corruption and deceptions that have made it possible for powerful commercial interests to destroy the environment and human health for profit.

privileged viscount like Ridley, affluent biotech company CEOs, politicians and well-paid career scientists spout public relations rhetoric and deride critics for denying GM to the hungry poor. However, the pro-GMO lobby relies on fraudregulatory delinquencynon-transparent practicessmear campaignsdirty tricksthe debasement of science and PR messages such as a trillion meals containing GMOs have been eaten and no one has died or become ill as a result and that ‘the debate is over’. Aside from well-funded slick PR, it also relies on secretive studies and makes baseless claims wrapped up as scientific facts.

And yet it is their critics who are dismissed for supposedly being emotive, unscientific, ideologues driven by self-interest.

In making such accusations, pro-GMO figures attempt to deflect attention from their own self-interested motives, their hypocrisy concerning their policies towards the poor or their massive political influence.

These people tend to be part of an enclosed world that promotes allegiance to a corporate-dominated paradigm that is intolerant of alternative views. And the result is a certain self-righteousness that leads them to impose their will and neoliberal ideology on the rest of humanity in collusion with the machinery and active backing of national states, while they set out to denigrate models of agriculture that could sustainably feed much of the world and ignore those factors (largely fuelled by the neoliberal system they support) that currently create poverty, hunger and food insecurity.

When saying that Europe’s agriculture will wilt if it rejects GM, Ridley mirrors the claim made by Owen Paterson that Europe will become a museum of world farming if it does not embrace GM crops (and, by implication, its chemical inputs). The evidence indicates that this is nothing more than fear-mongering. Ridley’s tone reflects Paterson’s baseless attacks on critics of GM.

Finally, for those who may not be aware, Owen Paterson is a British MP and the former environment minister. Due to his ongoing promotion of GM, fellow Conservative Party MP Zac Goldsmith described him as a puppet of the biotech industry. He is also Matt Ridley’s brother-in-law.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Countering Pro-GMO Deceptions and Falsehoods. Genetically Engineered Crops are not Safe

On May 30, units of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi counter-terrorism forces entered the city of Fallujah, located 50km from Baghdad. Commander of the Fallujah operation, Lt. General Abdul-Wahab al-Saadi and other sources in the Iraqi military argue that the security forces have gained a significant progress in the operation, aimed to liberate the city center, but ISIS militants maintain a significant resistance.

There are 2 versions that could explain such statements. The first is this is a common practice of providing wishful stories for the audience. The second is the Iraqi authorities have achieved some success in negotiations with the local clans about a formal capitulation as it was in Ramadi. This is possible if the Iraqi government is ready to allow the transition of the administrative power to the local Suni sheiks.

In this case, major destructions won’t occur in the Fallujah city and Baghdad will achieve one more diplomatic success. This will provide Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi additional options to remain in power despite the riots and Muqtada al-Sadr’s attempts to overthrow the prime minister. For sure, al-Abadi believes this is much more important that any terrorist threats or liberated cities. Muqtadā al-Ṣadr is an Iraqi Shia cleric, politician and militia leader. He is the leader of a political party, the Sadrist Movement and the leader of a Shiite militia, called Saraya al-Salam.

The split in the Iraqi Shia community is an important issue, especially amid the high number of al-Sadr’s supporters in the Iraqi special services and the police. Indeed, the US has been pushed to recognize that any coordination with these branches of the Iraqi authorities is impossible. Meanwhile, experts say that al-Abadi doesn’t believe to his own security agensies. Recently, the Iraqi Prime Minister has appointed an ethnic Kurd, Major General Fadhil Jamil al-Barwaria as a new head of his personal protection team. Many believe al-Barwaria is a confident person of the President of Kurdistan Region, Masoud Barzani.

The president’s personal protection team is strengthened by Kurds and now consists of 350 fighters. The only reason is al-Abadi’s support amoing the Shia citizens is reduced. Another important fact is that the alliance Barzani-al-Abadi has anti-Iranian traces. Al-Abadi believes that the recent riots in Baghdad hasn’t been possible without an Iranian support while Barzani is under the pressure of the Iranian-backed political alliance of Jalal Talabani and Nawshirwan Mustafa.

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: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq War: The Campaign for Fallujah. Islamic State (ISIS) Resistance

The mass deaths of refugees in the Mediterranean Sea has reached a new, grim record over the first five months of 2016. According to the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR), at least 2,510 refugees drowned between January and May during their attempts to cross to Europe. The European governments and European Union bear full responsibility for turning the Mediterranean into a mass graveyard for refugees.

By questioning the survivors of recent accidents, the UNHCR estimated the number of victims. According to this, 880 refugees lost their lives in the Mediterranean in the last week of May alone. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) even suggests there could have been more than a thousand drowned refugees.

Previous estimates put the number at 700 victims from three capsized boats, but refugees reported many more were confined in the holds of the boats. In addition, 47 refugees are missing after a lifeboat with at least 125 on board deflated and capsized.

“For so many deaths to have occurred just in a matter of days and months is shocking and shows just how truly perilous these journeys are,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi. Compared to the same period last year, when 1,855 refugees lost their lives in the Mediterranean, the number of deaths has increased by 35 percent.

According to UNHCR figures, 203,981 refugees have been registered after successfully surviving the crossing to Europe to seek protection there. Of these, 46,714 came to Italy, about the same number as last year.

Particularly in the months January to March, the overwhelming majority came via Turkey through Greece. In the process, 376 people drowned. But since the so-called Balkan route has been closed by means of the dirty deal between the EU and Turkey to ruthlessly deport refugees, the numbers of deaths on the much longer and riskier route from Libya to Italy has risen dramatically.

“The North Africa-Italy route is dramatically more dangerous: 2,119 of the deaths reported so far this year are among people making this journey, making for odds of dying as high as one in 23,” explained UNHCR spokesman William Spindler.

In other words, out of every 100 refugees starting their journey in Africa, four die in the attempt. The Mediterranean, directly adjacent to the rich countries of Europe and a popular tourist destination, is thus by far the most dangerous sea route for refugees in the world. According to official estimates, at least 30,000 refugees have drowned there in the last fifteen years.

The EU has responded with indifference to the rapidly rising number of victims. When the refugee assistance organisation SeaWatch, which supports rescue efforts in the Mediterranean, recently published a picture of a volunteer holding a dead baby in his arms, it provoked no outrage about the European governments’ inhumane policy of sealing off Europe’s borders.

When in September 2015 the picture of the drowned Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi lying on a Turkish beach was prominent in the media, empty promises and hypocritical phrases of sympathy were heard from Berlin and Brussels. However, the latest refugee tragedies in the Mediterranean have been virtually ignored. “The mass deaths of refugees on Europe’s borders are being accepted as collateral damage,” wrote Spiegel Online.

The deaths in the Mediterranean are part of the logic of the EU’s refugee policy, calculated to act as a deterrent. When, on October 3, 2013, 366 refugees horrifically drowned off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa, then Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta launched Operation Mare Nostrum. Originally intended as a mechanism to force boats back to the Libyan coast, it was unwillingly transformed into a sea rescue mission, since the rescue of people from shipwrecks is a central tenet of international law. Almost 150,000 refugees were thus saved from drowning.

But the rescue of refugees was an irritant for the EU, and above all for the German government. With the absurd argument that Mare Nostrum was encouraging more refugees to set off for Europe, German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere called a halt to it. Instead, on November 1, 2014 the EU adopted the much smaller Operation Triton, which was concentrated on a limited coastal area of sea, and led to the resumption of the mass deaths in the Mediterranean.

In early 2015 almost 1,500 refugees died within a few weeks, as the EU and its border protection agency Frontex looked on. “It is not enough to cry in front of the television in the evening when refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean, and hold a moment of silence in council the next morning,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said at the time. The EU’s response consisted in the militarisation of the Mediterranean.

Since then, two dozen warships from the European states have been patrolling the Mediterranean between Libya and Italy as part of Eunavfor Med (European Naval Force—Mediterranean) Sophia. But their goal is not the rescuing of shipwrecked passengers, but rather the combatting of smugglers, whose boats are to be captured and destroyed. The mission has just been extended for a further year and is to be stepped up along the Libyan coast.

In order to obtain a mandate from the UN, the Libyan puppet government of Fayez al-Sarraj imposed by the US and European powers has requested support in building up the coastguard and the combatting of the arms trade. In truth, the al-Sarraj government has no power in the North African country, and is merely in place to follow the orders of the western powers and sign off on a new NATO intervention.

Since the NATO war of 2011 to topple the Gaddafi government, Libya has been destroyed and is engaged in a bloody civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people were either slaughtered or driven from their homes. The countless refugees from African countries to the south were treated arbitrarily and are now confined to internment camps, where they have been tortured and abused.

Despite this, the EU is pushing for close cooperation with Libya to prevent refugees from travelling to Europe. “Now the task before us is to agree such a cooperation with Libya,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel in March, following the conclusion of the deportation agreement with Turkey.

The European Union has no qualms about working together with despotic regimes in Africa. The Eritrean government, which tramples human rights underfoot, received €200 million from the EU to detain refugees. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been charged by the International Criminal Court in The Hague with genocide and crimes against humanity, has received technical equipment for border surveillance from the EU.

In addition, the EU is supporting the construction of refugee camps in Sudan. The regimes in Egypt and Morocco are also being provided by European arms concerns with border surveillance and military equipment. The goal of the EU’s policy is to prevent refugees from reaching the Mediterranean coastline at any price and to detain refugees in far off camps in Africa and Asia.

More than 14 million refugees are already confined to camps in Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Lebanon. They are victims twice over of the criminal policies of the imperialist powers. The top ten list of countries with the highest number of refugees is practically identical with a list of the countries that have been the victim of a military intervention, proxy war or orchestrated regime change operation which have been initiated over the last twenty years by the US and its European allies.

The list includes Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Iraq. More than 60 million people around the world are refugees, and half of these are under 18.

In Africa, an additional factor driving hundreds of thousands to flee is the brutal neocolonial policy of the EU, which ruthlessly exploits the continent’s natural resources and completely destroys the standard of living of the populations by structural adjustment programmes and dictated trade regulations. These people place all their hopes in finding work in Europe.

But Europe hermetically seals itself off from the wave of refugees it has itself produced, and allows them to drown miserably in the Mediterranean, vegetate in huge refugee camps under outrageous conditions, and be shot on the Turkish-Syrian border, where the Turkish government has allegedly established automatic firing posts. As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitungreported, “intelligent” surveillance towers are involved, with heat-sensing cameras and machine guns, in the regions of Hatay, Gaziantep, Sanliurfa and Marden.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More Than 2,500 Refugees Drowned in Mediterranean So Far This Year
Henrique_Meirelles_-_World_Economic_Forum_on_Latin_America_2011

Wall Street Behind Brazil Coup d’Etat

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 01 2016

(Image) Wall Street Mastermind Henrique de Campos Meirelles, Interim Minister of Finance Control over monetary policy and macro-economic reform was the ultimate objective of the Coup d’Etat. The key appointments from Wall Street’s standpoint are the Central Bank, which dominates…

president-barack-obama

Barack Obama’s Meager Legacy: Incomplete Accomplishments and Provoked Wars: What Happened?

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, June 01 2016

“The evil that men do lives after them.” — William Shakespeare (1564-1616), ‘Julius Caesar’ The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to…

Torture-USA-Pentagon-Photos-Judge

An Ex-CIA Agent Blows the Whistle on Torture and Secret Prisons

By Edu Montesanti, June 02 2016

A former CIA agent, John Kiriakou spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle about the Intelligence Agency torture program against prisoners, “obsessed with the idea that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden would launch another attack against the United…

Internet

Dreams of Control: Israel, Global Censorship, and the Internet

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, June 02 2016

“Under the cover of darkness, there is no limit to the expansion of Big Brother.” Ilan Gilon, Meretz Party (Israel), Times of Israel, Feb 4, 2016 While Israel’s central justification for its often reactionary policies is couched in hyper-exceptionalist rhetoric,…

National Urban League

“State of Black America”: National Urban League Report Says African Americans Remain ‘Locked Out’

By Abayomi Azikiwe, June 02 2016

In its annual report on the “State of Black America”, one of the oldest research organizations in the African American community documents the continuing levels of national oppression and economic exploitation. This report for 2016 represents the fortieth anniversary of…

steag-nato

Provoking Moscow: NATO Needs Enemies to Justify Its Existence

By Stephen Lendman, June 02 2016

NATO was always more about offense than defense, about America controlling the policies of Alliance members, increasing their numbers, pressuring them to stress militarism more than they’d chose otherwise – and selling them lots of US weapons. When founded in…

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Obama’s Meager Legacy, Wall Street Behind Brazil Coup d’Etat