Global Research

I am a lifelong FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) Democrat and therefore am anything other than prejudiced against the Democratic Party. But, that Party died when Bill Clinton became President and undid FDR’s regulations on the megabanks and FDR’s AFDC income program for children in poor families, and when Clinton replaced that with restoration of Wall Street’s control over America (like before FDR, only a more convoluted form of it).

However, the way in which both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton endanger all people’s lives and property and health and welfare, has to do with something else, something that’s even more evil than what Bill Clinton did, and it’s the Obama-Clinton (that’s Secretary of State and now Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) foreign policy, to overthrow the leaders of nations who are allied with or supportive of Russia — such as most recently Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, but before that Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych, and before that Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. It’s no mere coincidence that all three had had cordial relations with Russia.

George W. Bush’s 2003 overthrow of yet another pro-Russian head-of-state, Saddam Hussein, had already done enormous damage not only to Iraq but to the U.S., and yet Obama and Clinton are at least as determined to surround Russia by enemies, as Bush was; and they now even support the installation, on-and-near Russia’s very borders, of a ‘Ballistic Missile Defense’ system that’s actually designed to disable Russia’s ability to retaliate against a U.S. surprise nuclear attack on Russia — the BMD is astoundingly aggressive, especially considering that whereas in 1991 the Soviet and then Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev terminated both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on the basis of an understanding from George Herbert Walker Bush and his agents, that NATO would not move “one inch to the east”, this crucial promise from the U.S. government was violated by Bill Clinton’s extending NATO into the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland; and by Bush’s son Bush then extending NATO into Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia; and by Obama then extending NATO into Albania and Croatia and trying to bring into it also Ukraine and some other nations bordering or near Russia.

American President JFK didn’t allow the Khruschev regime to place nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. in Cuba in 1962, and Russian President Putin can’t stand the Obama regime to place nuclear missiles right on Russia’s borders, but it’s happening now, and it endangers us all — not onlythe Russian people. Post-communist Russia is vastly different than the communist USSR was, and the U.S. government’s treating it even more aggressively than the USSR ever was treated is simply mega-criminal and can be ‘justified’ only on the basis of lies.

Furthermore, with the support of both U.S. President Obama and his neo-conservative former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (famous for her psychopathic “We came, we saw, he died, ha ha!!” comment), NATO’s current Secretary General and other top people at NATO are now increasingly beating the drums for war against Russia, and are using for ‘justification’ of it the very same lie that both Obama and Clinton do, as Obama has stated it: Russia’s alleged ‘conquest’ of Crimea. As I have documented headlining “The Entire Case for Sanctions Against Russia Is Pure Lies”, there was no such ‘conquest’, and even Western-sponsored polls of Crimeans both before and after Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to reject the newly imposed February 2014 Obama-engineered coup-government of Ukraine and to rejoin Russia of which Crimea had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954, showed the very same overwhelmingly high level of public support for rejoining with Russia that was shown in the plebiscite-results.

The U.S. government accepts the right of self-determination of peoples, so that the residents of Scotland can vote to separate from the UK if they wish, and the residents of Catalonia can vote to separate from Spain if they wish, but where it comes now to the right of the residents of Crimea,who had voted 75% for Viktor Yanukovych and who were disgusted by Obama’s overthrow of him, to separate from the newly-imposed Obama-coup-regime in Kiev (and even the head of Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history”), Obama and Clinton reject that same right for the Crimean people. Why do they reject it? They have to do this, in order to support NATO’s war-buildup against Russia, and support their surrounding Russia with extremely dangerous missiles. (In fact, Russia’s alleged ‘seizure’ of Crimea is even the ‘justification’ that Obama gives for his economic sanctions against Russia; so, he’s deep into lying about it.)

The expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders proves NATO’s (that’s to say, the U.S. aristocracy’s, and its subordinate national aristocracies that are represented in NATO) aggressive intent against Russia. Putin had done everything he could to have friendly relations with America, but now under Obama the relationship has plunged into clearly a pre-war situation, not only in Syria, and Ukraine, and elsewhere on Russia’s borders, but in American propaganda against Russia. The addition of installation now of BMD is flashing to all Russians the extreme-danger signal that the next stop is Moscow, and if Russia therefore launches a surprise nuclear attack against the U.S. at some time before the BMD becomes fully operational, the blame for it belongs to George Herbert Walker Bush, and Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, and all who have lied so viciously against Russia and who so blatantly violated the promise that the George Herbert Walker Bush regime had made to Gorbachev in 1990.

Fair is fair, regardless of the particular nation, and unfair is unfair, regardless of the particular nation; and, in this case,clearly, the U.S. government has been extremely unfair to the Russian people, and so the Russian government’s patience with the lies of the U.S. government and of its NATO stooges, might have a limit that precedes activation of BMD — this would mean a Russian first-strike (and theywon’t warn about it in advance). They don’t want to be just sitting ducks. And they all know that only fools think that disabling an opponent’s ability to retaliate is only a defensive act. Any intelligent person knows that it can be also an extremely aggressive act. And the coup in Ukraine, which started to be organized in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev by no later than 1 March 2013 — a year before the coup itself — was an extremely hostile and aggressive act against not only Yanukovych, but also against Russia. The U.S. went so far as to be one of only three countries voting in the U.N. General Assembly against a resolution condemning “glorification of Nazism” and “neo-Nazism”, because there was a widespread recognition among U.N. representatives, that what the U.S. had recently done in Ukraine was supporting and even putting into place as the new Ukrainian government a specifically anti-Russian form of nazism. Obama couldn’t deny it on the facts, so he simply had his neoconservative U.N. representative Samantha Powers vote “No” on it — and she even cited (the new, post-coup) Ukraine’s vote against it as being her reason for voting against it, as if following those thugs’ leadership was somehow ‘American’. Obama’s reversal of FDR there was simply shocking.

The way in which Obama and Clinton are endangering all of us is that, if Russia waits and the BMD (which itself is ‘justified’ only on the basis of lies) that’s now starting to be installed, turns out to work, then only Russia will immediately be reduced to nuclear char; but, if it doesn’t work, then both sides will be destroyed; and, if Russia doesn’t even wait to find out, but instead strikes first, then only the U.S. and maybe other NATO nations will immediately be destroyed; and, in any case, the level of nuclear contamination of the entire world, and the amount of smoke that will be thrown up into the high atmosphere from the fires and then generate a long-term global freezing (“nuclear winter”) that will be just as extreme and far more sudden than the otherwise global warming, will make life not even worth living.

Obama and Clinton aren’t the only Americans who are pushing this needless vile brinksmanship, but it is needless; it’s entirely unnecessary, and, on the U.S.-NATO side, it’s based clearly upon lies; so, the U.S. government must repudiate it and halt the BMD, right now.

If there’s anything sane that’s still remaining in American politics, this issue will be the central issue of the 2016 Presidential campaign. Because, if things continue drifting in the way that they have been drifting, then the world-as-it’s-always-been-known will soon end, and what replaces it will become hell-on-Earth, everywhere. And America’s leaders will have been the cause of it.

Any Presidential candidate who doesn’t condemn both Obama and Clinton for it, has no rational justification for receiving anyone’s vote. Because, if the next U.S. President doesn’t forthrightly repudiate and reverse this pathological policy, then we’d all better somehow join the aristocracy and buy deep nuclear bunkers, with years of supplies to outlast the first phases of nuclear decay. Except that the people who have already done so are fools for even wanting to live in such a post-war world. (But at least they’re smart enough to recognize that things are heading in this direction.)

The only solution to it is to avoid electing Presidents such as the ones we’ve been electing. Instead, to elect a President who condemns them — and for the sane reasons, not for other, insane, ones. Because this issue is too important to continue any insanity.

There is simply no ‘justification’ for it, other than lies. And it’s the most dangerous policy in the entire world, right now.

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

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies engaged in the clashes with ISIS in the Southern side of al-Sha’er oilfield in the province of Homs. Militants reportedly suffered a heavy death toll and an ISIS vehicle carrying a large volume of ammunition and explosive devices exploded. Separately, the pro-government forces re-took the hill of Tal Sawanah near the al-Sha’ar gas field. Clashes are ongoing in the area.

SAA artillery units reportedly shelled al-Nusra Front’s concentration centers in the al-Basatin area in East Ghouta. Earlier, the loyalists dismantled a network of terrorist bombers inside the capital city of Damascus.

In the Yarmouk Refugee Camp, clashes are ongoing between ISIS and Al Nusra militants. ISIS sources argue that the group seized the camp from the Al Qaeda affiliate. This can not be confirmed independently, yet.

The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), supported by the US-led coalition, have liberated at least 6 settlements in the operation ongoing in Northern Raqqa – Ayn Issa, Al-Qantari, Al-Fatsah, Bir Sadr, Bin Hammud, Abu Kabra, Matmasraja – and an electricity station near Tal as-Saman. There are reports that some “American fighters”, apparently US special operation forces, are among SDF ranks. They coordinate the military operation.

ISIS media outlet Amaq News reported late Wednesday, 28 SDF troops have been killed by a suicide truck attack in Northern Raqqa. No more information is available.

Reports appeared on May 25 that Russia will postpone airstrikes against Al Nusra-held areas in Syria because it’s asked by some militant groups that are willing to join the ceasefire. The armed formations argue they need time to drive Al-Nusra from their territories.

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/

Many people have been made aware of the corporate media reports about the purported rebirth and revitalization of Detroit.

The city during the period of 2012-2014 underwent the agony of a state-imposed “Financial Stability Agreement”, and later the appointment of an emergency manager who filed for bankruptcy, the largest municipality in the United States where this was carried out.

The underlying causes of these actions had more to do with the political agenda of the right-wing Republican Governor Rick Snyder than the actual financial situation in the city. After the 2010 mid-term elections, numerous conservative spokespersons took to the airwaves and leading publications calling for the elimination of defined pension systems, a wholesale assault on unions representing municipal employees and teachers, along with the passage of “right to work” legislation.

The Democratic Party won control of both the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 and later extending that majority in 2008 when President Barack Obama was elected by a substantial majority. Many working and oppressed people felt this was a mandate to not only end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but to also initiate significant reforms on a domestic level aimed at job creation, the rebuilding  of the cities, increased revenues for public education and genuine empowerment efforts targeting African Americans, Latino/as, Women and other marginalized groups.

The experience of Detroit proved just the opposite of what many had anticipated. During the first several months of the Obama administration, a Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm appointed an emergency manager over the Detroit Public Schools without the consent of the elected board, a situation which remains intact through 2016 under a Republican state administration.

A so-called bailout of the banks and the auto industry resulted in the continuing loss of homes through foreclosures and evictions as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs eliminated in production facilities across the U.S. However, cities such as Detroit and Flint were affected disproportionately due to their historical character.

This downsizing in the heavy production industries extended back at least to the mid-to-late 1980s where plant closings in Detroit and Flint were taking place at a rapid rate. The broader impact of plant closings was felt in other sectors including services, education and municipal affairs. People left cities such as Detroit, Flint, Highland Park and Benton Harbor in search of employment, better schools and public services.

These developments coincided with the election of the first African American mayors and city councils of these cities. White racist media outlets claimed that the economic downturn was closely related to the growth of Black political power.

Flint, General Motors and the Water Crisis

Another major issue involving a majority African American populated city in Michigan is the poisoning of the water system in Flint which was under emergency management in 2014.

Flint like Detroit was victimized by the wave of industrial “restructuring” that was characteristic of the mid-to-late 1980s. General Motors had announced during this period that it would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs in order to maintain its profitability and to ensure that it could compete in a changing global market. Since the late 1980s through 2016, the volume of sales in Asia has far outstripped the U.S.

In a similar trend as Detroit, which went from a population of 1.8 million in 1950 to approximately 670,000 in 2016, Flint dropped from a city of nearly 200,000 to one less than 100,000. Today Flint is 65 percent African American where Detroit is said to be 79 percent Black.

After the appointment of an emergency manager over Detroit in early 2013, the stage was set for a “restructuring” of the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department (DWSD). By the spring of 2014, Flint was disconnected from the DWSD creating a new system that drew water from the polluted Flint River. This source had been contaminated for years in part due to the industrial waste from plant closing by General Motors.

Immediately residents of the city began to complain about the foul smelling and discolored water coming out their taps. People were made ill by the water along with their pets.

Nonetheless, the emergency manager Darnell Earley, who was later appointed to head the Detroit Public Schools, working on behalf of Governor Snyder, denied that there was a problem. Officials from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) claimed that they were testing the water and the lead and other contamination levels were acceptable for human consumption.

A group of community activists worked tirelessly demanding that the emergency manager, MDEQ and later the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take action. All of these entities continued to deny there was a problem until interventions by a pediatrician in the area who wrote reports indicating that children were suffering from lead poisoning as well as scientists from Virginia Technological University whose assessments substantiated these claims.

Children, adults and pets were sickened by the tap water which due to corrosive contaminants that went untreated or not properly treated, caused the old and decaying pipes to leech lead into the system. Many are currently suffering from lead and copper poisoning. There was also an outbreak of Legionnaires disease that many have traced to the problems with the water system.

By late 2015 and early 2016, the state could no longer deny the problem and declared a “water emergency” in Flint eventually leading to the reconnection of the city water supply back to the DWSD system. Nonetheless, the damage had been done. Lead poisoning in children is irreversible.

Three lower level officials have been indicted in the water crisis. However, the masses are calling for the resignation of and prosecution of Snyder.

Since the Flint crisis, the problems of elevated blood lead levels across the U.S. are being exposed. Therefore, we must salute the people of Flint for making this contribution at great costs to their families and community.

Free Rev. Edward Pinkney: the Benton Harbor Crisis

Finally we must look at the political prosecution of Rev. Edward Pinkney of Berrien County in the southwest region of the state on Lake Michigan. Rev. Pinkney is the leader of the Benton Harbor Black Autonomy Network Community Organization (BANCO). This group has been fighting over a decade against the racist police practices, unjust courts, the privatization of city services, including the theft of land and water resources.

Rev. Pinkney became known nationally after a rebellion in Benton Harbor in June 2013 in response to the death of an African American motorcyclist who was chased by several law-enforcement agencies to his death in a crash. The youth rose up in rebellion for several days, prompting the deployment of the state police.

In later years Rev. Pinkney was unjustly prosecuted in 2006-2007 allegedly for tampering with absentee ballots during a recall election targeting two city commissioners. He was sentenced after two trials, the first ending in a hung jury, to one year of house arrest and four years of probation.

By the end of 2007, after he published a letter quoting the Bible in a Chicago-based publication, a Berrien County judge said it was a threat against his family and sentenced Pinkney to 3-10 years in prison. This conviction was overturned on appeal by the late 2008 after a nationwide defense campaign.

The most recent prosecution of Pinkney was also racially and politically motivated. He was unjustly charged with altering five dates on a recall petition to remove the-then Mayor James Hightower in 2014. There was no material evidence, eyewitnesses or any real motivation cited in the trial. He was tried by an all-white jury, a white prosecutor and judge who allowed his political views to be entered as evidence in the trial.

Pinkney was sentenced to 30-120 months in state prison. He now resides at Marquette correctional facility in northern Michigan, twelve hours from his home and family.

An appeals court hearing was held on May 11 in Grand Rapids. Another motion for bond pending the outcome of the appeal was filed the following week by his lawyer. His supporters are continuing to build a national campaign in his defense. On May 28, a delegation from Detroit will travel to Benton Harbor to join others from around the country to protest the Professional Golf Association (PGA) Senior Tournaments which have been held in Benton Harbor since 2012 on land stolen from the people and privatized.

Conclusion 

These case studies on the plight of African Americans and working class people in general in Michigan are not isolated instances. They reflect a national and global phase of the international crisis of capitalism.

From the U.S. and Greece to France and South Africa, the working class and poor are being subjected to heightened degrees of exploitation and oppression.

The struggles of the people of Michigan should be studied for clear insights into the world system which has unfolded over the last four decades.

Note: This paper was presented at the Left Forum held at John Jay College of the City University of New York (CUNY) on a panel entitled “The Wars Come Home.” Other participants on the panel were Ana Edwards, a member of the editorial committee of the Virginia Defenders newspaper based in Richmond; Margaret Kimberley, senior columnist for Black Agenda Report; Jaribu Hill, founder of the Mississippi Workers’ Center for Human Rights; and Christine Marie of 350.org.

Since the Ukraine crisis exploded into civil conflict and war in 2013, we have known that we live in troubled times. It has become increasingly clear that the peace order in Europe, established at the end of the Cold War in 1989, is unstable. The arrangements made at that time appear to have generated more conflicts than they were able to resolve.

While the European Union claimed at certain points to be a peace project – and internally it has achieved much in that respect – all around the borders of the proposed “ring of friends”, as the then president of the European Commission Romano Prodi put it in 2002, it is an “arc of fire”. In North Africa, states have collapsed and the whole region is challenged once again to find an appropriate balance between security and democracy. The Middle East is the focus of several proxy wars piled upon each other in multiple layers.

Russian troops march through Moscow to mark Victory Day. PA/Alexander Zemlianichenko

Since Russia’s military intervention in Syria at the end of September 2015, one of the most salient conflicts has been the struggle between Russia and the US for the right to decide who would have priority in deciding Syria’s fate. This is just one of the issues over which an armed confrontation could take place. In fact, there are so many potential tripwires that it is impossible to predict which precisely could set off a chain of events that could escalate into outright military confrontation.

Escalation and militarisation

On the one side, the US-led NATO build-up on land, sea and air around Russia’s borders, accompanied by the activation in May 2016 of missile defence installations in the region, is perceived as a threat to the very existence of Russia as a sovereign state.

Moscow views the US Aegis Ashore system installed in Romania as having the potential to negate its nuclear deterrence capability. Intermediate-range cruise missiles are banned by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, yet appear to be creeping in through the back door. Advanced American warships now demonstratively exercise just a few dozen kilometres from Russian bases in the Baltic and Black seas.

Russia sees much of this as a direct threat to its own security, and threatens to deploy nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad and even possibly Crimea. The Russian armed forces are just about to test the prototypes of the S-500 Prometei air and missile defence system (also known as the 55R6M Triumfator M), capable of destroying ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles), hypersonic cruise missiles and planes at over Mach 5 speeds. The weakening or even abrogation of the INF and START treaties could destroy decades of painstaking arms control negotiations.

On the other side, some defence analysts argue that the post-Cold War settlement is already destroyed, above all by Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The former deputy commander of NATO and British general Sir Alexander Richard Shirref, in his book 2017: War with Russia, makes no bones about the imminent danger of war.

He predicts that to escape what it believes to be encirclement by NATO, Russia will try to seize territory in Eastern Ukraine to open up a land corridor to Crimea and invade the Baltic states. These Strangelovian fantasies have a long pedigree in NATO thinking. When the events in Ukraine began to spiral out of control in early 2014, the head of NATO forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, became quite an expert in predicting various Russian invasions, prompting particular concern in Germany.

The Atlantic security community is in danger of sleepwalking into war. The very talk of such a conflict “normalises” the possibility. A BBC2 filmaired in February 2016 acted out the scenario of a Russian attack on Latvia escalating into a nuclear exchange. The Obama administration is pressuring Germany to deploy a German contingent to bolster NATO’s presence on Russia’s borders. Few in Russia forget the devastating consequences the last time this happened in 1941.

Back from the brink

While Atlantic defence commentators talk of Vladimir Putin’s “increasingly aggressive behaviour” and have made the phrase “Russian aggression” part of the standard language, few have stopped to think what created such a dangerous situation in the first place.

Tu-95 strategic bomber. PA/Alexander Zemlianichenko

As the Chinese have repeatedly noted, the Ukraine crisis did not come from nowhere. The slogan of the NATO defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels in mid-May was “deter and dialogue”, but in the event the emphasis was more on the former than the latter. The Warsaw NATO summit in July 2016 is likely to confirm that “Russian aggression”, Iranian adventurism, Chinese land reclamation and Middle Eastern instability pose a threat to the US and its allies.

Instead of piling more fuel on a fire that is already in danger of getting out of control, it would be wiser to start a diplomatic process. NATO insists that there can be no “business as usual” until the Minsk commitments are fully implemented, yet some of the most important provisions are up to Ukraine to fulfil. So Russia, and with it the peace of Europe, is held hostage by some radicals in Ukraine who block any moves towards elections in the Donbass and the stipulated decentralising constitutional reforms.

Shirreff admits in his book that Russia is increasingly worried about the spread of NATO bases around its borders, yet advocates yet more of the same. Russia is a continental-sized great power armed with the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. The ambition to achieve Western military superiority is simply unattainable.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 28 2015 Putin asked of the West, surveying years of failed military interventions that have devastated countries and destabilised whole regions: “Do you realise now what you have done?” Russia is undoubtedly a difficult partner, but on some of the most pressing global issues of our time, including Syria, the Russian analysis has been correct.

The deal offered in 2012 whereby Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would go but the secular regime in Damascus would stay was peremptorily dismissed by the West, assuming that Assad would soon fall and the “moderates” triumph. The result was years of civil war that has now spilled over into a refugee crisis that threatens Europe in its entirety.

Catastrophe

It is pointless to speculate what a war between Russia and the Atlantic community would look like, or even how it would start. This really would be a war to end all wars, since there would be no one left to fight another war. The emphasis now must be on averting such a doomsday scenario, and for that there must be honest recognition of earlier mistakes by all sides, and the beginning a new and more substantive process of engagement.

The endless prolongation of sanctions and a rhetoric of violence and scapegoating creates an atmosphere where a small incident could easily spiral out of control. It is the responsibility of our generation to ensure that it never happens.

For an alternative view, click here.

Four of the top five Global Fortune 500 corporations are involved in petroleum refining. Together with big-finance and industrial giants like big-auto and utility monopolies, big-oil dominates the global economy.

The monopoly it enjoys grants it the unwarranted power and influence it has wielded throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. And because big-oil is integrated into big-finance and other corporate-financier monopolies through various mutual interests, its influence reaches even further still.

The ability to manipulate prices in the markets, starve or bolster any particular nation by targeting energy essential for modern civilization constitutes a weaponization of energy. However, despite this immense power, there are some who claim big-oil’s days are numbered. On one hand they are wrong, on the other, they are absolutely right.

The Feigned Demise of Big-Oil 

In the lead-up to the US-engineered “Arab Spring” and a number of other engineered political subversions executed around the globe with varying degrees of success, oil prices had been skyrocketing. Articles like the BBC’s March 2011, “Oil price: Should we fear the latest rises?,” claimed that:

With populations and incomes steadily increasing in Asia, there seemed to be an inexorable rise in global energy demand.

And with a finite limit to the amount of hydrocarbons in the ground, “peak oil” – the point where global oil production reaches its highest practicable rate – became the buzzword.

When prices were rising in 2008 and then again before and during the so-called “Arab Spring,” the world was expected to believe growing populations and increasing demand versus “peak oil” meant high prices would endure indefinitely. Yet today, prices are again at extraordinary extremes – dropping rather than skyrocketing. Did the population suddenly shrink? Did the population continue to grow but suddenly stop using energy?

Despite the BBC and other Western media narratives, oil prices are not necessarily driven by supply and demand alone. Often they are manipulated on a global scale because, since the advent of petroleum driven economies, but a handful of powerful monopolies have controlled both the production and distribution of oil, as well as its price in the markets.

Just as “peak oil” was used as a canard to explain manipulated prices at extreme highs last decade and early this decade, the collapse of big-oil is being used as a canard to explain the manipulation of low oil prices today.

In reality, Western-controlled big-oil corporations are attempting to kill off smaller competitors and geopolitical rivals including Russia and Venezuela. It can be likened to chemotherapy where the entire body is poisoned in hopes that the body is strong enough to survive, while the smaller tumor within perishes. Likewise, big-oil hopes by dropping oil prices through the floor, despite the devastating effects it will have on its own health, it will survive even if just barely, while its rivals perish.

But just because today’s feigned demise of big-oil is a canard to explain this otherwise cynical politically-motivated hegemonic manipulation of global oil markets, doesn’t mean that big-oil’s future is secure. On the contrary, it is anything but.

The Future, and Very Real Demise of Big-Oil

Corporate-financier funded policy think-tank, Chatham House, published a pessimistic report regarding big-oil titled, “International Oil Companies: The Death of the Old Business Model.” Ironically, Chatham House counts among its corporate sponsors (.pdf) the very international oil companies it describes in its 47 page paper (.pdf).

The paper states that:

The future of the major international oil companies (IOCs) – BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total – is in doubt. The business model that sustained them during the 20th century is no longer fit for purpose. As a result, they are faced with the choice of managing a gentle decline by downsizing or risking a rapid collapse by trying to carry on business as usual.

The paper even admits that many of the excuses for lower oil prices today are superficial and that big-oil’s demise is a matter of much deeper, systemic obsolescence. Also evident is the fact that Western big-oil faces a rise in competitors backed by state power in South America, Eastern Europe, and Asia. And while it still is not a significant factor yet today, it inevitably will be one in the future – solar power and other alternative and more importantly – decentralized – methods of producing energy for industry, homes, and transportation. These will permanently displace both big-oil and the monolithic, centralized model of business it represents.

While the Chatham House paper prescribes several options for big-oil to exercise to make a transition from its current global stature to a downsized and diminished player in global energy, it admits that big-oil will decline nonetheless.

For instance, the report cites BP’s attempts to diversify into alternative energy, including solar energy. Unfortunately for BP, the entry barriers into the solar energy industry are extraordinarily low and becoming lower each quarter, meaning the prospect of dominating it like BP has dominated the capital-intensive petroleum industry for decades are slim to none.

Singularity University, a California-based think-tank, noted recently that solar power has begun to thrive even in parts of the world where it is not subsidized. Prices for solar power production are decreasing exponentially because of rapid advances in technology – a trend that has not happened in the energy industry before. Singularity University’s Ramez Naam in his August 2015 piece titled, “How Cheap Can Solar Get? Very Cheap Indeed,” points out the precise details of this trend concluding:

If this holds, solar will cost less than half what new coal or natural gas electricity cost, even without factoring in the cost of air pollution and carbon pollution emitted by fossil fuel power plants.

Coupled together with exponential increases of electric vehicles taking to the roads, powered by expanding alternative energy networks, regardless of what oil prices do, alternative energy and electric vehicles will still be cheaper and more efficient as the technology for both matures and is disseminated. In a future where energy and transportation are linked more to coding and electronics any nation’s industry can become engaged in, rather than capital-intensive mega-engineering only a handful of corporations around the world are capable of doing, big-oil does not exist.

That future may be far off – for example, not even 1% of the cars on the road in the United States are electric, but the nature of exponentially disruptive technology is such that this future most likely will arrive much sooner than many expect. With Tesla Motors’ growing line of electric vehicles making ripples across America’s automotive industry and the growing network of charging stations it is putting up across not only North America, but also Europe and Asia, it is clear that there are serious players already shaping this future today.

Repositioning for the Real Demise of Big-Oil  

For the nations of the world, the “international order” the immense concentration of wealth and power big-oil and big-finance have given rise to, is no longer unassailable. Because of technology’s advance, and the ability of increasingly smaller players being able to enter into industries previously monopolized by only the wealthiest and well-connected interests on Earth, developing nations and emerging superpowers are building alternatives to the West’s monopoly over global energy – among other things.

However, nations like Russia or Venezuela who depend heavily on oil and gas must understand the mountain they have made progress climbing up, is already beginning to crumble at the top. By the time they reach the top, there will be no top left to conquer.

Instead, nations around the world must prepare to develop infrastructure around alternative energy and electric vehicles – leveraging their natural and human resources to innovate and implement these solutions where eventually the collapse of big-oil will leave a void.

By doing so, they will be placing further pressure on the remnants of Western big-oil, undermining the unwarranted influence the West has wielded, while driving local development and economic expansion at the same time. By getting ahead of the alternative energy and electric vehicle curve, these nations can fill up global socioeconomic space existing Western monopolies may try to occupy as they shift from big-oil to other alternatives.

While it will not be easy to do this, the effort involved must be compared with the alternative of continuing to pursue and invest solely in oil and gas and contemplating how to survive, let alone thrive, when oil and gas prices finally bottom out permanently – not because of market manipulation – but because of genuine supply and a permanent lack of demand.

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

Today, Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 11:30am CEST, WikiLeaks releases new secret documents from the huge Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) which is being negotiated by the US, EU and 22 other countries that account for 2/3rds of global GDP.

This release includes a previously unknown annex to the TiSA core chapter on “State Owned Enterprises” (SOEs), which imposes unprecedented restrictions on SOEs and will force majority owned SOEs to operate like private sector businesses. This corporatisation of public services – to nearly the same extent as demanded by the recently signed TPP – is a next step to privatisation of SOEs on the neoliberal agenda behind the “Big Three” (TTIP,TiSA,TPP).

Other documents in todays release cover updated versions of annexes to TiSA core chapters that were published by WikiLeaks in previous releases; these updates show the advances in the confidential negotiations between the TiSA parties on the issues of Domestic Regulation, New Provisions, Transparency, Electronic Commerce, Financial Services, Telecommunication Services, Professional Services and the Movement of Natural Persons. WikiLeaks is also publishing expert analyses on some of these documents.

The annexes on Domestic Regulation, Transparency and New Provisions have further advanced towards the “deregulation” objectives of big corporations entering overseas markets. Local regulations like store size restrictions or hours of operations are considered an obstacle to achieve “operating efficiencies” of large-scale retailing, disregarding their public benefit that foster livable neighbors and reasonable hours of work for employees. The TiSA provisions in their current form will establish a wide range of new grounds for domestic regulations to be challenged by corporations – even those without a local presence in that country.

Read all press releases.

May 2016 Publication

TiSA Related Documents

Other documents related to the TiSA negotiation process.

December 2015 Publication

July 2015 Publication

June 2015 Publication

Fake Syria Solidarity NGO Supports “Moderate” Terrorists. Bans Prof. Tim Anderson from Conference

By Global Research News, May 26 2016

Fake Syria Solidarity NGO supports the moderate Al Qaeda terrorists.   University of Sydney professor and Global Research author Tim Anderson was an invited keynote speaker. He has been banned following a hate campaign waged by a British based NGO which…

Is the UK’s Iraq Inquiry Set to “Savage” Tony Blair?

By Felicity Arbuthnot, May 25 2016

In spite of all the scepticism regarding the long delayed UK Iraq Inquiry in to the illegal invasion of Iraq, with predictions (including by myself) that it would be a “whitewash” of the enormity of the lies which led to…

Germany Buys Monsanto – and Sells the TTIP to Europe

By Peter Koenig, May 25 2016

Is it coincidence that Berlin approves and even recommends the ‘hostile’ takeover of Monsanto by the German agro-and pharma giant, Bayer? – Or is another occult strategic arrangement between Washington and its vassal-in-chief of the EU, Berlin, to push the…

America’s Wars of Aggression against Africa under the Disguise of the “War on Terrorism”

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 26 2016

Text of Abayomi Azikiwe’s presentation to Left Form, City University of New York, May 22, 2016 In February of 2008 under the administration of President George W. Bush, Jr., the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was officially launched with its…

Geopolitics of the Balkans: China and Serbia Expanding Cooperation, Strategic and Economic Implications.

By Živadin Jovanović, May 26 2016

Serbia and China cultivate a long tradition of friendship and mutual trust enjoying mutually beneficial cooperation. Presently, when certain European, American and other countries compete to win Chinese cooperation, Serbia is already endowed with the capacity and the basis to…

Will Russia Succumb To Washington’s Economic Attack?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 26 2016

Yesterday State Department deputy propaganda spokesperson Mark Toner reminded US companies that there are economic and reputational risks associated with doing business with Russia until Russia gives Crimea back to Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.  [1] I see the matter…

This article was first published on December 24, 2016

The Western media in chorus is accusing the Syrian government and its allies including Russia and Iran of “crimes against humanity” for having liberated Aleppo from the clutch of Al Qaeda terrorists. “Putin and Assad could face justice for war crimes in Syria” according to the Washington Post. 

In the media coverage of  Aleppo, the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists are casually described as opposition “rebels” waging a “revolution” against the government of Bashar al Assad, who is portrayed as a “dictator”. 

The media propaganda campaign has gone into high gear. The words “Al Qaeda”, “Al Nusra” or “terrorists” are simply not mentioned in recent media reports.  It never happened. “Opposition rebels” committed to democracy have been crushed by the Russians, according to “authoritative” media sources.

According to reports, there were no terrorists in Aleppo. The “rebels” are now being portrayed as the victims of Russian aggression.  These are the same terrorists who are the object of Obama’s alleged “counterterrorism” campaign, which is largely intent upon protecting the terrorists. 

Lies by Omission

There is no mention of the fact that East Aleppo has been occupied by Al Qaeda affilated entities (which are on the EU and US State Department “terror lists”) and that these terrorists –which are now portrayed as “freedom fighters’– have committed countless atrocities against civilians. And these atrocities are now casually being blamed on the Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces which liberated Aleppo.

For four years East Aleppo has been occupied by Al Qaeda,  which had established a regime of  terror and destruction. The media has portrayed the terrorists as “the moderate” opposition.

Syria: A US-NATO Sponsored Terrorist Insurrection Initiated in March 2011

The evidence amply confirms that Washington has supported the terrorists from the very outset. The influx of Salafist mercenaries commenced in the Southern city of Daraa on the border with Jordan in mid-March 2011.

Moreover, in an August 2011 report, Israeli intelligence news (Debka) confirmed that NATO and the Turkish High Command were involved in recruiting Mujahideen mercenaries throughout “the Middle East and the Muslim world”, while providing the rebels with an vast array of weapons:

“NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers… ” (Debka) .

The terrorists are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. The Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh)  was originally an Al Qaeda affiliated entity (Al Qaeda in Iraq) created by US intelligence with the support of Britain’s MI6, Israel’s Mossad, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Presidency (GIP).

Obama’s Counter-Terrorism Campaign is a Fraud

Obama’s  counter-terrorism bombing campaign directed against the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) initiated in August 2014 is fake.

If they had wanted to eliminate ISIS-Daesh, they could have bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq in June 2014.  The  Syro-Arabian Desert is open territory. With a fleet of state of the art jet fighter aircraft (F15, F22 Raptor, F16) it would have been  –from a military standpoint–  ”a piece of cake”, a rapid and expedient surgical operation, which would have decimated the Islamic State convoys in a matter of hours.

The issue mentioned above has never been raised  by military analysts. It has never received media coverage.

Needless to say that if they had eliminated the ISIS convoy in June 2014, Obama’s “Counterterrorism” initiative entitled “Operation Inherent Resolve”  would not have been required.

The unspoken objective of Obama’s “counterterrorism” campaign was to provide a pretext and a justification for the extensive bombing of Iraq and Syria.

According to CENTCOM, more than 31,900 targets were the object of US bombings over a period of more than 2 years, and the ISIS has yet to be defeated.

The counterterrorism bombing campaign was instigated to destroy Iraq and Syria rather than defeat the ISIS.

Foreign Mercenaries and Western Special Forces

Amply documented, these various terror formations in Syria, the most important of which are Jabhat Al Nusra (recently renamed Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, “Front for the Conquest of the Levant”), and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS-Daesh) are largely composed of foreign mercenaries, recruited, trained and financed by the Western military alliance.

Western special forces –often hired by private mercenary outfits– are embedded within the ranks of these terror formations. These special forces are in permanent liaison with their US-NATO-Israeli counterparts.

The various terror organizations are instruments of US-NATO.  The US, France, Britain, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are the “State sponsors” of Al Qaeda and the ISIS.

Money and weapons are channeled to the terrorists. The US and its allies use arms trafficking –i.e. the unregulated illicit trade in light weapons through private traders including organized crime–, to channel large amounts of weapons and ammunition to the terrorists inside Syria.The Berlin Terror Attack

Terror Attacks in Western Cities

Now let us turn our attention to the Berlin terror attack (December 19, 2016), which coincided chronologically with the Liberation of Aleppo. 

Within less than an hour of the occurrence prior to the conduct of a police investigation, the Western media in chorus concluded without a shred of evidence that ISIS-Daesh was behind the attack.

This is the “authoritative report” of the Washington Post:

The “self proclaimed soldier of the Islamic State” is dead. And  dead suspects do not talk.

That seems to be a pattern in most of the alleged ISIS terror attacks in Western cities. Moreover, the alleged suspect was on the radar of the German police and intelligence.

“The shootout would end the violent arc of Amri’s life, marking another salvo in a relentless new wave of Islamist terrorism in Europe that has vexed the ability of nations to thwart it. (Washington Post, December 23, 2016)

The CNN’s report concludes that the ISIS was behind the attack because the ISIS affiliated Amaq News Agency “released a statement saying that Monday’s attack was carried out by a ‘soldier of the Islamic State'”.

The I.D. Card of the Alleged Lone Perpetrator

It is worth noting that the I.D. Card of Anis Amri was found inside the truck 24 hours “after” the conduct of a thorough police investigation of the wrecked truck. And immediately Amri was identified as the perpetrator of the terror attack.

Was his I.D card  belatedly “found” or was it “planted” under the driver’s seat of the lorry?

This is not the first time that the I.D. card or passport of an alleged terror suspect is “left behind”.

Said Kouachi, one of the alleged perpetrators of the Paris Charlie Hebdo January 2015 attack “reportedly” also left his I.D card behind, in his brother’s abandoned getaway car (see image right).

On the Radar of the Police and Intelligence Agencies 

Most of the alleged terror suspects involved in recent attacks (Paris, Brussels, Nice) were on the radar of the police and intelligence agencies.

Moreover, it is worth noting that Amedi Coulibaly, principal suspect of the January 2015 Paris Charlie Hebdo terror attack who was shot dead at the kosher grocery store in Vincennes on January 9, had been invited in 2009 to a meeting at the Elysée Palace with (former) president Nicolas Sarkozy.

What was the real purpose of his meeting behind closed doors with an acting head of State?

Is it relevant?  Nobody bothered in the French media to ask Nicolas Sarkozy to clarify the nature of his meeting with Coulibaly.

“The Terrorists R Us“,

The fundamental question which the media fails to address is who is behind ISIS-Daesh? Who are the “State sponsors” of the Islamic State?

The unspoken truth is that several Western governments are supporting the terror organizations which they are allegedly combating.

The US counter-terrorism coalition is intent upon supporting and protecting the terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

It’s a diabolical agenda.  The governments of the countries whose citizens are the victims of terror attacks are supporting ISIS-Daesh.

“You are either with us or with the terrorists”, said George W. Bush in an address to the US Congress in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Western leaders are so to speak “with themselves as well as with the terrorists”.

Most people in Western countries are unaware that their own governments  are supporting and funding the terrorists.

When France provides (covert) military aid to both the Libya Islamic fighting Group (LIFG) and ISIS-Daesh in Syria, does this not suggest that the French government might at some future date be “held accountable” for the terror attacks in Paris and Nice (allegedly carried out by the ISIS), which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians?

Germany sells large amounts of weapons to Turkey and Saudi Arabia which in turn provide military aid to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Does this not signify –to put it mildly– that Angela Merkel’s government should take “some responsibility” for the Berlin terror attack allegedly conducted by ISIS-Daesh?

Combating ISIS on the one hand, Supporting ISIS on the other hand? A criminal undertaking.

Western Governments are State Sponsors of Terrorism

Despite the evidence, it is very difficult for people to accept the fact that their own government is supporting terrorism.

Most people will dispel this as an impossibility. But it is the forbidden truth.

The established consensus is that the role of a government is to protect its people. That myth has to be sustained.

The media’s role is to ensure that the truth does not trickle down to the broader public. If that were to occur, the legitimacy of Obama, Hollande, Merkel, et al would collapse like a deck of cards.

Global Research has published several thousand articles on the Syria and Iraq Wars including US-NATO support of terrorism.  There is a long history going back to the Soviet Afghan war: Al Qaeda is an “intelligence asset”. Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA.

See our

Terrorism Dossier,

Syria Dossier,

Iraq Dossier  

Yesterday State Department deputy propaganda spokesperson Mark Toner reminded US companies that there are economic and reputational risks associated with doing business with Russia until Russia gives Crimea back to Washington’s puppet government in Kiev.  ^[1]

I see the matter differently from the US State Department.

The only risk American corporations face from doing business in Russia is from the US government. Washington will punish the US companies unless, of course, the companies are part of the corporate oligarchy which has been granted immunity to the sanctions.

The risk involved is to Russia. Here are some of the risks:

When a Russian company does business with an American one, the American firm obtains economic information about Russia which is given to the CIA.

When the Russian Central Bank sells Russian bonds, Wall Street, acting for the CIA, can purchase the bonds and then dump them at inopportune times to embarrass Russia by driving down their price. The price decline will then become propaganda that Russia is failing and its bonds are worthless.

When the Russian government allows the ruble to be traded in currency markets, the Russian government enables Washington to speculate against Russia’s currency and to drive down its value. The decline in the ruble is then reinforced by propaganda that the ruble is worthless.

When the Russian government permits foreign investment, Washington can have the money pulled out of Russia at inopportune times and, thereby, destabilize the Russian economy.

The Russian government should forget all about Washington’s sanctions. In fact the sanctions have helped Russia tremendously. Prior to the sanctions, Washington had Russia set up in the global economy as a Third World supplier of raw materials and dependent on foreign imports. This was Washington’s way of controlling Russia. As a result of sanctions, Russia has become more self-sufficient and focused on producing for its own needs instead of for the needs of the West.

Rather than worrying about Washington’s sanctions, the Russian government should put sanctions on Russian companies for doing business with the US. In their activities abroad, American corporations are agents for the CIA, and they are agents in behalf of Washington’s policy of destabilizing Russia and China.

To see the truth of this, look at the history of Latin America. Every reformist government in every Latin American country in which the US has a business presence has been destabilized and overthrown.

Russia’s goal should be to insulate itself from the West, not integrate itself into the West. To be integrated into the West means to be a vassal state. Together Russia, China and India comprise by far the largest potential market in the world and also the largest geographical area.

These three countries should focus on integrating their economies and insulate themselves against the West.

Modern Monetary Theory, which is associated with outstanding economists such as Michael Hudson, makes it clear that countries should finance their infrastructure and any productive investment by creating money not debt. The use of government debt simply allows private banks to create the money, and the debt has to be serviced with interest paid to the banks, which drains the economy of spending power. Moreover, the debt can end up in hostile hands and be used to destabilize the economy.

If Russia is going to allow the West to control its economy, it may as well allow Washington to control its armed forces.

Unfortunately for the Russian government and the Russian people, Russia’s Central Bank and neoliberal economists are too naive and gullible to be able to protect Russia from destabilization. Until Russia finds much better economic advice, the country’s future remains uncertain.

Note: In the above URL to the Sputnik article, Sputnik reports: “Toner added that Washington has sent a ‘clear signal’ to Moscow through ‘combined sanctions, restrictive measures, and reduced diplomatic engagement’ that it should fulfill its commitments under the Minsk ceasefire deal and end its ‘occupation of Crimea.’”

Is this sloppy editing by Sputnik or has Sputnik succumbed to Washington’s propaganda? Russia is not required under the Minsk accord to deliver Crimea to Washington. Moreover, Russia is not “occupying” Crimea. Crimea, a province of Russia for centuries, has a Russian population. The population in a massive voter turnout voted almost 100% to return to Russia from which the province was wrenched by Khrushchev when Russia and Ukraine were part of the same country.

Notes:

[1] http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160524/1040134996/russia-us-business-sanctions.

The new late night deal in the Eurogroup on the new bailout for Greece is another blatant hypocricy by the dominant European Union powers, their partner-cum-competitor IMF (aka the US) and the Greek establishment (now represented by the SYRIZA government).

The new deal is an uneasy compromise subject to a continuing tug-of-war between the US (through its proxy, the IMF) and the EU.

Together, the EU and the US obliged the now crumbling (because of people’s anger) SYRIZA government to capitulate to the troika austerity policies as encapsulated in the now three Economic Adjustment Programmes for Greece.

These programmes aggravated the depression of the Greek economy, caused a rampant poverty of the Greek people and expanded the control of Western corporate capital on the Greek economy.

In this game the US played a second role – not so much behind the curtain – by directing the incompetent and opportunistic SYRIZA government in its clumsy negotiations with the EU. In fact, the US on the one hand used Greece to weaken the EU (for its own purposes and geopolitical interests) and on the other hand backed the EU in order to impose austerity and foreign control on the Greek economy.

Once EU’s and US’ common aim of imposing austerity and anti-popular economic restructuring on Greece has been concluded, then the two partners-um-competitors jostled the one against the other for the terms and the consequences of the necessary debt relief for Greece.

Debt relief is necessary because the troika’s Economic Adjustment Programme for Greece is unfeasible and Greek debt is unviable. A few days ago, IMF in its recent preliminary debt sustainability assessment had accepted this.

On the issue of debt relief US and EU hold opposite positions and have conflicting interests. US wants a deep debt haircut because this (a) helps its economy (by deleveraging the world economy on the back of the EU as a new debt haircut would affect mainly the official and inter-state loans of the EU to Greece) and (b) generally weakens EU’s challenge to US global hegemony. On the other side, the EU (and particularly its main hegemone, Germany) abhores a debt haircut and is only willing to concede a debt reprofilling (that is an extention of the maturity of Greek loans and, possibly, a lowering of the interest) that would make debt servicing (but not debt) viable.

In this tug-of-war between the US (through its proxy, the IMF) and the EU the first threatened with leaving the Greek Economic Adjustment Programme and thus obliging Germany to tackle the Greek problem alone. To avoid this Germany and the euro-core offered a typically myopic compromise: a roadmap for a roadmap to a possible debt reprofilling. In plain language, they offered some vague ideas about a methodology (comprised of short-term, mid-term and long-term measures) for postponing the problem (‘kicking the can’) if the Greek Economic Adjustment Programme continues to fail. In the end, the US and the EU agreed on this uneasy and shaky compromise because neither side wanted to push things to the extreme; at least at this point of time with open broader geopolitical problems, the mutual abhorred possibility of Brexit in sight etc.

The opportunistic and incompetent SYRIZA government is a passive spectator in this tug-of-war. It betrayed its anti-austerity declarations and capitulated unconditionally to the troika. A few days ago it legislated a new wave of barbaric austerity measures and of unbashful sell-off of Greek state assets to foreign interests. Its popularity its crumbling rapidly and SYRIZA’s only aim is to cling to government.

The results of this new Greek bailout deal would be equally dismal with those of its predecessors. The new austerity measures would deepen further recession. New measures will be required and the incompetent and subservient SYRIZA government has already agreed and legislated an automatic mechanism (called the ‘cutter’) that, if the programme fails in its milestones, will instigate cuts in public expenditure (and mainly in wages and pensions). If this ‘cutter’ mechanism fails then the debt reprofilling mechanism might come into force.

Notwithstanding, it should be pointed out that this reprofilling mechanism is at the moment only some vague ideas that would be discusses in 2017. The accentuation of the Greek depression will increase popular anger and frustration. The EU, the SYRIZA government and the Greek politico-economic establishment (as the oppostition, despite its opportunistic whining in parliament, is a standard-bearer of the Economic Adjustment Programme) will face this burgeoning anger and pay the consequences.

Aid groups are warning that at least 50,000 civilians are in danger of being “caught in the crossfire” in Fallujah as it is subjected to constant US-led air strikes along with artillery barrages, and forces loyal to the Washington-backed government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi along with Shia militias encircle the central Iraqi city.

The predominantly Sunni city, which is about 40 miles west of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, has been occupied by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) since January 2014. It has now been targeted by the Iraqi government as part of a desperate bid to contain mounting political opposition from within Baghdad’s impoverished Shia population as well as from militia groups, including those aligned with the Shia cleric Moqtada al Sadr.

Within the last month, crowds numbering in the thousands have twice stormed Baghdad’s Green Zone, the heavily fortified seat of the Iraqi government. On the second occasion, on May 20, security forces repulsed the protesters with live fire, killing four and wounding hundreds.

Along with denunciations of the government for rampant corruption and a failure to provide essential services, the protesters have condemned it for failing to secure the capital from terrorist attacks, which have killed at least 200 this month, most of them in poor Shia neighborhoods.

Iraqi officials have claimed that the terrorist attacks have their origin in ISIS-controlled Fallujah, and the offensive is designed to show that it is doing something to halt these atrocities.

While the US military is providing air support for Iraqi government troops advancing on Fallujah—and denying it to the Shia militia forces of the Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Units), which work closely with Iran—Pentagon officials have made it clear that the siege of Fallujah is seen by Washington as a diversion from the principal strategic target in Iraq, the much larger city of Mosul in the north.

“You do not need Fallujah in order to get Mosul,” US Army Col. Steve Warren, the spokesman for the US military forces in Iraq and Syria, told the Reuters news agency in a telephone interview.

Nonetheless, Washington is supporting in Fallujah precisely the type of murderous siege that it has accused the government of President Bashar al-Assad of waging against areas controlled by the Western-backed Islamist “rebels” in Syria.

At least 21 civilians were reported killed in the US-led bombardment of Fallujah on Monday and Tuesday.

The population of Fallujah, which was the scene of bloody US sieges in 2004, has been subjected to bombardment for the last two years. Government forces have cut off supply routes to the city, depriving it of food, health care and other basic necessities. There are reports that substantial numbers of civilians are on the brink of starvation.

The Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq, a militant Sunni organization formed in 2003, denounced the new offensive against Fallujah as “an unjust aggression, a reflection of the vengeful spirit that the forces of evil harbor against the city.” It reported in a statement that 10,000 Fallujans have been killed or wounded by government bombs and shells over the past two years.

While staying in Fallujah may entail starving to death, those who flee risk being killed by either ISIS or Iraqi government forces. As few as 80 families have managed to flee Fallujah.

The United Nations refugee agency has expressed concern over Iraqi government forces separating men and older boys from women and children, taking them to the Habbaniyah Military Base for “security screening.”

While the siege of Fallujah tightens in Iraq, a simultaneous offensive has been reported in the area north of the ISIS-held Syrian city of Raqqa.

Backed by US air strikes and accompanied by US special operations “advisors,” a force of several thousand fighters have begun advancing 30 miles to the north of the city. The Pentagon has described these fighters as belonging to the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is overwhelmingly dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Forces, or YPG.

The offensive was prepared by a secret visit to the Kurdish-controlled region of Syria by General Joseph Votel, the head of US Central Command, which oversees the US wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Votel met with both Kurdish commanders and some of the hundreds of US special operations troops now on the ground in Syria.

The visit prompted an angry response by the Turkish government, Washington’s NATO ally, when Votel visited Ankara immediately after his unannounced foray into Syria.

Gen. Yasar Guler, the deputy chief of the Turkish General Staff, reportedly warned Votel against reliance upon the YPG, which Ankara fears will consolidate an independent Kurdish entity on its border. Instead, he proposed that Washington intensify its support for “moderate” Islamist rebels, forces which are largely dominated by either ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

The group Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, which regularly denounces ISIS atrocities against the city’s population, reported that US warplanes had dropped leaflets over the northern suburbs of the town, warning their inhabitants to flee the area.

The group pointed out, however, that there were no safe areas or access routes for such an exodus, adding via Twitter that the US reliance on the Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces to wage the offensive had pushed “a lot of people to join ISIS to defense of their city.”

Just as in Mosul and other predominantly Sunni areas of Iraq where the Iraqi army is seen as a hostile occupying force dominated by Shia interests, so in Raqqa, the SDF is seen as a hostile force dominated by Kurdish interests. In both areas, the local population fears, with reason, that they will be subjected to ethnic cleansing and driven from their homes.

In Iraq, there is already the example of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, whose “liberation” entailed the destruction of at least 70 percent of the city’s buildings. Since ISIS was driven out in December of last year, less than 15 percent of Ramadi’s previous population has been able to return.

The unfolding US-backed offensives in Iraq and Syria expose the catastrophe into which decades of US imperialist wars have plunged the entire region. The divide and conquer strategy employed by the US occupation in Iraq deliberately stoked sectarian tensions that have riven the country. Similarly in Syria, Washington and its regional allies have backed sectarian Sunni Islamist militias in a war that has claimed at least a quarter of a million lives.

Whatever the tactical victories achieved against ISIS, they will only exacerbate these divisions. US imperialism will continue its attempt to exploit them to further a military intervention whose underlying aim is not a struggle against terrorism, but rather the assertion of US hegemony over the Middle East and its immense oil wealth.

Serbia and China cultivate a long tradition of friendship and mutual trust enjoying mutually beneficial cooperation. Presently, when certain European, American and other countries compete to win Chinese cooperation, Serbia is already endowed with the capacity and the basis to enhance cooperation with the second strongest economic power in the world and to upgrade mutual relations to the strategic level.

In fact, that is exactly what Serbia is doing. The forthcoming visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping and expected signing of General agreement on strategic relationship will certainly accelerate this cooperation in all fields.

China and Serbia perceive each other as stable, reliable partners in long run. Serbia, although relatively small economy, commands considerable capacity for future development, especially in the fields of infrastructure, energy and food production. In addition, Serbia occupies favorable geopolitical position being at the same time South European, Central European and Danube country. As cross-roads between various regions and even continents, Serbia is the door and bridge to other destinations for economic cooperation with Europe. It was not mere coincidence that in December of 2014 capital of Serbia Belgrade was the vanue of “China + 16” Group Summit, comprising Central and Southeast European countries jointly participating in the implementation of the “Road and Belt” mega-project, better known as the 21^st Century New Silk Road. So far, China has allocated $ 13 billion for the projects in these countries, out of which 1.5 billion is earmarked for Serbia.

Chinese companies have already constructed the “Mihailo Pupin” Bridge over the Danube River, in Belgrade, plus 21 km of access highway. Plans for the construction of the second bridge over the Danube near Vinča, along the European Corridor X, and a bridge over the Sava River, near the Town of Obrenovac are in advanced stage. Chinese Hessteel Co., the second largest steelmaker in the world, has recently bought the Smederevo Steel Plant that employs 5,050 workers, and owns a port on the Danube and a Tinplate Factory in the City of Šabac (on the River Sava). A further agreement was reached with Chinese partners to construct the Thermo Power Plant “Kosotolac B”. This project, includes also construction of another port on the Danube and an 18 km-long railroad section for the transport of necessary equipment.

Therefore, in economic terms, Chinese companies have already settled on the Danube, thus increasing the significance of this strategic inland water European Corridor VII.

The Tripartite Partnership of Serbia, Hungary and China has initiated construction of the high-speed railway connecting Belgrade and Budapest. This project is just a part of the of strategic railroads on European Corridor X, running from the Mediterranean Ports of Piraeus and Thessalonica, in Greece, through Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary, to the countries in the Central and the North Europe – all the way to the Northern and Baltic Seas. Taking in consideration plans of Chinese engagement in the modernization of transport lines connecting Belgrade and the Port of Bar (Adriatic, Montenegro), then Chinese companies` interest in privatization of a number of Serbian companies, then the full potential and the perspective of economic cooperation between the two countries become much clearer.

It seems that the importance of the rapid rise in economic cooperation with China goes beyond the point of its substantial input to GDP growth and employment, although both of them make very significant parameters. Provided that the current trend continues — and there is no reason to expect otherwise — it could gradually affect the layout of Serbia’s economic interests at the international level, focusing them into a more balanced position.

Over the recent years, the EU has been busy dealing with itself, suffering from serious crisis of the system, nationalism and particularism on rise, technological and economic stagnation, Eurozone crisis, capital outflow, migrants, “Brexit” and other “exits”, and Transatlantic “encouragments” to increase its military expenditure (truncated G7 Summit in Hanover). The USA has been busy intimidating its allies by using, once “dangers” from Russian, other time, from China. Russia is faced with decline of oil prices, with the need to modernize economic structure, to alleviate consequences of US sanctions implemented by “European partners”, forcing her to spend more on defense. The world witnesses a dramatic widening of the divide between the masses of poor and the handful of extremely rich, with poverty, unemployment and misery dominating the globe.

China extends her friendly hand to offer partnership, networking, innovation, and mutual benefit towards all four sides of the world.

Every now and then, one wonders – why should the West feel it necessary to publicly lament over apparent “slowdown of Chinese economic growth” falling from former 9% to present ‘mere’ 7.5%! Who, really, is doing better in time of prolonged global economic crisis?

We were standing in Hiroshima looking at a stone wall. All there was to see was a shadow of a man. It had been etched into the wall at the moment of his obliteration by the blinding light of the first atomic bomb. Olof Palme, prime minister of Sweden, stared hard at it.

An hour later he gave a speech as head of the Independent Commission on Disarmament of which I was a member. “My fear”, he remarked, “is that mankind itself will end up as nothing more than a shadow on a wall.”

President Charles de Gaulle of France once observed, “After a nuclear war the two sides would have neither powers, nor laws, nor cities, nor cultures, nor cradles, nor tombs.”

What if, contrary to the received wisdom, it was shown that nuclear weapons played no role in the surrender of Japan at the end of World War 2, as has been their justification?

Perhaps the terrible acts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no worse, despite their two hundred thousand deaths, than many other scathing memories of war waged against mainly civilian populations. Then we would have to start a big rethink of the value of nuclear arsenals.

Nuclear deterrence, many thoughtful generals have long concluded, is nonsense on stilts and long has been.

New scholarship, benefiting from access to recently classified documents in Japanese, Soviet and US archives, is more grist for their mill. Scholars working on these papers now conclude that the Soviet Union’s invasion of Manchuria may have been more important that the nuclear bombardment in coercing the Japanese surrender.

Soviet scholars have been saying this for a long time – I first came across their arguments when I was at university in the 1960s. Yet Japanese historians willfully colluded with the US in telling a different story. The Japanese leaders did not want their people to believe they had not been smart enough strategists and could be outmaneuvered by the Red Army. Rather they wanted the world to believe that they had been overwhelmed by a scientific breakthrough they could not have foreseen.

There was in fact nothing totally special about Hiroshima.

The US conventional bombing attacks on Japanese cities in the spring and summer of 1945 were almost as devastating as Hiroshima. They often caused more damage and even more casualties. Altogether 66 Japanese cities were attacked that summer, and a typical raid of 500 bombers could deliver 5 kilotons of bombs. The Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 16 kilotons, only three times bigger than the average conventional raid.

Yet neither the conventional nor the nuclear bombing turned the heads of Japan’s leaders. Its Supreme Council did not meet until two days after the Hiroshima attack of August 6th.

Yet when the Soviets intervened on August 9th word reached Tokyo by 4.30 am and the Supreme Council met by 10.30 am. Following Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohito took no action. He merely asked for “more details”. But when he heard of the Soviet invasion he immediately summoned Lord Privy Seal Koichi Kido and told him, “In the light of the Soviet entry…. it was all the more urgent to find a means to end the war.”

Kido after the war confessed, “If military leaders could convince themselves they were defeated by the power of science but not by lack of lack of spiritual power or by strategic errors, they could save face.”

The Americans were only too happy to oblige in this 1945 political spin. If the bomb did it then the US had been the prime instrument in Japan’s defeat and US prowess would be enhanced throughout the world. But if the Soviets could convincingly claim it was their invasion of Manchuria that tipped the balance then Moscow could claim they did in four days what the US could not do in four years.

The Soviets were out-maneuvered in the public relations battle by the self-interest of the Japanese and the American leadership.

It is time overdue for the Americans to say a profound sorry for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were unnecessary acts.

They were only carried out because President Harry Truman believed wrongly that by hurrying the defeat of Japan by a handful of days it was the way to stop the Soviet advance in its tracks.

President Barack Obama has now decided to visit Hiroshima.

On May 26th Obama will be in Japan for the G7 heads of state meeting. When he gets to Hiroshima he should bow his head and ask forgiveness for America’s terrible deed.

Jonathan Power [email protected]

There should be no sharp intake of breath on this. Reactionary politics and a certain voodoo mastery of reality was already perfected by Ronald Reagan when he secured the White House and ensured the irrevocable decline of an ailing empire. Making America great has remained the caption of failed politics, but it seems entirely at home in the Trump argot.

Which brings us back to that most inexact of sciences, if one can even call it that. Reading polls is much like reading tea leaves: such matter is often inscrutable, though people still make much of it. The United States first witnessed that now insatiable obsession in 1824, when the pundits suggested that Andrew Jackson was in the lead over John Quincy Adams.  On that occasion, the figures were accurate enough.

Behind such readings come the usual deceptions, hesitations and assumptions in population sampling. One does not want to come across as a barking racist, so it is best to keep silent.  Again, US politics familiarised itself with this phenomenon in what remains known more generally as the Bradley Effect.

In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American candidate, threw his hat in the ring in contesting the California governor race. All seemed to be going swimmingly in the polls till “social desirably bias” struck him down.

Pundits have attempted to find some means of relating the lessons of Bradley to the Trump phenomenon, though many of these are stretched.  The point on Trump, it has been contended, is that he has more appeal that is being measured or calculated, a reverse Bradley phenomenon.  Effectively, “social desirability bias” favours, rather than undermines him, with voters reluctant to concede they might back such a candidate.[1]

In December last year, polling and data firm Morning Consult studied the figures on Trump’s faring across telephone and online polling using a sampling of 2,500 Republican voters.  The study found that Trump performed “about six percentage points better online than via live telephone interviewing and that his advantage online is driven by adults with higher levels of education.”[2]

Such findings have convinced political scientists such as Ken Goldstein that Trump’s support is “understated when you go into the sanctity of the secret ballot.”  Like all polling figures, the last minute rush, the desperate re-think, and the appraisal as the candidate is selected at the ballot box, tend to elude such calculations.

Similarly to tea varietals, polls vary.  RealClearPolitics impressed media outlets such as the BBC, which insisted with a grave air that Clinton’s “double-digit lead, which she has held over the past several months, has vanished – and with it, apparently, Democrats’ dream of a transformational 2016 victory that would leave Republicans wandering in the wilderness for a generation.”[3]

Other polls, such as the Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Sunday, speak of 44 percent of the electorate wishing for a third candidate option.  But this is merely a sign that the current poll figures suggest a good degree of fear and loathing.

As Dan Balz and Scott Clement have put it, “Among those registered who say they favour Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump.”  This point is mirrored on Trump’s side with 44 percent of backers claiming they are voting for the presumptive Republican nominee while 53 percent “say their motivation is to oppose to Clinton” (Washington Post, May 22).

Nothing could ever have been transformational about Clinton, a veteran political apparatchik who has a record sufficiently tarnished to warrant barring.  Her husband, on the other hand, managed to shape the United States in a manner few Republicans could have, giving it a true Tory savaging if ever there was one.Conversely, the suggestion that Trump could be devastatingly different is to ignore the various devastating administrations that have come before.  Such regimes wax and wane in their appalling effects, with some aspects contained by Congressional limits – when those on the Hill decide to wake up from their business slumber.

There is little doubt that the great problem for Trump – resistance from within the GOP movement – is faltering.  The figures, to end, show that.  The #NeverTrump movement has folded, and is now passing into enforced and collaborative amnesia.  Opponents have decided that Trump, bogus of intention or otherwise, is their figure of choice, the favoured bull in a doomed china shop.  Having made the political flip flop artful and, importantly, without lasting consequence, Trump has managed to stay essentially unburnt.

The dangers surrounding Clinton, however, are far more pronounced.  The fires are leaping, and there are Democrats who remain seduced by Bernie Sanders who, if he is worth his salt, should take the plunge as a true independent.  As for Clinton, there is no hint of Teflon coating on that side of the race.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-22/a-reverse-bradley-effect-polls-may-underestimate-trump-s-support

[2] http://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Morning-Consult-Donald-Trump-online-versus-live-polling-methods-study1.pdf

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36372929

Text of Abayomi Azikiwe’s presentation to Left Form, City University of New York, May 22, 2016

In February of 2008 under the administration of President George W. Bush, Jr., the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was officially launched with its base in Stuttgart, Germany.

The reasoning behind the creation of AFRICOM has evolved over the last eight years from being a necessary security measure to protect vital American interests on the continent to a mechanism designed to assist post-colonial African states to enhance their national security apparatuses in light of the so-called “war on terrorism”, by then in full operation some four to five years after the invasion of Iraq and Haiti, and six-and-a-half years after the Pentagon occupation of Afghanistan.

There was much controversy within the African Union (AU) member-states over whether AFRICOM should establish its headquarters on the continent. This idea initially was rejected by the Pentagon due to this objection by numerous African states of varying political outlooks and governmental systems.

At this time, 2007-2008, the U.S. had initiated a war in Somalia in order to prevent the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) from fully consolidating power in that Horn of Africa nation fractured since 1991 after the collapse of the regime of Mohamed Siad Barre, a close ally of Washington. The administration of President George H.W. Bush in its final days had deployed 12,000 Marines to Somalia in December 1992, under the guise of responding to a humanitarian crisis of food deficits and internal conflict.

This “Operation Restore Hope” was inherited by the administration of President Bill Clinton. The operation was soon exposed as a war of occupation. Somalians rose up against the presence of U.S., Canadian and United Nations troops.

In July of 1993, the Pentagon troops bombed a location in the Somalian capital of Mogadishu killing over 50 leading members of several organizations including elders. In response to this massacre a full-blown war of resistance was waged by the people of Somalia.

On October 3, 1993, at least 18 U.S. troops were killed in a battle in Mogadishu signaling the beginning of the end of this failed intervention. By early 1994, the U.S. and UN forces had withdrawn from Somalia. Nonetheless, they would later return after 2006-2007 in a proxy war for the maintenance of U.S. influence in the oil-rich and strategic nation of Somalia.

Obama Continues Imperialist Interventions

The President Barack Obama administration after coming into office in January 2009 not only supported AFRICOM but promoted its strengthening and enhancement. A military base in another Horn of Africa state of Djibouti became a launching point for the Pentagon at Camp Lemonier. Pentagon training operations in various African states has not stabilized these countries but driven them deeper into divisions and
uncertainty.

In Mali, for example, a captain who attended several U.S. war colleges later staged a coup against an elected government that was ostensibly supported by the Obama administration. The financing and logistical assistance provided to the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) has failed to defeat Al-Shabaab despite the presence of Pentagon advisers and a CIA field station in Mogadishu,

The Libyan Crisis

AFRICOM first comprehensive military operation was carried out against the oil-rich North African state of Libya. Between February 17, 2011 and October 31, Obama deployed hundreds of CIA operatives to this country led for over forty years by Col. Muammar Gaddafi.

After two UN Security Council resolutions were passed in March of that year beginning on March 19, the U.S. along with other NATO states including Britain, France, Italy, Turkey along with their regional allies launched nearly 30,000 sorties over Libya, a country of approximately six million, dropping nearly 10,000 bombs, killing 50,000-100,000 people and dislocating at least two million.

Gaddafi, along with members of his family, was brutally assassinated by Islamist militias armed by Washington and its NATO allies. Leading officials and supporters of the Jamahiriya system were publically executed, imprisoned and driven into exile.

Today Libya has gone from being the most prosperous state in Africa to one of its most significantly impoverished becoming a source of instability throughout North Africa and West Africa. The nation today is a major source of human trafficking with hundreds of thousands being channeled through the country in the dangerous voyage across the Mediterranean into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe.

The UN Refugee Agency in a report issued in 2015, documented that the world is suffering from the worst crisis of displacement since the conclusion of World War II, where 60 million people are forced from their homes both internally as well as refugees. This crisis is a direct manifestation of the failed U.S. military, political and economic policies.

U.S. Imperialism and the African Crisis in 2016

This year’s presidential elections have been largely devoid of any substantive discussion on foreign policy particularly, with specific reference to the role of U.S. imperialism in Africa.

Just recently, the Obama administration signed a military agreement with the West African state of Senegal, giving the Pentagon complete access to the country. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a vast mineral-rich state, U.S. mercenaries were hired by a former governor of Katanga Province to supposedly provide security in the upcoming presidential elections.

The Western Sahara, Africa’s last formal colony, has been prevented from holding a UN sponsored referendum on its future as a result of its occupation by Morocco, a close ally of Washington. It was revealed over the last several weeks as well that the CIA was involved in training children as spies against Al-Shabaab in Somalia.

These developments alone with many others too numerous to mention in the course of this panel are occurring every week on the continent. At the three previous national conferences of the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) resolutions were passed in opposition to U.S. interventions in Africa. Our task is to implement these decisions making them a material force in the current political situation in the U.S.

By Abayomi Azikiwe Editor, Pan-African News Wire

Note: This paper was delivered at the Left Forum held at John Jay College of the City University of New York (CUNY) May 20-22, 2016. The presentation was made at a panel sponsored by the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) entitled “The Fight to End U.S. Wars”. Other participants on the panel were Joe Lombardo, Co-coordinator of UNAC from upstate New York, Phil Wilayto of the Virginia Defenders for Freedom Justice and Equality, Sara Flounders of the International Action Center in New York City and Ana Edwards of the editorial board of the Virginia Defender newspaper published in Richmond.

Oriental Review has transcribed below in English the interview of US political analyst Andrew Korybko with Macedonian Net Press agency.

Korybko outlines the general landscape of Hybrid Warfare in the Balkans, exposes the regional ethnic and emotional stress-lines, stirred up by the interested supranational actors, warns the Albanian community in Macedonia against being misused as agents of destabilization.  

Q: According to some information in both the Macedonian and Serbian media, the Russian intelligence services are warning about the West’s intention to provoke a Balkan War, with a spiral of violence unfolding in Skopje, Banja Luka, and Belgrade. Their idea is to “show” that the governments in Macedonia, Republika Srpska, and Serbia are “weak” and that they need foreign “help” or intervention or whatever it is that they are calling their deviant attempts to manipulate and control other countries and nations. Can you share some more information regarding this issue with our readers?

Thank you again Marija for giving me the chance to speak to your readers, it’s always such an honor. I’d like to begin by reminding everyone of the Central Balkans geopolitical construction that I first proposed last year, in which I suggested that Republika Srpska, Serbia, and the Republic of Macedonia are each destined to share in the same strategic fate in the coming years. This is because none of these states are in the EU or NATO, and also because two of them –Serbia and Macedonia – plan to host Russia and China’s multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects, a gas pipeline and high-speed railroad, respectively. I’ve explained at length in previous interviews and articles about why these megaprojects are so important, but to summarize once more, their successful completion would give the multipolar Great Powers the potential to tap directly into the heart of Europe and help shift the EU closer to the emerging world order and away from the US-led existing one. Precisely for this globally transformative reason, the Central Balkans are, in my analytical understanding, single-handedly the most important region of Europe today and one of the most pivotal places in the entire world.

The US is pursuing a dual track policy towards the Central Balkans, simultaneously trying to gain controlling influence over the three targeted states while also working to totally destabilize them. It might sound schizophrenic to work towards two seemingly contradictory objectives at the same time, but it actually makes a lot of sense when you take the time to analyze it. Washington would like to be able to seize control of these governments so that it can then exert indirect proxy influence over Russia’s proposed Balkan Stream gas pipeline and China’s Balkan Silk Road high-speed railway or cancel them outright, but if it’s not successful in doing so, then it would have no qualms about throwing these countries into chaos in order to offset these projects. In this sense, the US is trying to achieve a ‘win-win’ policy whereby it either controls the Balkan Megaprojects or destroys them, which in either way works to Washington’s grand unipolar strategic benefit. All of the present destabilization and uncertainty in the Central Balkans is thus linked to this strategic imperative that the US is so actively advancing in the region. Other than employing ‘regular’ Hybrid Warfare techniques such as informational and economic destabilization, the US is also resorting to ‘irregular’ ones such as the trans-regional Immigrant Crisis and more specific measures in each of the targeted states.

Everything that I’m about to tell our readers about is described in detail in my “Law Of Hybrid Warfare” series at Oriental Review, where I’ve  lately begun to publish the Balkan portion of my research. To begin with Republika Srpska, the US supports its Sarajevo proxy’s unilateral and aggressive piecemeal measures at revising the Dayton Agreement, seeking to progressively lessen Banja Luka’s constitutionally enshrined sovereignty in order to eventually erase it from the map. Right now only heavy informational and institutional Hybrid War measures are being used, but it can’t be discounted that more serious strategies will be introduced in the coming future. For example, we can already observe the nascent beginnings of a Color Revolution movement starting to take shape in Banja Luka and elsewhere in Republika Srpska’s major cities, and this development was of course meticulously preplanned and is in no way a happenstance occurrence.

Additionally, with institutional-informational aggression being waged against Republika Srpska from the federal center and local ‘bottom-up’ pressure being exerted against it from the incipient Color Revolution movement, the last thing that the Republic needs right now is identity tension between its Serbian Orthodox minority and the “Bosniak”/Turkish Muslim minority, but that’s exactly what appears to be taking shape right now. Recalling that there have been several small-scale terrorists incidents in the area over the past year, as well as a few that were thankfully busted before they caused any harm, it’s obvious that Islamic terrorists and pro-Daesh elements are trying to return Bosnia in general and parts of Republika Srpska in particular into the frontlines of militant jihad.

Moreover, Turkey is tacitly supporting this trend, as can be seen by former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s recent visit to Banja Luka. Not only did he preside over a reopening ceremony for an historic mosque – which, while marketed in the Western media as “healing tensions”, ironically only served to exacerbated them – but he said that “I came here to speak from my heart, not just on my behalf but on behalf of 78 million Turks, whom I represent here. You have 78 million friends who are with you and support you when you are sad and when you are happy.” It’s evident that not only is the Turkish government once again proclaiming that it’s returned to the region, but that it wants to actively play the front and center role in carrying out Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” unipolar blueprint for dividing and ruling the Eastern Hemisphere. Turkey is doing this by aggressively promoting Salafism (or the imposition of Islam across all sectors of life) in the Balkans in the precise areas where this would do the most damage to inter-communal relations, such as in the capital of Republika Srpska. Additionally, the potential EU-Turkish visa-free travel arrangement that Ankara wants to achieve would only institutionalize this trend by formalizing the Immigrant Crisis and setting it loose against the Balkans once more, with a specific focus on Turkish-friendly Bosnia.

The objective is to stir up as many internal divisions as possible in places which have only just recently begun the healing process so as to scratch off the scabs of civil war and force Bosnia to bleed all over again. Erdogan’s Muslim Brotherhood vision is to turn the Balkans into the Mideast, and he and his affiliated terrorist organization see identity-diverse Bosnia as being even more vulnerable to externally supported destabilization than pre-war Syria ever was. Geopolitically, Turkey and its Salafist foot soldiers from the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist groups think that Bosnia is the perfect time bomb that they could trigger for setting off a large-scale civilizational war between Islam and Christianity, all in their joint quest to recreate history and return Turkish-Salafist influence all the way up to the gates of Vienna. Given where it’s located, an explosion of civil war in Bosnia would obviously have direct consequences for the rest of the Balkans and all of Europe. Other than possibly drawing Serbia and Croatia into a renewed state of proxy warfare in this middle-ground battlespace between them, Bosnia could also become a conveniently accessible center of jihad for Europe’s radicalized Muslims and newly arrived immigrants, thus turning Bosnia into the “European Syria” in more ways than one.

And then there’s Serbia, which is an entirely different case altogether from both Bosnia and Macedonia. Here, in the middle of the Central Balkans, the US has gained a very strategic foothold, although it’s still not as secure as Washington would like for it to be. To be frank, the Serbian leadership has capitulated to NATO as a result of the recently agreed-to transit agreement, which gives the military bloc full and unquestionable rights to send its armed forces through the country for whatever the reason may be. Most realistically, this could take the form of sending NATO units from Croatia through Serbia en route to the occupied Serbian Province of Kosovo as a means of intimidating the Macedonian government and emboldening Albanian terrorists. The US was able to achieve such unprecedented rights from the Serbian government because it had co-opted most of its governing elite, which in turn used the US- and NGO-influenced national media to assuage the population and trick many of them into accepting it.

The US acquired such influence over the authorities principally because of its very close relationship with Vucic, who – despite not agreeing to the anti-Russian sanctions – is rather chummy with the West and everything associated with it. Although he says that Serbia will never join NATO, that’s actually a moot point at this time because the military bloc already has all that it could ever realistically want from Serbia through its legally enshrined transit rights and heavy influence over the current government, all while not offering any single thing of real or perceived benefit in return aside from patting Vucic on the back and telling him “’atta boy!”. To be fair, though, the US did have to tighten the screws a bit and give him a glimpse of what would happen if he didn’t accept their “deal”, and this happened when an angry Bosnian Muslim mob tried to kill him in Srebrenica last summer. Although uncomfortably close to the West even before then, it was after this event that Vucic submitted to his Western “partners” and became the quisling that he is now, though it should be reminded that he still retains some hopeful traces of “independence” through his country’s military-technical cooperation, business interests, and diplomatic relations with Russia.

Although Serbia still has strategic relations with Russia that symbolically represent the will of most of its citizenry (though they could be substantially intensified in all spheres), the US might pressure Vucic to backtrack on those commitments and enter into a disastrous Ukrainian-style false “civilizational choice” by choosing between the West and Russia. In preparation for doing this, not only could it stir up troubles in Bosnia through the means that I just mentioned and also encourage Croatian hybrid aggression against Serbia (whether against Serbia proper or via proxy through Bosnia and Republika Srpska), but it could also obviously reactivate the regional scourge of “Greater Albanian”, which it’s already threatening to do against the Republic of Macedonia. If it decides to take a “milder” approach towards bullying Belgrade, it could continue to stoke the minority tensions that Romania and Bulgaria have recently hinted at regarding their affiliated ethnic ‘compatriots’. This last option is the least disruptive in the short-term but could eventually lead to very severe long-term repercussions in further dividing the Serbian citizenry amongst itself based on externally supported identity cleavages, thus making it less likely that patriotic members of the populace could succeed in peacefully rising up to oppose their mostly pro-Western government since they’d have many more perceptively immediate and local challenges to contend with first (i.e. the disgruntled and possibly disruptive Romanian- and Bulgarian-affiliated minorities).

Finally, about the Republic of Macedonia, the most pivotal bottleneck country in all of the Balkans is currently being wracked by multiple Hybrid War plots, some of which have matured and others of which are still latently developing and being nurtured for later deployment. Many of my previous articles and interviews about Macedonia touched upon the threat of a Color Revolution creating the cover for “Greater Albania”, and that’s actually what’s playing out before our eyes right now. Just recently there was some chatter coming from the Albanian community and their international US/NGO-influenced media supporters about potentially “federalizing” Macedonia, which in effect would amount to an internal partition prior to a formal international one. None of this is happening by coincidence, either, since the attacks against the country’s cultural and historical landmarks demonstrate that there is a concerted war being waged against Macedonia’s identity, all with the intent of sowing divisions and ‘reverse engineering’ a divisive ethnic problem prior to proposing the preplanned ‘solution’ of Western-suggested “Identity Federalism”.

Right now the US-controlled “opposition” is on “time-out” as they scramble to reposition themselves after the government’s surprise move to postpone the 5 June elections and reconvene the former VMRO-led parliament, but once they and their foreign patrons recalibrate themselves to the new on-the-ground reality, it’s expected that they will continue to press forward with their destabilization and merge the Color Revolution movement with a “Greater Albanian” nationalist one. Together, both of these groups would then likely propose “federalization” as part of their joint platform, with the subtle hint being that if the government doesn’t capitulate to their demands (which will obviously at some point or another involve changing the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia to reflect this new prospectively “federalized” entity), then the situation could quickly become violent and lead to another outbreak of Albanian-led terrorism. It’s this “wink-wink” type of threat that the US and its on-the-ground allies were preparing to level against the Macedonian authorities, but then President Ivanov and the government brilliantly changed the entire paradigm and disrupted the convergence between the Color Revolution and Albanian nationalist movements through his latest announcement.

In response, he and the government bought valuable strategic time while both of these anti-government forces are forced to adapt to the changed situation and modify their meticulously preplanned strategies. By abruptly changing the political situation, especially in such a clever way as reconvening the VMRO-led parliament, President Ivanov and the President of the Parliament staved off an imminent escalation of the regime change movement and what would have otherwise been its imminent progressive evolution from a Color Revolution to an Unconventional War (or the unfolding of Hybrid War, to reference the author’s original theory on the matter). Putting everything into a larger geopolitical perspective and returning to the themes first mentioned at the beginning of this interview, the Republic of Macedonia is on the frontline of the New Cold War and the US’ unipolar connivances in simultaneously seeking to either sabotage or gain control of the multipolar world’s transnational connective infrastructure projects through the Central Balkans. What happens in Macedonia will determine the course of events further ‘upstream’, meaning that if it continues to successfully resist the US’ asymmetrical Hybrid War aggression and Washington realizes that it cannot gain controlling influence over the country and thenceforth the projects that run through its territory, then it will either try to completely destroy Macedonia through a vengeful fit of “geopolitical scorched earth” tactics (to deprive Russia and China of using it as  a partnered transit state) and/or intensify its destabilization schemes against Republika Srpska and Serbia.

Q: It is now more than clear that most of the Western NGOs in Macedonia, but also elsewhere, are being given the role to overthrow the “recalcitrant” governments that are not willing to break their backs and bow to Washington and Brussels’ wishes in going against their national interests. At the same time, we have Western ambassadors trying to interfere and control every aspect of the internal affairs of the country, while Western officials have made it clear that they do not support elections, meaning they want to continue ignoring the will of the majority of the Macedonian people. How do you comment on the way Macedonia is fighting this second round of the Color Revolution?

The first thing that I need to say is that the Macedonia people have shown remarkable restraint in resisting the “opposition’s” many provocations. I can’t imagine how furious the average person must feel after seeing their beloved historical landmarks desecrated and vandalized in the manner that has been happening across the past month. I’m sure that this strikes at the heart of every single Macedonian, but all patriotic citizens can know that every civilized person in the world is also disgusted at what they’re seeing. I have no doubt that the citizens of many other countries would respond with violence to these provocations and feed into exactly what the “opposition” and its foreign supporters want, so I have so much respect for the Macedonian people in refusing to fall for this tempting bait.

The other thing that I’d like to comment on is the activities of the Citizen Movement for Defending Macedonia (GDOM), which has done an astounding job in demonstrating the ins and outs of reverse-Color Revolution technology. To bring the reader up to speed, I recently publishedan exclusive analysis at The Saker about how the disciplined and select use of some aspects of Color Revolution strategy could be employed in both countering this technique (like in Macedonia) and in peacefully pressuring governments that become too uncomfortably close to the West (like in Serbia and especially Montenegro). GDOM has successfully shown that the US’ regime change plans can be cleverly countered through patriotic “regime reinforcement” movements that complicate the practice of Color Revolutions and make it all the more difficult for hostile external elements to divide society. GDOM mobilized communities all across the country and powerfully showed the difference in grassroots support between the large groups of nationwide pro-government supporters and the scattered collection of Skopje-based anti-government “opposition” protesters.

Switching gears to look at the government for a moment, they’re also certainly worthy of praise for exercising a similar level of patient restraint in dealing with the vandalizing “opposition”. While some have criticized it for not ordering a firmer response to the criminals, these voices might not be aware of the fact that Color Revolutionaries and their supporters routinely tempt the government into doing just that in order to manipulatively fuel intense anti-government resentment (whether real, imagined, or exaggerated). Whenever Color Revolution-threatened governments come down too hard or forcefully on the rioters (whether or not this is justified, which it is in just about all cases), they risk falling into an inadvertent trap whereby their dispersal tactics and other similar responses are photographed, videotaped, and widely disseminated across social media in a misleading and decontextualized manner. More often than not, they’re turned into memes and “viral” news events that purport to show “unprovoked government/police violence against innocent unarmed protesters”, even though there’s a very high chance that this wasn’t the true case at all. The whole point of such a charade is to stoke anti-government sentiment among the targeted population and the international (Western) community in order to accelerate the Hybrid War against the country and lay the false foundation for the imposition of a punitive sanctions regime against the recalcitrant authorities.

Finally, we have the government’s political response to the Color Revolution, which was ingenious, if I may say. While the announcement to postpone the 5 June elections may have caught some people off guard and initially come off as a capitulation to the “opposition”, that’s actually not the case at all, since a more detailed look at everything that was announced reveals that the original VMRO-led parliament has been returned. This in effect left the “opposition” without any strategy whatsoever since they did not at all anticipate that President Ivanov would make such an unexpected move. While seeming to cave in to their demands by postponing the election, he really tricked them by then reinstituting the previous government. They no longer have any power, which is ironically what would have been the case anyhow had the elections gone forward, especially seeing as how VMRO was beating SDSM in the pre-electoral polls by a 3:1 margin. The strong patriotic civil society movements that rallied in support of the government were instrumental in its decision to return the parliament to the way that it originally was, and also in convincing the authorities that they had the backing of the people in doing this, which is the essence of true democracy.

On a tactical level, President Ivanov’s moves came at the perfect time and prevented the Color Revolution movement from combining with an emerging Albanian nationalist one and moving the country closer to violent Hybrid War. At this moment, both the Color Revolutionary and Albanian nationalist forces are left without any concrete strategy since their previously plotted plans have now been completely scuttled. Thus, they need to wait for further orders from the US, which is frantically seeking to improvise a temporary strategy in responding to the government’s skilled maneuver. Reviewing the US Embassy’s reaction to the matter, it can be predicted that Washington might try to go forward with the earlier mentioned “federalization” plans that I spoke about, although maybe not right away and only after they formulate a clearer approach to this issue. The reason that such a forecast can be made is because of the inclusion of the highly-symbolic phrase about how “difficult reforms…must be inclusive and incorporate the perspectives of opposition parties and civil society”. While one might read this as pandering to the Color Revolution “opposition”, it can also be interpreted as a signal to the Albanian nationalists that were already on the verge of merging with this group.

It’s important to point out at this time that there’s really no objective reason for why some Albanians would even want to “federalize” (internally partition) the country except out of their misguided nationalist pursuit in seeking to replicate the calamitous Kosovo scenario and construct “Greater Albania”. No minority group in the world has better constitutionally enshrined rights than the Albanians who live in the Republic of Macedonia. The only likely explanation for why some members of this demographic might want to agitate for even more generous privileges than they already have, and thus risk throwing the country into chaos and reversing all of their existing gains as result, is because of the influence of external actors that don’t sincerely care about their welfare, such as Albanian-based nationalists and the Albanian, Turkish, and American governments. These entities don’t acknowledge the truth that Macedonian Albanians have a better quality of life and more constitutionally guaranteed rights than any other category of Albanian anywhere else in the world (including in Albania proper), but instead perniciously seek to mislead them into falsely thinking that they’re experiencing the exact opposite and are victims of “system oppression”.

A cocktail of Albanian, EU and US flags in hands of duped Albanian elements in Skopje.

These agents of influence want to provoke the Macedonian Albanians into counterproductively carrying out a recreation of the Kosovo scenario, by which they’d sacrifice all of their former benefits in order to have a failed-“state” separatist entity that they can nationalistically claim as their own. No self-respecting and level-headed Albanian would ever want their community to follow in “Kosovo’s” dysfunctional footsteps, especially after being granted all of the institutional advantages that they have in the Republic of Macedonia, so the only way to manipulate this demographic into working for its own destruction is to hold out the irrational ‘dream’ of “Greater Albania” as a means of exploiting their emotions and getting them to take moves in contradiction of their logical self-interest. As ginned up and angry as the US and its allies (including NGOs) may have gotten some members of the Albanian community, they thankfully no longer have a ‘trigger event’ to express their rage against nor a coherent framework for actualizing it either. The Color Revolution is taking a brief “time-out” as it waits for instructions for how to proceed amidst the new strategic-political environment that President Ivanov produced, and the 5 June early elections that would have functioned as the most dramatic day of their protests have now been indefinitely postponed.

In one fell swoop, the Macedonian government, with the full backing of the patriotic masses that undergird its popular support, temporarily neutralized both the Color Revolution itself and its prospective “Greater Albania” “federalization”-internal partition allies, depriving both of them of the ‘excuse’ to take to the streets and thus stripping away any ‘plausible legitimacy’ that they may have been falsely thought to have in the eyes of international observers. It’s not to say that either of these threats have been permanently resolved – they still remain and will likely return with a vengeance very soon – but that they’ve been sidelined for the time being in what unequivocally represents a stunning victory by the Macedonian government in deflecting the US’ preplanned escalation of the Hybrid War crisis.

Q: During this period we see the whole Western propaganda media machinery aggressively attacking the government of VMRO-DPMNE, while their main target seems to be its leader Nikola Gruevski. This demonization of Gruevski is being done in a very similar way like it has been for years now when it comes to the Russian President Vladimir Putin. For example, they are calling Gruevski a dictator, although his ratings are 6 times higher than the ones of the opposition leader Zoran Zaev. What are the mutual characteristics that made both Putin and Gruevski such a big “enemies” of the West?

PM of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski

The most important trait that former Prime Minister Gruevski and President Putin have is that they’re conservative patriots, meaning that they emphasize traditional values, national history, and the promotion of state sovereignty. Both leaders are also multipolar in their global outlook and manage balanced foreign partnerships. Gruevski is working with both the West (US and EU) and the East (Russia and China), while Putin is doing something very similar (despite the US-controlled EU’s anti-Russian sanctions). Furthermore, these two men are both very proud and are in no way submissive to the will of anyone besides the collective populations that they represent. Neither Gruevski nor Putin can be bought off like Vucic, nor can they be blackmailed like Merkel, and this irritates the US unlike anything else.

Western information warfare against the former Macedonian Prime Minister and the Russian President is nothing more than a vain attempt to besmirch them personally in order to discredit them politically. The US thinks that a flurry of unfounded attacks against both of these leaders will eventually lead to an increasing share of the targeted population accepting them as truth and then disowning the multipolar and conservative patriotic ideals that these two represent. Nothing could be further from the case, however, because as we all see, Gruevski and Putin represent the popular will of their people and were democratically elected as a reflection of that. When the US and its allied informational organs attack either of these two leaders, they’re thus essentially attacking these countries’ citizens and their countries-civilizations, which in turn prompts the people to rise up and defend them in a way which is totally foreign and incomprehensible to any post-modern Westerner that has ditched their national identity and civic-civilizational patriotism.

Q: Let’s talk a little about the profile of the supporters of the so called “opposition”. We have been seeing protests in Macedonia in which the “opposition” is vandalizing and destroying not only monuments, sculptures, and buildings with the most important Macedonian symbols beginning from the times of Ancient Macedonia, but they are also attacking Christian symbols, such as crosses and angels. Having in mind that their moves have been orchestrated and dictated from abroad, what is the exact message that their patrons are sending to us by destroying Macedonian and Christian symbols across the country?

These attacks are all orchestrated with a singular intent in mind, and that’s to wage war against the Macedonian identity in preparation for later changing the country’s name and internally partitioning it through “federalism”. What all of these acts of criminal vandalism have in common is that they’re designed to destroy the idea that Macedonia is an ancient Christian civilization, the three main tents of its identity that make it what it is today. If one strips away the millennial-long history of Macedonia, its Christian heritage, and its civilizational attributes, they’re essentially left with a nondescript amorphous political entity that can be remolded to whatever else that influential international forces want it to be, much like the stereotypical Western European state is nowadays. In the current context, the foreign-supported regime change movement wants to change the country’s constitutional name, but they won’t ever succeed and get away with it if Macedonians are still aware of their unique identity and remain distinctly proud of it. Right now there’s no way that a clique of coup plotters could pull off this off without a level of civil resistance against them unseen since the Ottoman and Fascist occupations, but if the people are diluted in their sense of patriotism and no longer care about Macedonia or being Macedonian, then it would be considerably easier to “legitimize” this stunt and possibly even hold a referendum to “justify” it one day.

I don’t think that this strategy will ever succeed, but what I’m saying is that this is the American thinking behind it, whether or not it’s grounded in reality. Truth be told, it’s actually one of the most counterproductive Color Revolution techniques that I’ve ever studied because it’s inadvertently (but predictably) strengthening the patriotic backlash against the foreign-supported regime change provocateurs. It is totally unheard of for a Balkan people to destroy their own heritage, with such violent attacks against historical objects only occurring whenever one group did this against another, like when the Albanians ran wild and destroyed churches, cemeteries, and just about anything else Serb-related that they could get their hands on in occupied Kosovo (and are still doing to this day). Even so, the Albanians did not make it their officially acknowledged policy to do this, despite it essentially being so in practice. The only groups in recent memory to publicly proclaim that the destruction of historical monuments is a foundational part of their political platforms are Daesh and the Ukrainian Nazis, so it’s clear to all where these Color Revolution goons are drawing their ‘inspiration’ from, as well as who’s directing them to do all of this. To reiterate, it is not natural at all for any people – let alone a Balkan one with thousands of years of heritage like the Macedonians have – to destroy their cultural and historical monuments just because of a manufactured political dispute, but if one realizes that they’re being ordered to do this as part of a foreign power’s grand geostrategic plans, then everything that’s going on makes a lot more sense.

Everyone should also be aware that the US purposely ordered its proxies to deface and destroy historical and religious buildings, objects, and symbols in order to intimidate the majority Christian Macedonians into accepting a forthcoming “federalization” of their country that would decrease their role over national affairs and replace it with that of the Muslim Albanian minority. I want to be very clear so that I’m not misunderstood or purposely taken out of context by some – I do not in any way support identity conflict and I think that it is the most destructive type of violence that could ever happen to a country because it pits its own citizens against one another, but the US is clearly trying to provoke a Christian Macedonian-Muslim Albanian war inside the Republic of Macedonia, and it’s using the Color Revolution “opposition’s” attacks against history and religion as one of the means in instigating it. Nobody should be fooled into thinking that the average Albanian is in favor of any of this, and while there may be incidences of a couple provocateurs committing this atrocious behavior, they in no way represent the majority sentiment of this demographic. Still, what’s happening is clear, and it’s that the US is trying to court the ‘hearts and minds’ of Macedonian Albanians in getting them to partake in this anti-historical hooliganism en masse.

All of the Republic’s citizens –Macedonian and Albanian – must be alert to this threat and not fall into the manufactured “clash of civilizations” trap that the US is setting for them. Christian Macedonians must refrain from reprisal attacks against Muslim and Albanian buildings, objects, and symbols if any of this minority demographic are caught carrying them out against the majority, just as Albanians need to resist the US’ pressure to commit such crimes and immediately disown any members of their community that are stupid enough to do so. All of Macedonia’s identities should also unite in helping the city authorities clean up the mess that the Hybrid War vandals make, as this would be symbolically powerful and go a long way in diffusing any inter-communal tensions that the US tries to spark.

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). The interview was taken by the NetPress correspondent Marija Kotovska.

Every political junkie on the planet has to be glued to the ongoing Brazilian House of Cards, consistently offering an unparalleled feast of cheap thrills.

The latest cliffhanger was the leak of a conversation between one of the key operators involved in the oil giant Petrobras corruption scandal and a senator and short-lived Minister of Planning in the usurper interim government currently replacing President Dilma Rousseff while she is undergoing an impeachment trial by the Senate.

Call the leak a short autopsy of what from the beginning should have been defined as golpeachment; a mix of coup (“golpe”, in Portuguese) and impeachment, which took place in a one/two sequential vote in the Brazilian Congress and Senate, as a notorious congregation of crooks investigated for myriad offenses and crimes seized power in Brasilia in a full-fledged Buffon’s Opera. I call their scam Provisional Banana Scoundrel Republic (PBSR).

Meet the interim Walking Dead  

The leak/autopsy duly unveiled how the PBSR cancer progressed.  One of the key plotters outlines the coup; stresses how it should protect Brazilian plutocracy/kleptocracy from unintended consequences of the ongoing, two-year-old Car Wash corruption investigation; and how the Left – from President Rousseff to Lula and the Workers’ Party – should be criminalized for good.

 

© AFP 2016/ EVARISTO SA

Leaked Tapes Expose Coup Plot Against Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff

The rest would be history, including the demolition of recently acquired social and workers’ rights via the imposition of a neoliberal restoration; total reversion in foreign policy, with geopolitical and geoeconomic relations back to a colonized mindset; and the reestablishment of a conservative, neoliberal, rentier hegemonic class lording over a socially-oriented, democratic society.That fits in with the current Brazilian Congress and Senate dominated by “BBB” interests. “BBB” stands for Beef (the powerful agribusiness lobby); Bullet (the weapons and private security complex); and Bible (evangelical fanatics), all supported by corporate media. Many of these unsavory characters are connected and/or represent the toxic Brazilian rural aristocracy – which are in fact heirs to nobility titles handed over to slave owners.

It was going all so swell after only a few days – even with the former head of the lower house, notorious crook Eduardo Cunha, temporarily sidelined; Cunha – the ringleader of a campaign financing scam inside Congress – de facto had become the Prime Minister of the puppet former Vice-President and current, interim President Michel Temer.

Temer The Usurper – who might actually become Temer the Brief – has been under siege since he took power. His unpopularity index is reaching reverse Kim Jong-Un levels, standing at almost 99%. The overwhelming majority of Brazilians want him impeached. He’s mentioned in several corruption scandals while serially nominating ministers mired in corruption scandals themselves.

© AFP 2016/ EVARISTO SA

Brazil Coup: Temer Seizes Presidency From Dilma, Country Ready to Explode

The problem is the PBSR cabal simply can’t afford to let him go – and let power slip away. The Dialogue of the Crooks leak conclusively proved that the Car Wash investigation was instrumentalized to criminalize the Workers’ Party and bring down Rousseff while the golpeachment scam advanced in parallel, making sure certain key political forces would not be caught in the Car Wash web.The Dialogue of the Crooks took place over two months ago — and at least three weeks before the golpeachment farce reached its apex in a ghastly voting session in the lower house. Which lead us to a key question; why the attorney general and the provincial judge in charge of the Car Wash investigation did not previously reveal its contents, and why did they not take immediate action? If the Dialogue of the Crooks was revealed already in March, golpeachment could not possibly have taken place.

The fact that there was no leak two months ago raises all serious eyebrows. The senator featured in the Dialogue of the Crooks is a notorious node in a historical corruption link inside oil giant Petrobras since the Cardoso administrations in the 1990s. He happened to have been ensconced in the political leadership of all Brazilian administrations for the past 22 years. This means he was always the go-to Crook-in-Chief for his political party, the PMDB.

Yet nothing gets as serious as the admission that the hidden agenda of golpeachment has always been to ditch all corruption probes as part of a broader agreement involving selected Supreme Court judges. If this was not the Brazilian House of Cards, the whole golpeachment scam should have been declared null and void by now. Yet, as I have been stressing from the get-go, this is a sophisticated, Hybrid War-style, judicial-political-financial-media coup. And it will be very hard to unravel it.

The logic of perpetual scandal

So future historians already have their story line – furnished by the Dialogue of the Crooks; the 2016 golpeachment was a scam concocted by a bunch of political scoundrels willing to do anything to stay out of jail.

Temer the Brief, a lowly puppet, is now under siege. His two manipulators – the former leader of the lower house and his short-lived Minister of Planning – are now forced to be in the shade. Practically, that means approving deeply unpopular economic policies in Congress will be much harder.

Temer The Brief’s is a certified illegitimate reign. Not even privileged actors – the Goddess of the Market, assorted businessmen, even some mainstream media sectors – are buying the farce. Meanwhile, the Brazilian street won’t be quiet; that’s Rousseff’s and the Workers’ Party’s strategy (although that’s not enough).

© AP PHOTO/ UESLEI MARCELINO

Coincidence? Wax Museum in Brazil Removes Figure of Dilma Rousseff

So what next? The only way Rousseff would be reinstated is if she and the party could concoct a credible narrative of the priorities for the country up to the 2018 presidential elections. That implies a lot of back room political negotiation – and Rousseff is really lousy at it.What has been aptly described as a presidential condominium — the new normal in Brazil – envelops conflicting agendas with no consensus in sight. So one should expect the nation to be mired, for a long time, in the logic of perpetual scandal.

The key variable from now on is how the PBSR gang will maneuver – possibly illegally — to cling to power. The Public Ministry and the Federal police are totally politicized. Increasingly there are no mediation powers. The PBSR gang will take no prisoners. The Public Ministry will go after Lula while the attorney general will try to block any chance of Rousseff being reinstated.

Meanwhile, the social democrats turned neoliberal enforcers – key associates of the PBSR — will keep advancing their own agenda; hardcore privatizations; handing over the exploration of the pre-salt oil deposits to US Big Oil; and dutifully prostrating as Washington vassals. One just needs to examine the extreme interest by the US Department of Justice on all things related to the Car Wash investigation to infer how Washington is deeply involved in smashing leading Brazilian corporations.

And what about the BRICS?

Brazil is now globally isolated. Vulture fund-friendly Argentina President Mauricio Macri has been the only leader to recognize the illegal PBSR government. The PBSR worships Macri as if he was Beyonce; they absolutely love his role of Slasher of a socially inclusive cycle of governments in Argentina.

Washington has not had the balls to do it directly – relying on minions such as the State Department spokesman and the interim ambassador to the OAS. But the message is unmistakable; golpeachment is legal, and Washington trusts Brazilian “democratic institutions”. Compare it to the Russian Foreign Ministry, which alerted to “foreign interference” in Brazilian affairs.

The new Brazilian Foreign Minister – a sore loser (twice) in presidential elections won by the Workers’ Party – took no time to launch his glorious Vassal of Washington/US Big Capital policy. He already issued a veiled “threat” to Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and El Salvador. Mercosur will be sidelined to the benefit of the Pacific Alliance – where Mexico, Peru and Colombia are under Washington’s wings. Unasur will be ditched.

© REUTERS/ MIRAFLORES PALACE

First Brazil, Next Venezuela: Will the World See a Coup in Caracas?

And then there’s the stale ice cream in the scoundrel’s tart; the “B” in BRICS is now dormant. This means the role of Brazil in the BRICS bank will be seriously compromised. Granted, the BRICS were never a homogenous group and have been riddled with conflicting interests. For instance, India’s nuclear-sharing agreement with the US effectively ties it up with Washington. The next BRICS summit is in India, in October. Brazil risks the ignominy of being represented by the PBSR gang.Meanwhile, make no mistake; as much as the Car Wash investigation was revealed to be a totally politicized drive – where fighting corruption was just a convenient cover – the PBSR gang and their allies will do everything to get rid of the 2018 direct presidential elections. So here’s the sorry Brazilian road map up to 2018; total political, economic, social and juridical chaos.

Fake Syria Solidarity NGO supports the moderate Al Qaeda terrorists.  

University of Sydney professor and Global Research author Tim Anderson was an invited keynote speaker.

He has been banned following a hate campaign waged by a British based NGO which supports terrorism.

The SSUK accuses Tim Anderson of supporting the Assad government, yet the evidence amply confirms that this fake human rights groups is supporting the US-NATO sponsored terrorists.

“In an attempt to claim the moral high ground, Washington uses proxy NGOs alongside proxy militia, to maintain the fiction that the Syrian Army does nothing but attack Syrian civilians.”

Click the image below to order Tim Anderson’s book directly from Global Research Click the image below to order Tim Anderson’s book directly from Global Research

Text of  Fake Human Rights NGO: 

To the participants and organisers of the ‘Crossing Borders’ Conference

Refugees conference invites Assad supporter as keynote speaker

The Cooperative Institute for Transnational Studies in collaboration with the University of Aegean (Laboratory EKNEXA-Department of Sociology) have announced a conference on the refugee crisis, ‘Crossing Borders,’ in Lesvos, Greece, on 7-10th July.

We are very concerned to note that the list of speakers includes Tim Anderson, a supporter of the Assad regime, for the reasons given in the open letter below. 

To the participants and organisers of the ‘Crossing Borders’ Conference

….

The fact the conference is sponsored by the Stop The War Coalition and stopimperialism.org, two organisations which have been unwilling to condemn or criticise the actions of the regime, causes us further concern.

We call on the conference organisers to disinvite Tim Anderson and issue a strong statement condemning the repression of the Assad regime against the Syrian people. If they are unwilling to do this, we call on other participants like Paul Mason and Nina Power, activists who are committed to the struggle for social change and against oppression, not to participate in the conference alongside known regime apologists. We welcome discussion and debate about the causes and solutions to the refugee crisis, but pro-regime apologists should not be a part of this discussion.

Order Tim Anderson’s book directly from Global Research

Following the recent gains of the pro-government forces in Damascus’ East Ghouta, the leadership of the militants group of Jaish al-Islam and Faylaq Al-Rahman reached a ceasefire deal to oppose the loyalists in the area. The intense infighting among the militant group had been an important fact that allowed the government forces to liberate the Southern part of the region.

On May 24, ISIS reportedly seized Tal Sawanah in the province of Homs. The militants had pushed off with the SAA’s 68th Brigade of the 18th Tank Division from the area. Now, ISIS is a striking distance to the T-4 Military Airport, located near the road between Palmyra and Homs.

Meanwhile, an American geopolitical intelligence firm, Stratfor, has released satellite imagery that allegedly prove 4 Russian Mi-24 attack helicopters and a supply depot were destroyed and a Syrian MiG-25 aircraft damaged by the ISIS militants’ shelling on May 14. The attack helicopters and the warplanes were located at the T4 air base. The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the reports, saying the imagery depict the result of fierce fighting for this aerodrome between the Syrian government troops and the terrorists.

The Syrian Democratic Forces announced a beginning of the military campaign aimed on liberation of Northern Raqqa. The SDF announcement says the operation would be focused on the largely-Kurdish areas, north to the ISIS capital, Raqqa. It isn’t clear yet how far into the city the operation intended to push and how quickly. However, the Western media argues that this operation is the part of a wider move, pursuing the goal to liberate the strategic city.

The Kurds’ high tensions with the local Arab population and ISIS’ attempts to use human shields will probably lead to a high death toll among civilians. The military operation to seize Raqqa, if the SDF attempts to do this, will come at a high cost, guaranteeing the city’s destruction. An example of the situation is Iraq’s operation to retake Ramadi. Nonetheless, if Raqqa is liberated, it will be a significant blow to ISIS. The city doesn’t play an essential administrative role for the terrorist group, but it is an important hub for transporting militants and supplies between Syria and Iraq.

On Tuesday, the SDF reportedly engaged in clashes with ISIS near Ain Issa, situated 55km from Raqqa. Separately, the SDF took control of the village of Qartaj. The US-led coalition air power was supporting the operation.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia is ready to coordinate its anti-terror efforts with the US-led coalition in order to push ISIS out of Raqqa. Prospects of this idea are unclear. We remember, Washington denied reports that it agreed with Moscow to begin joint operations against terrorists in Syria.

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/

The response to the Brazilian coup shows that the BRICS powers are not a real alternative to US imperialism.

On May 12, Brazil’s democratic government, led by the Workers’ Party (PT), was the victim of a coup. What will the other BRICS countries (Russia, India, China, and South Africa) do?

Will they stand by as the reactionaries who took power in Brasilia pivot closer to Western powers, glad to warm Dilma Rousseff’s seat at the BRICS summit in Goa, India in five months’ time?

Here in South Africa, few expect Jacob Zuma’s African National Congress (ANC) government to react constructively on the international stage. Making waves isn’t likely at a time when Standard & Poors and Fitch are on a South Africa visit, deciding whether to downgrade the country’s credit rating to “junk” status, as happened in Brazil late last year.

Dilma Rousseff and Jacob Zuma at the 2014 BRICS summit in Brazil. GovernmentZA / Flickr

This is a shame because the last two weeks have offered excellent opportunities for diplomatic rebellion: revelations have emerged implicating the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in assisting the apartheid state’s 1962 arrest and twenty-seven-year imprisonment of Nelson Mandela. This isn’t exactly surprising; the State Department did keep Mandela on its terrorist watch list until 2008.

Following these revelations ANC spokesperson Zizi Kodwa chargedthat the CIA “never stopped operating here. It is still happening now — the CIA is still collaborating with those who want regime change.”

BRICS and Empire

South Africa’s chief foreign policy spokesperson Clayson Monyela responded to Kodwa’s accusation with assurances that South Africa’s relations with the United States “are strong, they’re warm, and cordial.” But Kodwa’s cry of imperialism, in light of the Brazilian coup, has struck a nerve.

Indeed, the argument that Rousseff’s ouster demonstrates that the purportedly anti-imperialist BRICS are under sustained attack by US empire is being repeated in a number of corners. Commentators like Eric Draitser, Pepe Escobar, Paul Craig Roberts and Hugo Turner, along with officials from Venezuela and Cuba, all make this claim.

A founder of Brazil’s heroic Movement of Landless Workers (MST), João Pedro Stedile, was asked by Il Manifesto about why “a group of deputies from right-wing organizations went to Washington before the last elections.” He replied, “Temer will arrange his government in order to allow the US to control our economy through their companies . . . Brazil is part of the BRICS, and another goal is that it can reject the South-South alliance.”

Another version of this anti-imperialist framing was heard at the South African Black Consciousness movement’s Black First Land First launch conference on May 13:

Brazil and South Africa are seen by the Western imperialist forces as the weak link in the BRICS chain. The strategy of imperialism is to get rid of presidents who support the BRICS process. Imperialism works with internal opposition parties to effect regime change.

The eloquent South African commentator Siphamandla Zondi, who directs the Institute for Global Dialogue (one of South Africa’s main foreign policy institutes), also shares this view.

Zondi defends the BRICS project and disputes the argument put forthby myself and others that the BRICS actually serve a “sub-imperialist” role in the global economy — that they are fully complicit in reproducing inequality both within their own countries and between others in the Global South.

In a challenge posted on Facebook he called for observers to recognize that “imperialism has, in the modern age, taken on racism, crude capitalism and patriarchy as its forms.”

No to the Coup, No to Imperialism

Rousseff is of course the victim of a coup. I hope the Brazilian people will rise up against the illegitimate interim government. But whether the coup was a product of imperialism, as Zondi and many others argue, requires a bit more circumspection.

As WikiLeaks cables revealed, Temer was a mole for the US State Department a decade ago, playing what Washington considered to be an incompetent, ideology-free role as a political “opportunist.”

Indeed, we witnessed a similar problem here in South Africa, with the country’s then lead spy, Moe Shaik, offering the same sort of tell-all function — before becoming a key liaison to the BRICS New Development Bank.

But as concrete evidence of a US-led coup in Brazil this fact seems insufficient. Moreover, Rousseff herself denied the role of imperialism a week after the impeachment, during a Russia Todayinterview: “I don’t believe external interference is a primary or a secondary reason for what’s happening now in Brazil. It’s not. The grave situation we see now has developed without any such interference.”

She repeated this when pressed by the interviewer, so it was crystal clear that she blames the old oligarchs for her downfall. This point was reinforced by subsequent revelations about the coup plotters’ local motivations.

Moreover, the interweaving of racism, patriarchy, and global capitalism is also not as straightforward as it once was. When Obama’s allies hit the Honduran government in 2009, for example, it was a black man and a woman in Washington who gave international credence to the local capitalist elite’s coup against a progressive democrat.

Similar concerns about Obama’s role on the African continent have also been expressed — appropriate considering the Africa Command’s agenda. But the role of the BRICS countries shouldn’t be downplayed in these geopolitical power plays.

The United States is made more dangerous by the sub-imperialist geopolitical functions that Deputy Sheriff Zuma regularly accepts, such as endorsing NATO’s bombing of Libya which led to regime change in 2011, supporting Israel even during its periodic mass murder of Gaza civilians, happily hosting US-South African military exercises, and even bragging openly that the South Africa army will serve as Obama’s “boots on the ground.”

This isn’t to say that crude imperialism has faded away. Looking just at the 2009–2012 years when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state,Washington’s Blog writer Eric Zuesse summarizes repeated US incursions in Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine (and one might add Paraguay too).

Yet, despite this impressive list of imperialist interventions, US “regime change maneuvers in the rest of the black world,” as Zondi phrases it, are not that common. They are not needed at the moment, especially in Africa, where the local leadership is already supine when it comes to Washington’s agenda.

Neoliberal Multilateralism

Simply put, “racism, crude capitalism and patriarchy” associated with twentieth-century US imperialism have been largely replaced by Obama’s neoliberal multilateralism — a style of governance that the BRICS have bought into, not opposed.

This isn’t something to celebrate. Multilateral neoliberalism leaves the BRICS countries far less able to pursue any positive South-South interventions.

Indeed, Rousseff’s ouster demonstrates this clearly and the incoming Temer regime is likely to pursue a desperate course to re-establish its global position. The westward drift announced last week by Temer’s foreign minister, José Serra, plus Brasilia’s renewed neoliberal agenda on the home front, suggest this will be the case.

But while it’s obvious that Serra is going to become much more active as a sub-imperial ally of the United States than was Rousseff, Rousseff also did little of substance on the foreign policy front aside from occasional anti-Yankee rhetoric (such as when she learned from Edward Snowden that Obama had bugged her phone and email).

As the thoughtful (and generally pro-BRICS) commentator Oliver Stuenkel recently lamented:

Rousseff failed to articulate anything resembling a foreign policy doctrine, and Brazil’s foreign policy since 2011 was shaped, above all, by the President’s mind-boggling indifference to all things international and foreign policy makers’ incapacity to convince Rousseff that foreign policy could be used to promote the government’s domestic goals — as both [former Brazilian presidents] Lula and Fernando Henrique Cardoso so skillfully showed.

Serra, on the other hand, has promised that:

Priority will be given to the relationship with new partners in Asia, particularly China, this great economic phenomenon of the twenty-first century, and India. We will be equally committed to modernizing the bilateral exchange with Africa, the big neighbour on the other side of the Atlantic . . .

We will also take advantage of the opportunities offered by inter-regional fora with other developing countries, such as the BRICS, to accelerate commercial exchanges, investments and sharing of experiences.

Sub-Imperialism

Many who see Brazil as the victim of imperialism also hold the corresponding view that Brazil, along with the other BRICS countries, plays a progressive role on the global stage. Zondi articulated this viewpoint concisely in a recent piece for the Cape Times:

The [BRICS] platform has become the most powerful platform for the pursuit of global reform . . . Brazil has been a crucial voice in global debates about the reform of global governance, including the IMF and World Bank, and about fair and just outcomes for the developing world in world trade negotiations . . .

Brazil has spoken out on the agenda of decent work, food sovereignty, a greater Western contribution to the global response on climate change, ecological justice and the end to ecological imperialism. Brazil has also been an advocate of the responsibility to protect.

We may miss this now. Brazil is an important part of the effort today to shift global power from the former colonial powers and their diaspora in North America to all regions of the world. It is a key partner in South-South co-operation.

Many South Africans are impressed with the BRICS, but the reality of Brazil’s global maneuvering is much less rosy. In the most important multilateral settings, BRICS elites have worked against the interests of the world’s majority and against the environment.

Consider Brazil’s actions in the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Since 2010 it has been working to reconfigure voting power (“voice”) in the institution. It has successfully increased its vote by 23 percent (with China also up 37 percent, India up 11 percent and Russia up 8 percent).

This isn’t a bad thing. But the restructuring deal that made this possible was detrimental to African countries: Nigeria just lost 41 percent of its voting power, along with Libya (39 percent), Morocco (27 percent), Gabon (26 percent), Algeria (26 percent), Namibia (26 percent) and even South Africa (21 percent).

From this perspective “BRICs versus Africa” seems a more apt way to describe Brazil’s role in “reform of global governance” at the IMF.

Brazil’s maneuvers at other global governance institutions — including the World Trade Organization (WTO) which is currently headed up by Brazilian Roberto Azevêdo — are equally damaging.

According to the ordinarily pro-BRICS NGO Third World Network (TWN), Brazil conspired with the United States and the European Union at the WTO to “[ensure] that India did not get the language it proposed” to maintain vital food subsidies, which in coming years will lead tens of millions of Indian peasants to suffer.

As TWN’s Chakravarthi Raghavan put it, “on the eve of Nairobi, Brazil unilaterally abandoned the G20 alliance to join the US and EU, in trying to act against China and India,” not to mention against the world’s poor.

Of course, Brazil’s behavior is not unique. China and Russia persistently block efforts by Brazil, India, and South Africa to permanently join the Security Council. The point is simply that intra-BRICS solidarity, let alone broader South-South solidarity, is hard to find in reality.

The issue of Brazil’s role in battling the global environmental crisis also deserves greater scrutiny. In 2009 Lula supported — alongside the United States, India, China, and South Africa — the Copenhagen Accord, which voided the Kyoto Protocol’s binding emissions-cut premise, contained utterly unambitious emissions targets, and also wrecked the UN process that year.

Moreover, Rousseff was a booster of the pro-corporate “Green Economy” gambit at the Rio Earth Summit in 2012 that was (semi-successfully) rejected by most of the Global South. She is also a proud signatory to the 2015 Paris UN climate deal, a deal which assures catastrophic global warming and also now legally prevents climate victims in the Global South from suing the Global North for its climate debt.

Brazil has also combined forces with the EU — against Bolivia — to “open the same carbon trading loopholes that undermined the last global climate deal,” according to Oscar Reyes of the Institute for Policy Studies.

He notes that “the Paris Agreement explicitly allows countries to count emissions reductions made in other countries as part of their own domestic targets, referring to these by the euphemism ‘internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.’”

Finally, the claim that “Brazil has also been an advocate of the responsibility to protect” simply doesn’t hold water. Consider Haiti and the “right to protect” role countries like Brazil are tasked with carrying out. As Mark Weisbrot (a PT sympathizer) explains,

The UN occupation of Haiti is really a US occupation — it is no more a multilateral force than George W Bush’s “coalition of the willing” that invaded Iraq.

And it is hardly more legitimate, either: it was sent there in 2004 after a US-led effort toppled Haiti’s democratically elected government. Far from providing security for Haitians in the aftermath of the coup, [the UN mission in Haiti] stood by while thousands of Haitians who had supported the elected government were killed, and officials of the constitutional government jailed.

Despite Brazil’s UN-designated “right to protect” responsibilities it has done nothing to expose or oppose these crimes of occupation which include the rape and sexual abuse of Haitian children by UN soldiers.

Meanwhile back in Johannesburg, lefty-sounding rhetoric from the ANC’s Luthuli House is nothing more than politicians blowing dust into the air.

When ANC leaders call the courageous South African public protector Thuli Madonsela a “CIA agent,” or declare that the Mandela Washington Fellowship program of the US Embassy is training kids for “regime change,” they show off anti-imperialist feathers. But in reality, Washington has no beef with Pretoria. The ANC has alwaysexcelled at talking left while walking right.

US empire is real and oppressive, but it shouldn’t prevent a clear and critical appraisal of the BRICS countries’ true role in the world.

Patrick Bond is professor of political economy at the University of the Witwatersrand and co-editor of the 2015 book BRICS: An Anti-Capitalist Critique.

The “liberation” of Kosovo unleashed radical Islamism in Europe

Kosovo is Clinton Country: a 10-foot-high statue of Bill overlooks “Bill Clinton Boulevard” in the capital city of Pristina. Hillary is also memorialized in what has become the crime capital of Europe: right off the street named for her husband is a store named “Hillary,” featuring women’s clothing modeled after the putative Democratic party nominee for President. Pantsuits figure prominently. As Vice puts it: “While former President Bill Clinton has had a boulevard named after him, it’s without a doubt that his wife’s the real star out here.” Why is that?

As Gail Sheehy pointed out in her biography of Hillary, it was Mrs. Clinton who hectored her husband into bowing to a chorus of neoconservative and liberal interventionist voices and finally giving the order to bomb the former Yugoslavia. Traveling to Kosovo when Serbs in the northern part of the country were demanding some form of local autonomy to stave off violent attacks by Kosovar ultra-nationalists, Mrs. Clinton reassured her hosts that the US would stand behind Pristina: “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal.” She then physically embraced Kosovo President and Mafia chieftain Hacim Thaci – who has since been credibly accused by the Council of Europe of stealing human organs from Serb victims and selling them on the black market.

Hillary owns Kosovo – she is not only personally responsible for its evolution from a province of the former Yugoslavia into a Mafia state, she is also the mother of the policy that made its very existence possible and which she carried into her years as Secretary of State under Barack Obama.

As the “Arab Spring” threatened to topple regimes throughout the Middle East, Mrs. Clinton decided to get on board the revolutionary choo-choo train and hitch her wagon to “moderate” Islamists who seemed like the wave of the future. She dumped Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, whom she had previously described as a friend of the family, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s bid for power. In Libya, she sided with Islamist rebels out to overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi, celebrating his gruesome deathby declaring “We came, we saw, he died.” And in Syria, she plotted with Gen. David Petraeus to get around President Obama’s reluctance to step into the Syrian quagmire by arming Syrian rebels allied with al-Qaeda and other terrorist gangs.

The Clintonian legacy of enabling Islamist terrorists extends to present day Kosovo, where the New York Times has revealed an extensive network of ISIS-affiliated madrassas – indoctrination centers – funded by the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Kuwaitis. The Times reports:

“Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an improvised mosque in a former furniture store.”

“The mosque is one of scores built here with Saudi government money and blamed for spreading Wahhabism” in the 17 years since the war ended with Kosovo’s independence, says the Times.

“Since then – much of that time under the watch of American officials – Saudi money and influence have transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists.”

Kosovo is jihadi heaven. The Times informs us that “Over the last two years, the police have identified 314 Kosovars – including two suicide bombers, 44 women and 28 children – who have gone abroad to join the Islamic State, the highest number per capita in Europe.”

The Wahabist ideology carried by radical imams is directly financed by the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. All of these countries, by the way, are major donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton’s Islamist-friendly foreign policy created a terrorist base in Kosovo, and her friends the Saudis are instrumental in setting up the conditions whereby ISIS has gained a foothold in the heart of Europe. At sprawling Camp Bondesteel, where US troops have been stationed since the “liberation,” radical imams recruited three Kosovar employees, including Lavdrim Muhaxheri, who is today a commander of the Islamic State: his claim to fame is that he was videotaped executing a Syrian by blowing him to bits with a rocket-propelled grenade. (“I did not do anything less or more than what KLA soldiers did during the war,” he declared in an interview with an Albanian newspaper.)

Hillary Clinton and Hashim Thaci

After ignoring the problem for years, the authorities are making a show of rounding up terrorist suspects: five were recently arrested and given long sentences, but there are hundreds more where that came from.

Kosovo today is a fulcrum of terrorism, violence, crime, and virulent nationalism. The Parliament is in chaos as Albanian ultra-nationalists demanding union with Albania shut down sessions with smoke bombs and mob action. This is the legacy of the Clintons in the Balkans: a terrorist state run by Mafia chieftains that has become the epicenter of radical Islamism in the midst of Europe.

This is “blowback” with a vengeance, and Hillary Clinton and husband Bill have their fingerprints all over this outrage: but of course the “mainstream” media isn’t holding them to account. The Times story on the rise of ISIS in Kosovo never mentions the dubious duo, and is vague when it reports on the three employees of Camp Bondesteel who wound up in Syria’s terrorist camps. Who are the other two besides Muhaxheri? Did  they receive any military training? This Reuters report confirms that NATO brought Muhaxheri to Iraq, where he worked for two years at a military base.

And there’s more where he came from. As Reuters informs us:

“Thousands of Kosovars have moved on from Bondsteel to work with U.S. contractors on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, earning the kind of money they can only dream of in Kosovo.”

The terrorist pipeline runs from Kosovo, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and then on to Syria – where they fill the ranks of ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Could there be a more perfect illustration of how the principle of “blowback” works, and how we’re creating an army of Frankenstein monsters?

All this brings back memories  of Antiwar.com’s first days: this site was born as a protest against US intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Back then we warned againand again (and again!) about the specter of Islamist extremism as the energizing ideology of the Albanian separatists, both in Kosovo and Bosnia.

We were right on target.

That’s the great advantage of being a regular reader of Antiwar.com – we bring you the news before it happens. That’s years before it happens.

But we can’t continue to do it without your support – your financial assistance is critical to our continued existence.

Unlike the War Party, we here at Antiwar.com don’t get seven-figure donations from big foundations, foreign countries, or anybody else for that matter. We depend on you – our readers and supporters – for the funds we need to do our work.

And we need your help today. Our fundraising campaign has entered a crucial phase: a group of generous donors has contributed $29,000 – but we can’t get those funds until and unless we match that money in smaller donations.

That’s where you come in.

We’ve been holding down the fort for over 20 years – yes, that’s right. It seems like only yesterday when we first burst on the scene, but in reality a lot of time has passed – enough to demonstrate that we’ve been right so many times that we might as well be officially designated an authentic oracle.

It takes a lot of effort – and, yes, some money – to keep this site going. We’ve done our part, day in and day  out, for two decades – and now it’s time for you to do your part. We aren’t asking for a lot: what we spend annually is a drop in the bucket compared to what the War Party spends. And yet it’s enough to get by – and that’s all we ask.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I’ve written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert andDavid Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

Texas is famous for its love affair with guns. Elected officials in the Lone Star State can’t move quickly enough, it seems, to equip everyone who is not a toddler or a recognized mass murderer with firearms.

Enter the new Texas-centered documentary Tower.

It’s a spell-binding recreation of an extraordinary event: that day in 1966 when someone ascended to the top of the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin, and began firing a rifle at anything and everything. The siege continued for an astonishing 96 minutes. It was the first campus mass shooting.

By the time the gunman, Charles Whitman, a former marine sharpshooter turned architectural engineering student —  with an arsenal, including a 6 mm Remington rifle with a telescopic sight, an M1 semi-automatic carbine, and several handguns — was finally killed, the toll was 16 dead and three dozen wounded. The siege traumatized the nation — back before this kind of pointless carnage became so common.

University of Texas Tower from which gunman Charles Whitman fired.  Photo credit:  Wally Gobetz / Flickr

I saw Tower, appropriately, in Austin — during the South by Southwest (SXSW) film festival. It was interesting to see it in the state capitol, and one of the most liberal, tolerant places in Texas — ironically, perhaps the place where one might normally feel the least threatened by firearms.

The film, which won SXSW’s audience award for Feature Documentary, itself is a feat of innovation. It is a dramatic reconstruction, a mix of archival footage, voice-overs from present-day interviews with the survivors and “rotoscopic” animation.

This kind of thing has perhaps never been done before — at least I have never seen a film rendered quite this way — and both the story and the technique are riveting. It moves relentlessly from the first shot until the gunman is subdued, then continues into interviews and recollections, bringing us up to date with some of those whose lives intersected on that extraordinary day.

What stands out the most for me are the personal accounts of paralyzing fear and self-described cowardice, as well as astonishing heroism. In particular, the story of one woman, Claire Wilson, who lost both her boyfriend and her unborn child that day. And the woman who ran out to comfort her, risking her own life as the gunman continued relentlessly.

And Allen Crum, university bookstore manager and Air Force tail gunner, who had never fired a weapon, but, nonetheless, heroically mounted the tower carrying an old rifle, joined by a couple of poorly-equipped Austin police officers.

Although the film wisely stays rigorously on its narrative course, no viewer can avoid musing about where we are, half a century hence, as a society. Presumably, though, we will break along predictable lines. Some will wonder whether Whitman could have somehow been picked off earlier if more citizens were armed. Others will worry about the proliferation of guns on campus. And that is a timely subject, proving once again that past is prologue.

This coming August 1st is a kind of double whammy: it’s the 50th anniversary of the Tower bloodbath, for which the university, very belatedly, will be unveiling a monument.

Amazingly, that is also the day a Texas law goes into effect allowing licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons on campuses. As many as 500 UT students are expected to be able to attend classes, packing heat.

That development has plunged the university into recriminations and protests, and at least two faculty members, worried about their own safety, have resigned.

What, one wonders, have we learned over these 50 years? And where is it all headed?

On May 4, several environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for an end to the regulatory exemption it carved out in the late 1980s for the oil and gas industry with regards to how it handles industrial waste.

That exemption to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, a recent DeSmog investigation showed, was pushed in the forefront almost from day one of RCRA’s passage by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC).IOGCC is a U.S. Congress-chartered interstate compact consisting of U.S. oil and gas producing states, with a membership roll that includes state-level regulators, industry lobbyists and executives.

The EPA, which granted the oil and gas industry the RCRA exemption in 1988, serves as an IOGCC affiliate member.

An ongoing DeSmog investigation into IOGCC has exhibited that it often behaves like an unregistered lobbying node for the oil and gas industry. DeSmog has also obtained more documents, published here for the first time, revealing IOGCC’s role in pushing for and creating the RCRA loophole.

IOGCC: RCRA “Is Pretty Scary”

The recently-published DeSmog piece showed that Don Clay, who now works for Koch Industries as its Managing Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, headed up EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the time the agency carved out the RCRA exemption after years of IOGCC- and industry-wide lobbying. Initially, the exemption existed as part of the Solid Waste Management Act of 1980, called the Bentsen Amendment due to the late U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s (D-TX) championing of the clause.

Lee Fuller, the lead staffer who worked on that issue for Bentsen at the time of the amendment’s passage, now works as a senior lobbyist for the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). IPAA served as the creator and still oversees the controversial fracking front group, Energy in Depth (EID), which has written 144 blog posts in recent years belittling the link between injecting fracking wastewater and the earthquakes this can cause.

EID published a report in November 2015 that attempted to sow seeds of doubt between the link between oil and gas waste injection and earthquakes, which came out just over a month after IOGCC unveiled a similar primer at its annual meeting in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

A letter recently obtained by DeSmog from the Oklahoma State University’s Henry L. Bellmon Senatorial Papers collectiondemonstrates that IOGCC’s then-chairman and North Dakota Governor George Sinner faxed a letter on IOGCC letterheadto Bellmon in July 1987, a few months after the EPA published the first draft of its report making recommendations to Congress about what to do about the oil and gas wastes issue, positing that “oil and gas producing states will suffer severe economic damage if this is allowed to happen.”

That letter ended with a call to action, with Sinner asking Bellmon to contact the EPA and Congressional members and express this same sentiment. “Henry, this thing is pretty scary — do what you can!,” Sinner wrote at the bottom of the letter.

Image Credit: Oklahoma State University Henry L. Bellmon Senatorial Papers

Within a year, IOGCC had won the RCRA exemption that serves as the subject of the current lawsuit. IOGCC did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Steve Everley of EID told EnergyWire that he believes the lawsuit is a “fallacious stunt.”

But that’s all just the obligatory backstory. What about the lawsuit itself, who are the plaintiffs and what have they demanded?

The Lawsuit

The plaintiffs for the case — filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — include groups ranging from the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Center for Health, Environment & Justice, West Virginia Citizen Action Group d/b/a West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, Responsible Drilling Alliance, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

EPA, say the plaintiffs, was supposed to review and amend oil and gas industry’s RCRA exemption every three years underU.S. law.

“Defendant is under a nondiscretionary and continuing duty to review and, where necessary, revise the regulations ‘not less frequently than every three years (42 U.S.C. § 6912(b)),” reads the complaint. “EPA has not reviewed the…regulations for oil and gas wastes since July 6, 1988. Since that time, nine successive three-year deadlines have passed with no further review.”

But that didn’t happen, largely as it turns out, due to IOGCC’s influence peddling.

What exists instead of EPA self-audits every three years is something called STRONGER (State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations), an organization overseen by IOGCC and other stakeholders that since the late 1980s has performed voluntary audits of various aspects of state-level oil and gas regulatory programs.

The plaintiffs have asked the EPA to end the oil and gas industry’s RCRA loophole and amend it to reflect the modern-day shale oil and gas exploration and production boom.

Image Credit: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

STRONGER and Weaker Regulations

STRONGER’s initial name was the Council on Regulatory Needs, which got off the ground with $300,000 in EPA seed money.Documents obtained by DeSmog from the Archives and Special Collections of New Mexico State University Library show that Jerry Simmons, now executive director for the National Association of Royalty Owners, served as staff director for the Council while also working as IOGCC’s associate director.

Image Credit: Archives and Special Collections, New Mexico State University Library

Further, the New Mexico State University documents also convey that Randy Bruton — then head of regulatory affairs for Mitchell Energy, the company that pioneered commercial-scale fracking in the U.S. (since bought out by Devon Energy) — served as one of two industry representatives to the Council.

Fast-forwarding to the 21st Century, 2012 Republican Party presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama — the latter heeding the recommendations of his industry-loaded Department of Energy fracking advisory committee — have advocated for the hands-off STRONGER approach.

STRONGER is also advocated for by companies like Range Resources and lobbying groups like America’s Natural Gas Allianceand American Petroleum Institute (now merged).

A 2004 letter obtained by DeSmog from the State Historical Society of North Dakota’s Governor John Hoeven Records shows that, at that point in time, API funded STRONGER to the tune of $250,000 per year.

In a 1990 memorandum obtained by DeSmog from the University of Texas’ Briscoe Center for American History, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners (TIPRO) admitted the real reason for STRONGER (then still the Council for Regulatory Needs): more or less, public relations.

“If the [IOGCC] recommendations convince Congress that states are making a good faith effort to strengthen their rules where strengthened rules are appropriate, then we stand a good chance of keeping our…exemption and avoiding new federal involvement,” reads the memo. “TIPRO has been working closely with the [IOGCC] study group. Our hope is that the [IOGCC] recommendations can help Congress make the right decisions and that states will not feel pressured to take actions that could destroy the ability of independent producers to make a living.”

In that same memo, TIPRO also said it was “very fortunate” to have Bruton on the Council, who at the time also served as a member of TIPRO’s Environmental Committee.

“Toxic Mess”

The complaint also documents the human health and environmental impacts of the RCRA loophole above and beyond just generating record numbers of earthquakes. The ever-evolving RCRA tale, with this lawsuit and the ongoing Sierra Club v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, Et Al lawsuit serving as the latest chapter, provide a good case study of IOGCC’s long-term, real world impacts.

Amy Mall, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a press release that it all amounts to a “toxic mess” in need of a legal fixing.

“Waste from the oil and gas industry is very often toxic and should be treated that way,” said Mall. “Right now, companies can get rid of their toxic mess in any number of dangerous ways—from spraying it on icy roads, to sending it to landfills with our everyday household trash, to injecting it underground where it can endanger drinking water and trigger earthquakes.EPA must step in and protect our communities and drinking water from the carcinogens, radioactive material and other dangerous substances that go hand-in-hand with oil and gas waste.”

Photo Credit: United States Geological Survey

Tens of thousands remain homeless in Sri Lanka, while the number of people killed from Cyclone Roanu continues to rise. According to the Disaster Management Centre’s latest report, 101 people are confirmed dead in flooding and landslides. Rescue operations continue at Aranayake, where three villages were buried in a catastrophic landslide last week. Only 23 bodies have been found, out of the 134 people believed to be buried under tonnes of mud in these villages.

In Colombo, over 200,000 of the city’s 650,000 residents have been displaced by major flooding. Thousands are accommodated in so-called welfare centres at temples and schools, in roadside tents or under the bridges of elevated roads.

Sri Lankan authorities report that over 125,000 homes and more than 300,000 small and medium businesses have been destroyed or damaged by landslides and floods. The finance ministry estimates that the total damage will be between $US1.5 billion and $US2 billion.

The roofs of small wooden houses at Orugodawath

Torrential rains associated with Cyclone Roanu also hit Bangladesh last Saturday where an estimated 2 million people have been forced to leave their homes and at least 23 people have been killed.

Apart from perfunctory warnings for the public to be “vigilant,” the Sri Lankan government took no serious measures to counteract the danger of floods and landslides caused by Cyclone Roanu. This was despite consistent scientific predictions of extreme storm events precipitated by the current El Nino period. No evacuation crews or rapid response teams were deployed to potential disaster areas and no emergency shelters established in advance.

Sri Lanka’s disaster preparedness and management is virtually non-existent, despite the passage of the Disaster Management Act in 2005 and the establishment of the Disaster Management Centre (DMC). This toothless institution was introduced in response to deep public anger over the inadequacy of the government’s response to the Indian Ocean tsunami in late 2004 and the so-called recovery process.

In the more than decade of its existence, the DMC has not even established a proper dedicated rapid-response team with search and rescue capacity. This is in a country where deadly landslides occur every year. Military personnel deployed for search operations have been using their bare hands and long sticks.

On Monday, President Maithripala Sirisena declared that landslide-affected areas should be defined as High Security Zones and action taken to stop the construction of houses in “unsuitable places for living” and to prevent “unauthorised reclamation.”

Media reports said the government would deploy military and police units to prevent such “encroachments.” This unexplained move will be used to prevent poor families from settling in urban areas and to speed up the government eviction of shanty dwellers in order to release land for its Megalopolis project.

Yesterday, the government’s National Building Research Organisation announced that around 2,800 families will not be allowed to resettle in their original communities. This includes hundreds of homeless families in Aranayake. The government has not said whether the displaced families will be given alternative dwellings.

Aranayake residents told the WSWS that displaced villagers were being accommodated in dozens of “welfare centres” without adequate food and other assistance, and voiced their concerns about the future.

Tens of thousands of working class and poor families were abandoned by Sri Lankan authorities following the 2004 tsunami. In Colombo, the previous government of President Mahinda Rajapakse spent billions of rupees for the beautification of the city, but slum dwellers and the poor were forced into unsafe, makeshift camps and left to experience yet another disaster.

The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government has boasted of large donations from various foreign governments. The US has again shown its hypocrisy. Washington’s envoy to Sri Lanka, Atul Keshap, announced that the US has allocated $50,000 (7.2 million rupees) for flood relief in Sri Lanka. This is from a country which spends billions of dollars for wars to establish its global hegemony.

The Cyclone Roanu disaster has again revealed that the ruling elite and its successive governments, whether led by the United National Party or the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, are unwilling and incapable of providing the most rudimentary safety to residents.

In the past few days, the media has featured President Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and other ministers visiting flood and landslide victims in shelters and camp, feigning concern and making various pledges. Their promises will come to nothing.

Germany’s Assault On The IMF

Having successfully used the EU to conquer the Greek people by turning the Greek “leftwing” government into a pawn of Germany’s banks, Germany now finds the IMF in the way of its plan to loot Greece into oblivion.

The IMF’s rules prevent the organization from lending to countries that cannot repay the loan. The IMF has concluded on the basis of facts and analysis that Greece cannot repay. Therefore, the IMF is unwilling to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private banks.

The IMF says that Greece’s creditors, many of whom are not creditors but simply bought up Greek debt at a cheap price in hopes of profiting, must write off some of the Greek debt in order to lower the debt to an amount that the Greek economy can service.

The banks don’t want Greece to be able to service its debt, because the banks intend to use Greece’s inability to service the debt in order to loot Greece of its assets and resources and in order to roll back the social safety net put in place during the 20th century. Neoliberalism intends to reestablish feudalism—a few robber barons and many serfs: the One Percent and the 99 percent.

The way Germany sees it, the IMF is supposed to lend Greece the money with which to repay the private German banks. Then the IMF is to be repaid by forcing Greece to reduce or abolish old age pensions, reduce public services and employment, and use the revenues saved to repay the IMF.

As these amounts will be insufficient, additional austerity measures are imposed that require Greece to sell its national assets, such as public water companies and ports and protected Greek islands to foreign investors, principallly the banks themselves or their major clients.

So far the so-called “creditors” have only pledged to some form of debt relief, not yet decided, beginning in 2 years. By then the younger part of the Greek population will have emigrated and will have been replaced by immigrants fleeing Washington’s Middle Eastern and African wars who will have loaded up Greece’s unfunded welfare system.

In other words, Greece is being destroyed by the EU that it so foolishly joined and trusted. The same thing is happening to Portugal and is also underway in Spain and Italy. The looting has already devoured Ireland and Latvia (and a number of Latin American countries) and is underway in Ukraine.

The current newspaper headlines reporting an agreement being reached between the IMF and Germany about writing down the Greek debt to a level that could be serviced are false. No “creditor” has yet agreed to write off one cent of the debt. All that the IMF has been given by so-called “creditors” is unspecific “pledges” of an unspecified amount of debt writedown two years from now.

The newspaper headlines are nothing but fluff that provide cover for the IMF to succumb to presssure and violate its own rules. The cover lets the IMF say that a (future unspecified) debt writedown will enable Greece to service the remainder of its debt and, therefore, the IMF can lend Greece the money to pay the private banks.

In other words, the IMF is now another lawless Western institution whose charter means no more than the US Constitution or the word of the US government in Washington.

The media persists in calling the looting of Greece a “bailout.”

To call the looting of a country and its people a “bailout” is Orwellian. The brainwashing is so successful that even the media and politicians of looted Greece call the financial imperialism that Greece is suffering a “bailout.”

Everywhere in the Western world a variety of measures, both corporate and governmental, have resulted in the stagnation of income growth. In order to continue to report profits, mega-banks and global corporations have turned to looting. Social Security systems and public services–and in the US even the TSA airline security screening–are targeted for privatization, and indebtedness so accurately described by John Perkins in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is used to set up entire countries to be looted.

We have entered the looting stage of capitalism. Desolation will be the result.

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

Prime Minister Narendra Modi tried to make a difference by expressing aspirations to engage multipolar India with the unipolar world.  Modi’s current strategic tilt towards imperial power centers of Washington and Riyadh has alarmed the bells in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran.  First time in history, The government of Modi is not only going to host foreign boots in Indian soil to contain china but it has also waged a war on secular India through encouraging Hindu extremism in the country.

Modi’s current moves signaled that he has become the trump card of the unipolar club and now he is following the path of Turkish Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdogan internationally and domestically. The purpose of this write-up is aimed to compare Modi with Erdogan through analyzing their play against their own country and multipolar world.

Backstabbing the Multipolar World

Turkey,  like India, economically and institutionally is the part of the multipolar world as it has the bridge between Asia and Europe. Before backstabbing Russia, Turkey was considered as the best friend of Russia like India. Being the architecture of multipolarity of the globe, Russia had offered all alternates to Turkey from Turkish-stream line to the membership of multipolar strategic and economic blocs. While Turkish leader Tayyip Erdogan was much close to the president of Russia that’s why last year in September, Vladimir Putin invited Erdogan on the occasion of Eid (Muslim religious celebration) to inaugurate the 2nd largest Mosque of Russia in Moscow but unfortunately Putin was unaware that Erdogan is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Russian anti-terror campaign in Syria exposed Turkish double standards regarding the support of terrorism. When Russian air force struck on terrorist financial resources in Syria, Turkey downed Russian SU-24 jet in Syrian airspace.  Turkey was the first country who shot down Russian jet after the World War II. That was an unaccepted and unaffordable move for Russia. It was not just a betray but for Russia, it was a stab in the back. Therefore, the Russian president said, “Allah must have punished the ruling clique in Turkey by stripping them of their sanity”. Russia only lost jet while Turkey turned her best friend into an enemy.

After joining the unipolar club, Erdogan not only waged a war on Turkish multipolar structure but he also acted as a facilitator in US-led “Hybrid War” against the multipolar world on the behest of unipolar well-wishers. Erdogan is not only replacing Turkish Sufism image with Wahabi colored Salafism Islam but he also had blocked Silk Road branches of Kobani, Damascus, and Baghdad through supporting terrorists.

And now Modi has adopted the same alleyway of Erdogan in India through joining the unipolar club to contain regional integration. China’s belt road initiative has reached to the door of India but unfortunately, Modi is not only going to close the door but he has also adopted an aggressive policy to barricade it in the south Asian region and the Indian Ocean.  Indian current strategic tilt towards the US and Saudi Arabia has signaled that India is not only going to on board with unipolar world to contain Russia and China led multipolarity of globe from the Indian Ocean to Asia-pacific region but it is also going to line up herself with Saudi Arabia and Turkey in the new emerging The Saudi-Chinese Cold War. For this purpose, Saudi Arabia is facilitating India in South Asia and Muslim countries to contain China while as a result India is assisting Saudi Arabia in Iranian Sistan e Baluchistan against Iran. Beside this, Saudi-Indo new axis is also using Afghanistan’s hostile situation against China, Pakistan and Iran meanwhile NATO presence in Afghanistan is also very favorable for this new anti-regional axis. Turkey is also on board with India from Afghanistan to the central Asian States. Despite the member of BRICS and potential member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), India on the behest of this axis has dared to support anti-China and anti-Russia groups.

Indian support to Uyghur militant group East Turkestan Islamic Moment (ETIM) has also been uncovered in April when India hosted anti-China groups moot in Dharamsala. The author and the Journalist Andrew Korybko has exposed Modi’s double play as he says, “Prime Minister Modi will certainly have a lot of explaining to do now that it’s been proven that the anti-China group that he’s hosting in Dharamsala is also anti-Russian.”Initiatives For China/Citizen Power For China” is such a strong backer of the radical extra-judicial “Global Magnitsky Act” that they even sponsored a high-profile conference about it just last summer”.

No doubt that China and Pakistan are the rival of India but Russia and Iran are still considered India’s strategic best friends but unfortunately when Russia and Iran are circled by NATO/Saudi at that time India is going line up with their anti-group. This act of Modi would be unacceptable for both Russia and Iran.

Being the leaders of the multipolar world -Russia and China- know that keep India within their multipolar institutions is like keeping a snake in the backyard with the hope that it will not bite when it will grow. Because Modi will not remain forever but India will that’s why it is the need of multipolar diplomacy to pull multipolar India together.

Secularization to Extremism

The USA has launched a “Hybrid War” on multipolar states through exploiting hostile situation aim to achieve American strategic interests. For this purpose, Pentagon has introduced color revolutions to install desired regimes and fueled separatism and extremism to accomplish unipolar hegemony over multipolar states. American current foreign policy is witnessing that Washington does not need allies but it needs vassals.  Unfortunately, the anti-Russian move has turned mostly NATO’s member states into American Vassals and Turkey is one of them while now India is also on the way. If India will sign proposed Logistic Support Agreement (LSA) with the USA, It will turn India into American vassal state.

The attack of hybrid war on Turkey remained very successful and now we are witnessed that the President of Turkey Tayyip Erdogan has become the tool of this war and he is facilitating US to achieve the objectives of the  manual of Unconventional Warfare (UW) through Turkish influence in the region from Balkan to the Middle East. While Erdogan’s anti-Russian moves also hinted that he is also going to contain Russia in the Black Sea as he said that the Black Sea has become Russian lake.

Beside this, Erdogan has attacked the Turkish secular image even as new proposed Turkish constitution is under way. In fact, the purpose of amendments is to give absolute power to Turkish president but along this, the current regime is also wishing to change the secular image of Turkey into Islamization by erasing articles from the constitution which protect secularism and liberalization in Turkey. That’s why Speaker of Turkish Parliament, Ismail Kahraman hinted that Secularism should not be included in the new constitution. The new constitution must be a religious one.

Turkish Sufism and secularism are the main hurdles in Pentagon-sponsored Jihad that’s why with the help of Erdogan they want to replace Sufism (Islamic ideology of peace and tolerance)  with Salafism (Wahhabi ideology of Jihad) while Extremism will replace secularism under this new proposed constitution.

Like Erdogan, Indian Modi also has the same ambition to convert secular India into Hindu Extremist state through amending the constitution but the democratic set-up of India can’t afford this Modi’s adventure;  therefore, Modi is hesitating to play with Indian constitution.  But unfortunately, Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has become the main sponsor of extremism in India.  Modi’s previous record is witnessed that he had blood on his hands as being the Chief Minister of Gujarat he allowed to kill Muslimsduring the 2002 Gujarat riots. 

As Erdogan is the follower of Muslim Brotherhood and Wahabi extremist ideology same Indian Modi belongs to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Hindu extremist ideological organization which was involved anti-Sikh riots in 1984 and 2002 Gujarat anti-Muslim riots, it was also closely associated with Mahatma’s assassination in 1948 and the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. While BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) is a political wing of the RSS.

And now Modi as the PM of India has given a free hand to Hindu extremist groups. With the support of government RSS and its extremist groups waged war on multi-ethnic and multi-religious secular India. All minorities including Muslim, Sikh, Christine and others are directly under attack while liberal and secular Hindus are also the victim of this growing extremism. Recently many Muslims, Sikhs, and Christens are killed due to religious violence. The fire of extremism is burning the liberal and secular image of India. Therefore the phrase “Hindu Taliban” has been introduced.

Besides, Erdogan wants to turn secular Syria into extremist religious factory same pattern has been adopted by Modi against Himalayan tiny state Nepal. Last year in September when Hindu dominant Nepal has adopted her first ever constitution as a secular state, it was unaffordable for Hindu extremist groups of India. Modi has sent diplomats to Kathmandu to change the constitution by proposing the amendment to declare Nepal as a Hindu State but Nepal’s government refused to do so as a result India has blocked the border and suspended energy and medicine supply to this landlocked country.

As Russian timely intervention saved Syria from Erdogan, same in this case China came forward to rescue this tiny state of Nepal from Modi’s created humanitarian crises.

Akhand Bharat vs Ottoman Empire

As Turkish Erdogan is building castles in the air to revive Ottoman Empire which broke down in 1924 at the end of first world war. This Turkish Neo-Ottoman ideology has become a security threat for the world and aggressive foreign policy of Turkey is pushing the world into a total war.

Similarly in South Asia, Modi has a dream to establish “Akhand Bharat” (united India) through annexation of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Tibet, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. For this purpose, Modi’s BJP government has waged hybrid war on South Asian nations.

The ruling BJP’s general secretary Ram Madhav  made comments during Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore  last year in December , as he said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh believes that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will one day reunite again not by war but through “POPULAR GOODWILL“.

The current tension in South Asia is fueled by Modi to full fill the Akhand Bharat dream. While as a result, South Asian nations are looking towards the leaders of multipolar world – China and Russia – to counter this dirty game of India. Therefore, South Asian nations have gathered under the umbrella of SCO.

While on the other hand, Saudi Arabia and America have already introduced counter-narrative of Hindu’s Akhand Bharat through promoting the ideology of Islamic State of united Hindustan. Annexation of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh with India will turn Muslims into a majority in the region.

The purpose of Akhand Bharat and the Islamic state of Hindustan is only one to counter china and block regional integration.   Therefore, Saudi Arabia and America both are facilitating India in South Asia so that all south Asian nations under the lead of India can counter China. For this purpose India is revising cold war mentality against China as Indian Parliamentary Panel on Defense has submitted its report which suggested that India plans to revive 39 abandoned airfields; mostly along the Himalayan region which lies in the northeast. These airfields were used by air forces of Britain and the United States during World War II.

So in this scenario, Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman empire has become a threat to the world peace,  and similarly, Modi’s ambition of Akhand Bharat is also threatening large-scale war in nuclear triangular Sino-Indo-Pak of South Asia region.

Exporter of Terrorism

Once Pakistan was considered the exporter of terrorism but now Turkey and India both are exporting terrorism to achieve their geopolitical objectives.  Unfortunately, Turkey has adopted Pakistani path of pentagon’s jihad that’s why “Pakistanization of Turkey” phrase has been introduced for Erdogan’s Turkey.  The president of Turkey has become the godfather of Islamic terrorism. Turkish soil is using as the launching pad of so-called Islamic Jihad against Europe, Syria, and Balkan states.  Turkish trained militants have not only waged war against Syria but whole Europe is suffering in Erdogan’s sponsored jihad.

Like Erdogan, Modi has also involved in exporting terrorism into Pakistan, China and Nepal. Indian establishment is supporting Alliance for Independent Madhes (AIM) in Nepal. Madhesi people live along the borderline between India and Nepal. The government of Nepal is trying to seek the solution of Madhesi community but Indian influence is the hurdle.

The Indian express report suggests that The Madhes has historically been part of the larger Mithila region. Most of the affluent of the Terai are educated in India, and the democracy on the other side of the border has kept levels of political awareness high. Most of the 11 Indian ambassadors to Nepal since 1990 have been from Bihar — and about half of them belong to a sizeable caste in Nepal’s Terai. Their interest, and visible concern, in the region’s politics, has attracted suspicion in Kathmandu.

On the behest of India, these Madhesi people had blocked Nepal-India border twice from 1950 to till date. For the first time they had blocked the border in 1989 when Nepal bought Arms from china and now recently they again blocked in 2015 on the issue of Nepal’s new constitution.

As well as Nepal, Pakistan and China are also facing Indian sponsored terrorism. Modi’s efforts to sabotage China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are now not hidden. Indian support to Chinese militant group ETIM, terrorist groups and Baloch rebels in Pakistan was uncovered recently.

Conclusion

In both countries, pro-multipolar well-wishers are directly under attack.  Opposition parties to media, institutions to think tanks all have become the victims of political revenge of Erdogan and Modi in their respective countries. Although Turkey and India both are multipolar states but unfortunately current ruling regimes over there are destroying their multipolar image and forcefully converting sovereign states into vassals. In this situation, it is the need of time to support liberal, secular and pro-multipolar think tanks and organizations so that domestic and internationally pressure should be built on ruling cliques.

Still both Erdogan and Modi have time to take bold steps by taking U-Turn in the larger interests of their nations and regions despite the dancing on the unipolar floor on the behest of America. Their wrong decisions will not only ruin their own nations but it will tear their country into pieces. As Turkey is facing Kurdish separatism same India is facing many separate movements i.e. Kashmir, Khalistan, Assam, Nangalim, and Tripura.

Divide and rule policy of West is still working while Separatism is the main tool of the Pentagon’s unconventional warfare which has been applied in 2010 to achieve American interests all over the world. After analyzing the both plays, it is easy to make an opinion that Erdogan and Modi have been trapped or they have become the puppets of the west.  And they both pose a significant threat not only to their countries but also to the world.

Al-Nusra Front has gathered a force of some 6,000 fighters, preparing for a major offensive in Syria’s Aleppo province. Despite the military efforts of the pro-government forces, the city of Aleppo remains a hot spot of Al-Nusra activities. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, Al Nusra militants will make attempt to block the loyalist forces in the city with a strike from the east, while in the north they seek to cut off access to the city of Nubl.

The US CENTCOM commander, General Joseph Votel, visited the Kurdish areas of Syria last Saturday and met with officials of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to coordinate future operations aimed to liberate the ISIS-controlled town of Raqqa. The visit comes as the first of 250 additional U.S. special operations forces are beginning to arrive in Syria to work with local forces.

Iraqi forces supported by US-led coalition warplanes have launched a military operation in order to re-take the ISIS-controlled city of Fallujah. According to the Iraqi military’s Joint Operations Command, the Iraqi army, counter-terrorism forces, police, tribal fighters and the Popular Mobilization Forces participate in the assault. Last week there were reports that Kata’ib Hezbollah units also deployed to the area in order to support the operation. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi reportedly traveled to a command center east of Fallujah to supervise the offensive.

On Monday, the Iraqi forces liberated the town of al-Karmah, 13 km to the east of Fallujah. Meanwhile, the Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella group of Shia militias, has already taken over two districts on the outskirts of Fallujah, according to one of its commanders, Col. Mahmood al-Jumaili. However, there are reports that the success of the Iraqi forces more significant.

On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.[i] In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation (“Project Fear”) launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland’s – and later Hungary’s – turn will come in earnest.

The elites are not used to “no” votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the ‘correct’ way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called “Left” represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations!

At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism 

As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17^th-18^th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the ‘nationalization’ of the market was necessary for the development of the ‘market system’ out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further ‘progress’ of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

In other words, the peoples’ need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20^th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now ‘from above’ by the Transnational and national elites. This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to “protect” human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of ‘illiberalism’.’[iv]

It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

a)    Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20^th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

b)    Nationalism’s emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism’s emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

c)    Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as ‘far right’. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the ‘4 freedoms’ (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees’ real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present ‘job miracle’, for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as “the job creation capital of the western economies”), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, “unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era”.[v]­­

The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist “the false song of globalism”, expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the “Free World”. Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became “nationalists” let alone “fascists”, as the globalist “Left” (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist “Left” does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

But, it is mainly Le Pen’s National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ’s institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the “Left” has abandoned long ago!):

“Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization].”…Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance” …Immigration “weighs down on wages,” while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage”.^[vi]

In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the “Left” and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN’s vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

“The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies… . these people have realized that they were misled.”^[vii]

As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN’s economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as “Peronist Marxism”.^[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she—rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of “wild and anarchic globalization… which has brought more pain than happiness ”.^[ix] For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his “radical” hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, “the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans “to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor”.^[x] Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,^[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,^[xii] and Orban’s government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country’s sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a “dangerous ‘Putinization’ of European politics.”^[xiii]

However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz “forget” is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that “the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).^[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the “progressive” camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

The bankruptcy of the Left

It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves!^[xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that “there is no Islamophobia in France…but there is a rise in anti-Semitism”. Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,^[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO—which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested ‘divide and rule’ practice to divide the victims of globalization.

Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British “left” in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) “Left” does (see for instance Jean Bricmont^[xvii] and Larry Elliott^[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these “Left” trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the “Left”, which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form, while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today’s bankrupt “Left” promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU’s black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty. This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of “Left”, as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded “Left” are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,^[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria’s 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

The process of the Left’s bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist “Left”),^[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist “Left”. Thus, this “Left”, Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist “Left” have joined the new ‘movement’ by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, “forgetting” in the process that ‘Democracy’ was also the West’s propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites’ domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist “Left” who have already joined this new DIEM ‘movement’ range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist “Left” newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek’s commentary on the ‘Manifesto’ that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis’s new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

Neo-nationalism and immigration

So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist “Left”, try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed^[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,^[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of ‘fascism’ still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call ‘Euro-fascism’), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the ‘real thing’ of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,^[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,^[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,^[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an “antifascist” Front within the EU, as proposed by the ‘parliamentary juntas’ in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist “Left” (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers’ Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An ‘antifascist’ front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite –  as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country’s exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

The United States has a long and duplicitous history when it comes to not only attempting to assassinate the character of Fidel Castro, but also his life.  The US government’s unsuccessful attempts at both forms of assassination can easily be deemed as an evil obsessive. The United States (via the CIA) has tried to assassinate/murder Fidel Castro over 600 times. This number is startling due to the fact that the CIA has been so utterly unsuccessful in their nefarious attempts to eliminate Castro. However, it should not be surprising that they tried to assassinate this leader, since they have successfully (and extra-judiciously) assassinated countless humans, including government leaders throughout the globe. This diabolical track record goes back many decades.  

One example that I am often reminded of is that of Congo’s Patrice Lumumba. The United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) directly orchestrated the assassination of Congo’s democratically elected leader in 1961. He was murdered simply because he wanted to utilize his country’s natural resources for the best interests of his people. US president Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the orders for his assassination. The West, including the US, has long been accustomed to plundering the natural resources from countries throughout the so-called Global South. They are models of shiftlessness. Much of the West’s economy comes directly from the plunder and theft of resources derived from other nations. This dates back to the days of chattel slavery when many European countries, and the United States, stole Africans from their homeland simply to have them work on land that they had also stolen.

The United States’ government, like a sharp (pun not intended) serial killer, has developed a knack for successfully destroying lives, such as Patrice Lumumba. This is why Fidel Castro’s ability to evade their murderous wet dreams is all the more impressive. Castro has even outlived many of the people who plotted, directly oversaw or approved (including US presidents) assassination attempts on his life.

Why would the US be so damn obsessed with murdering Fidel Castro, one might ask? Easy: Fidel Castro has long been a direct threat to the United States’ capitalist (and imperialist) stranglehold on Cuba—as well as many other nations. Dating back to the culmination of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the US has had malevolent intentions for the likes of Fidel Castro.

Cuba and Castro continue to serve as paragons of resilience, liberation, and humanitarianism, despite having over 50 years of a malicious and ill-conceived blockade placed on it. This United States initiated blockade cost the Cuban people over 100 billion dollars. In 1953 Cuban revolutionaries had the audacity to embark upon an arduous (yet necessary) journey to gain their liberation from the repressive and deadly grip of the US-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista. These revolutionaries, led by the likes of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, toppled the brutal US backed regime on January 1, 1959, thus ending the bloody reign of Batista. The new revolutionary government would soon nationalize Cuban resources such as their vast sugar cane plantations. This warranted move ensured that Cuba’s resources would no longer benefit the rapacious US corporations that had controlled them with Batista’s stamp of approval. This was to mark a new beginning not only for the vast majority of Cubans, but for other nations as well.

The Cuban revolution stood, as it does now, as an example of what can happen when oppressed people unite against US backed repression. However since the defeat of the US backed dictator in Cuba, the king of modern day imperialism (United States) has done everything it can to break the will of the Cuban people, their government, and their revolution. Despite United States mythology, the US’s preferred forms of diplomacy are murder via assassinations, deadly sanctions, or wars of aggression. However, in the case of Cuba and Fidel Castro, their attempts to break the island nation failed miserably, time and time again.

Throughout Fidel Castro’s tenure as Cuba’s leader he helped liberate several African nations from the destructive grip of white supremacy and colonization. Angola, Namibia and Guinea Bissau, are merely three of the numerous examples of African nations that benefited from Castro’s (and Cuba’s) internationalism. While Fidel Castro was playing an active role in breaking the yoke of colonization, the United States was supporting brutal white supremacist regimes throughout Africa, including within Southern Africa.

The US government has long served as the world’s consummate hypocrite. Corporate media and US officials lie to the world (including their citizens), pretending they champion freedom and democracy. However behind the scene they have methodically supported brutal dictatorships and colonial regimes. Unfortunately, this practice has not ceased. The United States is no more a champion for freedom and justice than a great white shark is a vegetarian.

Only to the systematically programmed American is the myth of the United States being a beacon of freedom and justice, one that persists. Americans have a nasty habit of believing anything and everything their government and the corporate media force-feed their closed minds. This is the irony concerning Cuba and Fidel Castro; they have been the liberators while the US has been the orchestrator of global oppression and carnage.

Perhaps Castro’s (and Cuba’s) greatest contribution has been their ongoing legacy with internationalist oriented medical brigades. Under Fidel Castro’s leadership, Cuba has sent tens of thousands of doctors and nurses throughout the globe, in an effort to help build up those nations’ under-resourced medical infrastructure. This revolutionary initiative has served countless lives; meanwhile US imperialism has taken innumerable lives.

No matter what the US tries in order to assassinate the character of Fidel Castro, the history can never be erased. The history cannot be undone! Commandant Fidel Castro’s legacy can never be undone; his internationalist and revolutionary history will serve as an inspiration forever. This fact will continue to remain a thorn in the side of US imperialists and their misguided supporters. A great many Americans would be better off if they studied the achievements of the Cuba Revolution, then demanded that the US government implement things like universal healthcare and education. Americans also need to demand that “their” government ends its violent reign as an imperialist force. For humanity to prosper, the United States’ war machine must be dismantled. It is truly one of the world’s greatest threats to sustainable peace.

Let us always appreciate the global contributions of Fidel Castro and let his selflessness and internationalism serve as inspiration to always champion liberation, humanitarianism, justice, and resistance to oppression. And we must teach these lessons of the Cuban Revolution to the youth. This history can (and will) serve as inspiration for future generations—throughout the globe. Viva la revolucion (Long Live the Revolution)!

Solomon Comissiong (www.solomoncomissiong.com) is an educator, activist, author, and Founder of the Your World News Media Collective (www.yourworldnews.org). Solomon is the author of A Hip Hop Activist Speaks Out on Social Issues. Solomon is also the writer and producer of the documentary, Hip Hop, White Supremacy & Capitalism: Why Corporations Infiltrated RAP Music. He can be reached at: [email protected]

The recent coup against Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff is extraordinary and has received relatively little attention in the British media.

The startling fact is that, while more than 50 million Brazilians voted to re-elect Dilma Rousseff as their president in 2014, it took only 55 senators to take the decision to remove her.

So they have suspended her for 180 days in order to make her face an impeachment trial over accusations of budget manipulations. The situation is a complete negation of democracy.

Ernesto Samper, General Secretary of the Union of South American Nations, has said that Dilma Rousseff remained ‘the legitimate leader’ of Brazil and retains her ‘democratic legitimacy,’ adding that the decision to initiate an impeachment trial against her was ‘compromising the democratic governability of the region in a dangerous way.’

Responding to the fact that the impeachment effort against the ousted Brazilian president is based on allegations that she manipulated budget accounts, Samper warned that it set a dangerous precedent by criminalizing what he sees (rightly or wrongly) standard government budget management practices.

Brazil’s trade unions, Workers Party (PT) and social movements have simply labelled it a coup, and in Latin America itself, only Argentina’s right-wing government has publicly supported the new right-wing administration.

However, the global outcry has been less than what might have expected.

With Dilma gone, vice-president Michael Temer has become president. If the impeachment succeeds, Temer will be installed permanently for the remainder of the presidential term.

Polls have shown Temer has little support among voters, with two percent saying they would vote for him in 2018. Interestingly Dilma Rousseff’s most vocal defender – and former president – Lula has support from over 20 percent of the electorate.

In less than a week, the nature of the new Government was quickly exposed as one of hardline neo-liberalism – an agenda clearly contrary to the will of Brazilians when they re-elected Rousseff.

Nearly immediately, they announced that they intend to fire at least 4,000 public workers and it has been reported that ministers have to review the pay rolls of their ministries in order to seek to cut 25 per cent of workers.

Meanwhile, new health minister, Ricardo Barros, said the size of Brazil’s highly popular public health program must be reviewed, even though universal access to health care is constitutionally guaranteed, and this is within a context of the ongoing public health challenges posed by the Zika outbreak.

Tellingly and astonishingly, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Agrarian Development, the Ministry of Science and Technology (merged into another ministry,) the Ministry of Women and the Ministry of Human Rights have all been abolished.

The Ministry of Racial Equality was abolished on the 128th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in Brazil.

In an incredibly diverse country, the new cabinet has no women, no Black ministers, or no one who identifies as gay, lesbian, or trangender. As Brazilian Senator Cristovam Buarque, who voted in favour of Rousseff’s impeachment, tweeted: ‘Seems strange to me a cabinet without women, without representatives from minority groups or social movements.’

Rousseff herself responded by saying that now

‘inequality has a clear face in Brazil. It’s the face of women, black people, the poor, and the youth.’

Why does this matter to those of us interested in democracy and international development here in Europe? Not only because we should support democracy throughout the world, but also because of what Brazil has achieved in recent years in terms of social inclusion.

At the start of the millennium, about a third of Brazil’s population languished beneath the international poverty line ($2 a day), and about 15 per cent was living on less than $1.25 a day.

Yet, since the Workers Party has been in power — with Lula (2003-2011) and then Rousseff — according to Brazil’s Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA), between 2004-2014 the country has reduced poverty by 63 percent.

As an article in Foreign Affairs in 2014 noted:

“In the first decade of the new century, some 40 million Brazilians moved from poverty into the middle class, per capita household income shot up by 27 percent, and inequality dropped dramatically—unlike in every other BRIC country (Russia, India, and China), where it rose. Today, Brazil still faces many challenges, from an economic downturn to corruption scandals to the end of the commodity boom. But the country’s incredible success in reducing poverty and inequality can and should light the way for further progress, both there and abroad.”

In particular, from a development angle, specific programmes offered possible lessons internationally.

The Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) programme has featured more than 40 different programs run by close to 20 government ministries. The most significant of these Bolsa Família (Family Grant) saw Brazil put combating poverty and inequality centre stage, giving families small but life-changing amounts of cash in return for having their children vaccinated and being in school.

Not only did Bolsa Família reach more than a quarter of the population (and 85 per cent of the poor), but the payments, tiny though they are, doubled the incomes of Brazil’s most destitute families.

In its first three years, extreme poverty fell by 15 per cent, and by 2014, the percentage of Brazilians living in extreme poverty declined to less than three percent—a level the World Bank considers equivalent to eradication. [Gr Editor’s note: the World Bank measurements tend to grossly underestimate poverty]

Additionally, vaccination rates reached 99 per cent, and infant mortality dropped 40 percent in a decade, with deaths from malnutrition down 58 per cent.

Of course, Brazil also faces massive challenges and difficulties but democratically elected governments, who at least have a keen focus on reducing poverty and inequality, deserve our international support.

Let’s not be silent at this vital time for the country and the region.

Diane Abbott MP is the Shadow International Development Secretary, UK, For more information on Brazil you can follow No Coup in Brazil on Facebook and Twitter.

Thousands of extra-judiciary drone killings, all personally approved by Peace Nobel Laureate, Obama, and all with casualties and so-called ‘collateral damage’, costs the affected, mostly poor communities, tens of thousands of lives and destroyed properties and public infrastructure valued at millions of dollars; an assurance to keep them poor and submissive.

Do not such horrendous criminal acts by the self-declared western caliph Obama beg the question – who will eventually send a drone to neutralize the killer? – Or for that matter, anyone who dares following in the murderer’s footsteps, Democrat or Republican, two faces of the same coin?

It could be a pretty long chain, because none of the potential successors have a mind of their own. All of them are spineless miserable puppets, bought by the a globalized Anglo-Zionist led Corporate Empire. But no matter how long the chain of official governmental murderers, stopping them has to begin at some point. Lest, it becomes like everything else, normal daily business.

Imagine! – We are living in a world where open killings, open assassinations by an Über-Mensch, the proclaimed and admitted leader of the Exceptional Country, the self-proclaimed Master of the Universe, becomes the order of the day. And nobody blinks an eye.

We, The People, are silent, when news reports of drone killings are flung around the world. No proof of guilt, no accusation, no trial, no conviction – nothing. It’s the new normal. Worse even – the puppets of the assassin-in-Chief, NATO and those who lead NATO, are doing the same by impunity. No morals left. The financial army – the Wall street tanks of money are killing entire countries. Nobody blinks. Elite imposed violence just grows exponentially. And so does fear. The more fear, the more police and military violence is justified – and even asked for by the people, whose minds have been utterly manipulated with false flag attacks, blaming of course always – the Islamists – who else?

Greece is being fed to the dogs; the country that once upon a time gave the world the intellectual capital of philosophy that many of us are still thriving off, and the political principle of Democracy, the original concept of equal rights among people – a term widely abused today by the western world. Greek strangulation is drone killing by debt. Nobody blinks an eye. It has become the new normal. Tomorrow it may be Spain, or Portugal, or even France. Nobody blinks an eye. In fear and in lockstep behind the sledgehammer-wielding Monster. That makes you safe.

Back to Obama’s drones. The latest such killing has targeted and apparently killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, by an Obama-approved drone in Pakistan. Obama has already confirmed it in a Press Conference in Hanoi, Vietnam, saying that Akhtar Mansoor’s death will bring Afghanistan closer to peace. – Can you imagine, killing a leader of a large portion of a country’s population is bringing peace? What an outright falsehood. Is there anybody who believes such crap?

On the same occasion of the Assassin-in-Chief’s visit to Vietnam (officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam), he proudly declared that the US will now graciously lift the weapons embargo to Vietnam. In other words, Vietnam, the arch-enemy of only four decades ago has now become a friend and partner – possibly a partner in crime, with occult and vicious purpose behind it, as is always the case, when an initiative comes from Washington. In this case, it’s clearly part of encircling China with whom Vietnam gradually normalizes relations. In Washington’s wicket mind there are plans for military bases in what used to be North Vietnam as part of dominating the South China Sea. Washington will not be stingy when it comes to offering ‘incentives’ to the Vietnamese in order to achieve their military objective in the region. China is certainly aware of this.

The question begs any healthy mind, how can Vietnam, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, acquiesce to deal with Washington on Washington’s terms and initiatives, after the US has devastated friendly Vietnam that was never a threat to anyone and least to the Unites States, killing about 3.1million Vietnamese (1955-1975 – British Medical Journal), of which up to 50% civilians and another 350,000 in Laos and Cambodia?

How many people are going to swallow such preparation for conflict and war in Vietnam may have, without blinking an eye? Without even thinking?

On the extra-judiciary murder by Obama of the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, the public at large seems to cheer and congratulate Obama. To such an extent that random killing, ‘because we can’, has become a normality. What a testimony to human degradation! – Unthinkable only 30 years ago. This assassination may have devastating consequences against peace in the region. Not only is such an act totally unethical under human standards and a criminal act under any international law, it may most likely prompt a succession of leaders who will seek revenge and simply not accept interference in their country’s affairs; leaders who may want to take back by whatever means – and rightly so, their country’s sovereignty, viciously and violently stolen by outside forces – the US and a group of ally-stooges to satisfy an insatiable greed for resources and world hegemony. Well, such leaders would merely be another justification for eternal war. That’s precisely what Washington wants. Not peace. Never peace.

Who is next? If drone killings have been tacitly accepted, if they become the new normal, there is no limit to murder by government impunity – license given by us, the Silent, We The People. – For how much longer do we want to remain silent onlookers of human atrocities?

Drone killings are anonymous. It’s almost impossible to find out who pulled the trigger on the PlayStation – a pure computer game is what remote killings have become. Opening your mouth may cost your life. Is this the way we want to live? – Is this what we want for our children and grand-children, for the future generations – subjugation to slavehood – or else, killing by Anonymous?

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, Chinese 4th  Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

Is it coincidence that Berlin approves and even recommends the ‘hostile’ takeover of Monsanto by the German agro-and pharma giant, Bayer? – Or is another occult strategic arrangement between Washington and its vassal-in-chief of the EU, Berlin, to push the nefarious, Europe-destructive TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) down the throat of the European population?

Although the corrupt Anglo-Zionist driven corporate western media are doing everything to keep the people at large as ignorant as possible, the truth is slowly seeping through. More than 90% of Germans object against Monsanto’s weed killer glyphosate (brand name ‘Roundup’) – which was recently declared by WHO, after multiple studies and re-studies, as carcinogenic. A large majority of Germans also oppose GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in food.

Under the secretly negotiated TTIP, corporations, such as Monsanto, would prevail over public opinion. The laws of the corporations which would bring along their own private court system, would be weighing in above the national courts of ‘sovereign’ EU members. In fact, any public protests in the streets could be violently oppressed by police and military forces – very legally, because a signed and approved TTIP could become the law of the land – hence to be enforced by martial law if necessary, against the will of the people.

This and other dictatorial reasons, always under the flag of protecting people from terrorism, is why French President Hollande is trying so hard to push a permanent Martial Law – or in the terms of disguise, a ‘State of Emergency’ – through the French Parliament. So far he has been able to extend it through July, until after the European Football championship – UEFA EURO 2016 – which is planned in June / July 2016 in France.

After another couple of airplane downings or false flag mass-killings instigated by the usual suspects, CIA, Mossad, the French internal and external secret police, DGSI and DGSE and others, Hollande and other European leaders (sic – because they are no leaders but corrupt puppets of Washington’s without backbone) will slide ‘State of Emergency’ type laws through their respective Parliaments like butter. What’s worse – is people will ask for such laws for fear.

Yes, the Fear Factor is still the dominant measure to manipulate public opinion and behavior. It has been for thousands of years the weapon of choice by dictators to dominate the masses. Hitler and Stalin even boasted about how they used Fear to get people march along in lockstep, straight into WWII and – into defeat by the Soviet Union. If anybody believes that today’s dictators, Obama, Cameron, Merkel and consortia are any different, they are ignorant.

Today’s lie propaganda is just much more sophisticated then hither-day, using more advanced communication technologies. Such methods of deception are actually taught at prominent Ivy League Universities of the United States of Chaos and Killing. And in case the soft-killer of presstitute propaganda should fail, there is always the killer of choice: Bombs, tanks and drones, the sledgehammer of last resort – NATO.
—–

Back to the Bayer-Monsanto alliance. Germany’s Bayer buying Monsanto for US$ 62 billion would not only be the largest agro-pharma takeover in history, but it might well be the most profitable and simultaneously the most destructive one for mankind. Now that WHO, the conservative and always politically ‘correct’ international health body has come out saying that Glyphosate is cancer-causing – which is what most of us knew and what many previous studies carried out by reputed research institutes in France, Germany and even the United States reported. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/weedkiller-suspected-of-causing-cancer-deemed-safe . We also know, that genetically modified (GM) food crops have nefarious long-term health effects, including cancer.

Is it then surprising that the vast majority of Europeans do not want Glyphosate and GMOs legalized in Europe? If the TTIP is signed and sealed by the neoliberal EU vassal governments, these poisons against humanity will become legal, no matter what the people say. There is a lot of money involved – not billions but trillions. So the price to have Bayer purchase Monsanto – obviously under an agreement between Washington and Berlin – a mere US$ 62 billion – is but peanuts.

To defend her position, Germany may just apply the usual fearmongering about job-losses if this merger was to be stopped. Job-losses whether true or false, it works every time and in every country indoctrinated with neoliberal thinking. – Talking about job losses, where was Merkel when her Master in Washington imposed on her and the rest of Europe to impose sanctions on Russia which cost the German industry alone an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 jobs?

In fact, Russia may become the only country in Europe’s vicinity that is GMO and Monsanto / Bayer-poison free. President Putin recently said that after the “EU export-ban sanctions”, Russian agriculture quickly regained momentum to exceed self-sufficiency to the point that Russia could supply Europe with bio-food for those who want to avoid GMO-food. That’s an encouraging outlook; an outlook that should make clear to any progressive and sovereign European Government that the future lays in partnership with Russia, with the East – and no longer with the decaying fraudulent West.

Glyphosate and GMOs are key items of objection of the TTIP. If Germany owns Monsanto and its many patents harmful to humanity, the German Government will logically defend and promote their company’s products, i.e. Germany may become a driver for the TTIP. Germany, the Government, not the people. This looks like the fatal Washington-Berlin alliance with regard to ‘promoting’ Bayer to purchase Monsanto. Who knows what type of incentives Bayer was promised. We can only guess.

There are no financial or economic reasons why Bayer should even consider buying out Monsanto. According to the Journal ASEED Europe (Action for Solidarity Environment Equality and Diversity) of 21 October 2013, “Bayer is [already] one of the leading suppliers of pesticides and seeds. A current enquiry at the European Patent Office shows that in terms of the number of GMO patents Bayer actually comes first. Maize, wheat, rice, barley, soy, cotton, sugar beet, rapeseed, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, grapes – the list of transgenic plants, on which Bayer ‘Cropscience’ owns patents, is long.

The corporation has even taken out patents on genetically modified trees, for example poplars, pine trees and eucalyptus. This is the result of an enquiry by the Coalition against Bayer Dangers and No Patents on Seeds! at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich, Germany. For this purpose, the initiatives scrutinized all patent applications submitted by Bayer over the last 20 years. According to the investigation the company owns 206 of the total number of 2,000 patents on transgenic plants issued in Europe. This puts Bayer in the number one spot – even before Pioneer (179), BASF (144), Syngenta (135) and Monsanto (119).”

The people are immaterial in the face of profits. Its profit over people – the steadfast motto of neoliberal thinking and neoliberal economics. If Germany goes for the TTIP, the rest of Europe will follow. So the thesis goes. So the evil empire wants it. This may be the thought of how to force the TTIP upon Europe. If this doesn’t work, there are always false flags, terror attacks that justify NATO and local Police interventions – total crackdowns, when people are in fear they have no energy left to fight against the oppressive trade agreement; they just want to be safe from the all and ever present western invented and western presented Jihadist terrorism.

Of one thing we may be sure, Washington will not let go of the TTIP and the TPP (Transpacific Partnership) agreements. They are part of the Masterplan to world hegemony; the same way as are ‘regime changes’ in countries with undesirable governments, with left-leaning leaders who cling to their countries’ sovereignty, like Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, Ecuador – and let’s not forget the only ones left bringing hope to humanity: China and Russia. – It is – We, The People – the only might that can stop the monstrous corporate octopus led by Washington’s all-encompassing fraudulent financial and monetary weapon.

Under Washington’s plan, all these non-aligned countries must fall – ‘regime change’ by all means. The same plan also stubbornly is set for the despicable trade agreements, TTIP and the TPP, to be forcefully imposed on the European and Asian partners’ populations. The members of these 40 partners, including the US, account for about 40% of world GDP, measured by purchasing power parity (ppp). However, the commercial interchanges foreseen under the European and Asian treaties would all be in favor of the hegemon and enslaving the partners. Obama’s legacy may depend on these agreements.

Europeans and Asians, please do not forget to remember what happened to Mexico under Clinton’s NAFTA, followed by the Central American Free Tarde Agreement – CAFTA-DR (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic) – a complete economic disaster for the farmers and peasants of these Latin American countries. For tens of thousands of them NAFTA and CAFTA were and still are outright condemnations into poverty.

Although people have little or nothing to say in the decision for or against the TTIP, it is encouraging to learn what The Guardian reports: ‘Despite the Obama administration’s concerted push to finish both TTIP and its Asian counterpart, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), before the presidential election in November, support for trade deals are plummeting in the US: a recent poll showed that only 18% of the public support TTIP, compared to 53% in 2014.’ – Will the US Congress pay attention to people’s opinion when they vote for or against the TPP and eventually the TTIP?

The silver lining of this dark cloud overhanging Europe is that people are waking up in the US. A similar picture may confront Germany’s push for Bayer’s ‘unfriendly’ takeover of Monsanto – the corporate killer by food poisoning. We, The People must wake up to understand, that unless we act – and act fast – we may lose the tremendous power we have against the small elite. With a concerted effort and spirit we can defeat the monster.

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, Chinese 4th Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. 

In spite of all the scepticism regarding the long delayed UK Iraq Inquiry in to the illegal invasion of Iraq, with predictions (including by myself) that it would be a “whitewash” of the enormity of the lies which led to the near destruction of Iraq, to the presence of ISIS and to probably over a million deaths, The Sunday Times (22^nd May 2016) is predicting an “absolutely brutal” verdict on those involved. The paper claims that former Prime Minister Tony Blair, his then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Sir Richard Dearlove, former Head of British Secret Intelligence (MI6) are among those who face “serious damage to their reputations.” 

Not before time, many will surely be thinking.

The Inquiry, which sat from 24^th November 2009 until 2^nd February 2011, is finally to be published on July 6^th, approaching five and a half years since its conclusion. Speculation is that publication of the findings are being further delayed until after the 23^rd June British referendum on whether to remain in the European Union. Tony Blair is campaigning on his pal Prime Minister David Cameron’s “remain in” ticket. Confirmation of his murderous misleadings before the referendum would further discredit all he had to say and seriously damage, if not detonate, the “in” campaign.

Anyone reading The Sunday Times piece might well take the view that with or without the published Report, Blair speaking on either side would be tantamount to inviting total destruction of the cause. For instance: ‘A senior source who has discussed the Report with two of its authors has revealed that Blair “won’t be let off the hook” over claims that he offered British military support to … George W Bush a year before the 2003 invasion.’

Jack Straw as Blair’s Foreign Secretary at the time and senior Generals are also said to be subject of “some of the harshest criticism” for the UK’s “disastrous stewardship” of the southern port city of Basra and much of the south, post-invasion. “The Report will say that we really did make a mess of the aftermath.”

Those sent in by Blair’s Foreign Office under Straw were “inexperienced”, did not “quite know what they were doing” and: “All the things the British had been saying about how much better we were at dealing with post-conflict resolution than the American came very badly unstuck.” In fact, misjudgement was such that they “had to be rescued by the Americans.”

The Report, according to a knowledgeable former Minister, will be “Absolutely brutal for Straw … it will damage  the reputation … of Richard Dearlove and Tony Blair” amongst others.

General Mike Jackson, former head of the army, named ”Darth Vader” by his men, who vowed to leave Iraq better than he found it and General Sir Nicholas Houghton, Chief of the Defence Staff and senior officer in Iraq, 2005-2006, are also believed to be in the firing line, with Houghton said to have consulted his lawyers. Houghton’s objections to criticisms of his roles are alleged to have contributed to delays in the Inquiry’s publication.

Houghton became Chief of Joint Operations in 2006. In 2008  “ …the Iraqi military requested US rather than British assistance to retake Iraq’s second city of Basra from the militia, three months after UK forces had withdrawn from the city.” (1) On 3^rd September 2007 the 550 British forces hunkered down in one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces had fled the city to the relative safety of Basra airport some miles away.

In recent years, Sir Nicholas has been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the UK bombing Syria.

The Sunday Times also cites the Report’s criticism of the “gloss” with which Blair’s officials adorned “intelligence” regarding Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and (Blair’s) claim that they could be unleashed “in forty five minutes.” Sir Richard Dearlove and others senior in MI6 “will be criticized for failing to prevent” such fairy stories.

The newspaper’s source also said there will be questions raised: “about the (US-UK) ‘special relationship’ (since) diplomats in Washington, including the then Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer, were ‘not plugged in’ and were ‘bounced along behind the Americans…”

At home, the “Cabinet did not have ‘the full picture’ of what was going on before the invasion (due to) Blair’s informal ‘sofa style’ of government.”

Further, incredibly: “officials were not present to take notes when Blair’s inner circle were making key decision”, leading to predicted criticism of former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull and senior Civil Servants.

Former International Development Secretary, Clare Short,  has “told friends she will be attacked.” Ms Short of course, stated that she had stayed on in her job as she wanted her Department to be involved in rebuilding Iraq after the invasion. No thought of resigning earlier, rather than at the last minute in protest at the whole shameful Blair-Bush intended “supreme international crime”, that of a war of aggression.

The Chairman of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot is said to be personally exercised by the ‘failures of “proper constitutional government.” Indeed.

Whilst Blair and Straw declined to comment to The Sunday Times: “Allies of Blair say it is significant that he has not apologized for lying to the public, because they believe Chilcot will not find that he did.”

Given the mountains of evidence and hard facts already in the public domain, they must surely be the only people on the planet to hold such a view.

As for Chilcot, we await the 6^th July with the palest glimmer of hope that at last some justice might be seen to be done and that Blair and all responsible for the ongoing Hiroshima level tragedy that is the whole of battered, bereaved, bleeding, irradiated Iraq might find that there is finally at least the beginning of the basis for legal redress.

As this is finished, it transpires Tony Blair has been speaking today at an event in central London organized by the Centre on Religion and Geopolitics. “He made it clear he would be unapologetic for his role in taking Britain to war in 2003”, reports the BBC. As General Taguba was told by a Pentagon colleague when preparing his report on Abu Ghraib’s horrors of the dead and maimed for whom Blair bears such integral responsibility: “They are only Iraqis”, a view Blair clearly shares.

Charles Anthony Lynton Blair is beyond all shame. However, no matter how widely the guilt is spread, he was Captain of the No 10 Downing Street ship, author of key lies integral to the gargantuan crime and tragedy and thus should shoulder commensurate blame.

Note

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3206684/The-Army-boss-private-legal-team-years-Chilcot-delay-General-Sir-Nicholas-Houghton-believed-one-objections-holding-inquiry.html

Pan-Africanism and Women’s Rights

By Dr. Ajamu Nangwaya, May 25 2016

We are commemorating the 58th anniversary of African Liberation Day on May 25. When most of us think of Pan-Africanism and its major icons, women will not instinctively come to mind. Pan-Africanist history and activism might appear as the exclusive…

CIA Continues to Undermine African Independence and Sovereignty

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 25 2016

Interview with operative reaffirms Washington’s role in the destabilization of the continent A further confirmation of United States efforts to prevent Africa from reaching its full potential in the areas of genuine self-determination and national liberation, resurfaced in mid-May when…

How Corporatist, Militarist and “Fascist-Leaning” are Today’s Candidates?

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, May 25 2016

Folks who aren’t influenced by emotions, campaign propaganda or hype have their own methods of evaluating political candidates – and their parties – during America’s seemingly endless campaign seasons. And when the mudslinging is finally over, comes the crucial time…

From the Green Revolution to GMOs: Living in the Shadow of Global Agribusiness

By Colin Todhunter, May 25 2016

What can we do about the powerful transnational agribusiness companies that have captured or at the very least heavily influence regulatory bodies, research institutes, trade agreements and governments? How can we assess the safety and efficacy of GMOs or their…

BREXIT: ­ Divorcing Britain from EU Trade with Israel Would Help Ensure Future Security of UK

By Anthony Bellchambers, May 25 2016

The ability of Israel to continue its illegal settlement on Palestinian land is wholly dependent on profits from its bilateral trade with the EU which is the single most important factor that fuels the illegal occupation of the West Bank,…

Latin America’s Revolution Under Attack

By Asad Ismi, May 25 2016

The Latin American revolution seemed unstoppable until recently. From El Savador in the north to Argentina in the south, leftists elected since 1998 have implemented the greatest redistribution of wealth in the region’s history, providing millions of jobs, free medical…

Despite Obama’s anti-bullying rhetoric, in just the past 70 years U.S. imperialism has intervened in more than 35 “smaller” nations.

U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday during his visit to Vietnam—a nation still suffering from a U.S. invasion that lasted 20 years—that big nations should not bully smaller ones.

Obama also spoke of the relationship between the U.S and Vietnam amid tensions with China and moves to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Obama alluded to China’s recent actions in the South China Sea,when he made his bully remark, but it is China that has criticized the increased U.S. military presence in the area which has included naval patrols and exercises within the region.

Despite Obama’s anti-bully rhetoric, in just the past 70 years U.S. imperialism has intervened in more than 35 “smaller” nations.

William Blum’s classic book, “U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II”, documents over 30 military interventions and coups by the U.S. around the globe. These include Iran in 1953; Guatemala in 1954; Vietnam in 1955; and Cambodia in 1970, just to name a few.

According to the Defense Manpower Data Center, the U.S. military is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with nearly 150,000 of its active-duty personnel serving outside the U.S. and its territories.

Currently the U.S. has active combat troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama spoke of the secretive TPP, saying that the free trade agreement will help countries like Vietnam and spur regional cooperation.

Critics of the of the TPP have said that the agreement gives too much power to international corporations who can sue governments in private tribunals for obstructing future profits, which, according to critics, will impede rights, especially in the realms of health, environment and safety.

So what’s the big difference between the “moderate” terrorists and the extremist terrorists running rampant in Syria today? At one time, we were told there were no terrorists at all. Then, we were told terrorists were indeed present but that there were also moderate, secular, democracy-loving freedom fighters in the country. Now, after the nature of the so-called “rebels” has been revealed ad infinitum by the alternative and independent press, it is admitted that the “fighters” in Syria are terrorists but, apparently, some are moderate and some are extreme.

Of course, they all have the same goal of Sharia. They all hate minorities, Christians, Alawites, Shiites, etc. They all torture. They all rape. We could go on and on. In the world of the West’s “rebels,” there is not one shred of difference between any of the armed groups fighting against the secular Syrian government besides the names they call themselves.

Still, we are told there are clear differences and that the U.S. State Department knows just what they are. Only, they aren’t telling the American people. Or the Russians. Or the Syrians. Or anybody. The “moderate” terrorists are thus a very mysterious force, a group of which we may speak but also one that never shows itself.

Of course, there are groups that the United States admits are brutal killers but somehow rationalizes to the public that they are “our” brutal killers. The U.S. can, at times, be forced to admit that the groups it supports as “freedom fighters” have committed atrocities, rapes, murders, torture, and establishment of Islamic theocracy upon unwilling inhabitants. Essentially, the U.S. can admit (when pressured) that these groups have the same ideology as ISIS, although the State Department will never say these exact words.

Image Credit: TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Thus, it is clear that any designation of terrorist groups as “extremist” or “moderate” is obviously based on political motivation and geopolitical designs, not the nature or action of the terrorist group in question. If that were the case, then Ahrar al-Sham, Jaish al-Islam, and other groups would easily be listed as terrorist organizations that would subsequently not be covered under the “ceasefire” agreement. After all, there is no distinguishing characteristic that sets these groups apart from ISIS or Nusra other than a name.

But when the Russians attempted to remove these groups from the list of non-protected terrorists in Syria (terrorists protected at the insistence of the West), the United States, Britain, France, and Ukraine rushed to their rescue and blocked the Russian proposal. This is, of course, despite the fact that both of these groups, which make up around half of the “Syrian opposition forces” thanks to Western name changes, have repeatedly worked together with Nusra and ISIS forces. Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham have both worked so closely with ISIS and Nusra that the groups themselves are virtually interchangeable. Nevertheless, the U.S. is only digging its own international public relations grave with its refusal to designate known and obvious terrorists as precisely that, particularly when it has launched campaigns of destruction and death across the world on the basis of allegedly “fighting terror.”

The Russians have now forced the Western nations to admit that, despite their rhetoric, terrorist organizations are doing their bidding and have never truly been the targets of NATO forces. While the Western public remains entirely befuddled as to the nature of the crisis in Syria (many do not even know there is a Syrian crisis) Western propaganda has created such a complex and distorted view of the situation that any newcomer or casual observer would find it incredibly difficult to navigate through the lies and deceit.

For the rest of the world, however, much of that propaganda is ridiculous and transparent and, for that reason as well as many others, the United States and NATO are losing more and more credibility by the day.

Videos courtesy of WTFRLY.com:

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

The Latin American revolution seemed unstoppable until recently. From El Savador in the north to Argentina in the south, leftists elected since 1998 have implemented the greatest redistribution of wealth in the region’s history, providing millions of jobs, free medical care and education, land reform and public subsidies, thereby lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty. Now, in Venezuela and Argentina, a resurgent right is using economic hardship to foment resentment and secure legislative victories.

In November 2015, after 12 years under a popular leftist government, voters in Argentina chose Mauricio Macri, right-wing former mayor of Buenos Aires, as their new president. A month later, Venezuelan voters handed 109 of 167 legislative seats to the centre-right Democratic Unity Roundtable (Mesa de la Unidad Democrática, or MUD)—the first time since 1999 that the United Socialists (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, or PSUV) have not held the assembly.

Venezuela’s angry opposition

Several factors converged to bring about the change in Venezuela. Foremost were the crash of oil prices, a campaign of economic sabotage or capital strike by local business elites (including price speculation and the hoarding of key consumer items to create scarcity) and a media war carried out by the political opposition in league with Washington. MUD picked up 2.4 million more votes in the December election than in 2010, while about two million PSUV supporters chose not to vote in protest of the government’s handling of the food shortages.

“These voters are upset by the way the government of Nicolás Maduro has handled the economy,” says Antonio Garcia, an analyst of Venezuelan and Latin American politics who recently stepped down as Venezuela’s ambassador to the European Union. “Maduro failed to effectively explain to the people how the economic sabotage against Venezuela negatively impacts them and failed to implement measures to effectively confront this economic war. The public had the perception that the Maduro government was not doing enough to counter this attack and I believe that perception did more harm to the PSUV that the economic situation itself.”

Garcia points out that the economic problem in Venezuela is not very different from what is happening in other Latin American countries, though it is felt more acutely. The Venezuelan economy, and the Bolivarian Revolution of Hugo Chávez generally, have been propped up for 15 years by high oil prices. The rout in the price of oil and other commodities has constrained state efforts to redistribute national wealth and expand equalizing social services. In Venezuela, oil revenues—which account for 95% of export earnings and 25% of GDP—have been cut by 60% in the past few years, leading to inflation of 140%, soaring food prices and currency destabilization.

According to Venezuelan-Canadian sociologist Dr. Maria Páez Victor, the fall in the price of oil “has been a godsend to the U.S. attempts to destabilize Venezuela politically and economically, which have been ongoing since 2002.” These include U.S. involvement in a military coup and economic sanctions imposed by U.S. President Obama on state-owned oil company PDVSA based on the premise that Venezuela presented an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States.

As I’ve written previously in the Monitor (April 2015), the U.S. has given anti-PSUV opposition groups more than $100 million since 2002 to undermine and overthrow the Maduro/Chavez government. Most of Venezuela’s privately owned news media are also hostile to the PSUV, and their attacks on the government are widely quoted by the international capitalist press. During the December election, the media blamed only the government for the economic crisis, mocking the possibility of a planned emergency, and repeatedly predicted the implosion of the country.

But winning one election does not mean the opposition can derail the profound progressive transformation of Venezuela that the PSUV has carried out. Paez Victor points to a survey carried out in January, by the non-partisan polling company Hinterlaces, which showed 79% approval of the socialist economic policies of the government.  The MUD opposition is made up of 20 parties that are united on only one issue: the removal of Maduro from office before his term ends in 2019. It is an unlikely prospect.

While the coalition decried a supreme court decision in February to grant Maduro emergency powers to handle the economic crisis, it has no positive solutions of its own. Even the notoriously anti-Chavez New York Times was still, in March, calling for co-operation between the government and opposition rather than a complicated and potentially violent confrontation the latter cannot win.

A slick new president in Argentina

The fall in commodity prices has also affected political fortunes in Argentina where a new president is making good with Wall Street’s vulture capitalists, pulling out of Bolivarian Revolution projects like TeleSUR, and inviting the International Monetary Fund to audit the public books (read: proscribe austerity) for the first time in a decade.

From 2003 to 2015, under the leftist governments of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her husband Néstor Kirchner, the Argentine economy grew by an amazing 78%, creating one of the biggest increases in living standards in Latin America. Wealth redistribution programs reduced poverty by 70% and extreme poverty by 80%. Unemployment fell from 17.2% to 6.9%.  Since 2012, however, growth has slowed to an annual average of 1.1%, inflation has been high and the fall in commodity prices, notably for cash crop soybean, has driven the country into recession. A third of Argentina’s exports are agricultural products including grain and beef.

With approval ratings above 50%, despite blurry allegations of corruption from opponents, Fernandez remained popular into October 2015, but she was constitutionally barred from running for another term. Her chosen replacement, Daniel Scioli, ran a lacklustre campaign that failed to capitalize on her reputation or emphasize the Kirchners’ impressive record. During the election, Macri took advantage of this situation by positioning himself as a “moderate” who, if elected, would continue some of Kirchner’s progressive policies, even promising “zero poverty.” He won by only 3% of the vote.

Since taking office, Macri has moved aggressively to the right, ruling by decree rather than run his policy through the left-dominated legislature. The president has devalued the national currency, the peso, by 40% (to increase exports, but with upward pressure on inflation), liberalized the financial sector by removing capital controls, lifted restrictions on imports, eliminated taxes on mining, ended subsidies for electricity, laid off thousands of civil servants, and pledged to finally pay US$4.6 billion ($6.02 billion) to the U.S. hedge funds that gamed Argentina’s 2001 bankruptcy for private gain.

For his efforts to reconnect Argentina to the neoliberal global order—Wall Street in particular—Macri got a special visit by Obama in March after the U.S. president’s official visit to Cuba. “Argentina is re-assuming its traditional leadership role in the region and around the world,” Obama said, referring endearingly to Macri as “a man in a hurry.” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde is likewise “encouraged” by the new president. The IMF will issue a series of further economic reform proposals after it concludes its audit of Argentina’s books. It is the standard “shock doctrine” at work.

“Macri is a disaster for the economy, but he is even worse for human rights,” says Argentinian-Canadian Antonio Savone, who was imprisoned and tortured by the vicious military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983.  The dictatorship killed 30,000 Argentines.  In 2015, Savone returned to Argentina to testify against the military officers who tortured him and also in the trial of Rosa del Carmen Gomez who was raped repeatedly by officers for months in front of Savone as they shared the same prison cell.

As part of a reconciliation project, the Kirchner governments have imprisoned hundreds of military officers for murder and torture, including those in Savone’s and Carmen Gomez’s cases, in a determined effort to bring justice to a traumatized society. But Macri has dismissed the importance of continuing these trials, insisting that Argentina deal with “21^st century” human rights issues instead.

According to Savone, the new president has moved to enforce a level of repression in Argentina that “has not been seen for 13 years.” This includes criminalizing demonstrations and suppressing them with tear gas and rubber bullets, and jailing Milagro Sala a prominent social activist, on charges of fraud—an act that was criticized by Pope Francis  in February.  Sala is the leader of the Túpac Amaruorganization in the poor province of Jujuy.  The organization which is made up of 70,000 mostly Indigenous members, operates schools, health clinics, and textile factories for the poor and has built entire neighbourhoods with subsidies from the Kirchner government.

“What Sala has done is amazing,” says Savone. “Her arrest shows that Macri is set on attacking social movements.”

Macri’s shock treatment is going to fail, Savone concludes, “because Argentines are now much better organized than they were in 2001.”  On February 24, tens of thousands of public sector workers launched the first national strike against Macri with massive protests against layoffs and spiralling inflation.  The workers blocked the streets in front of the Argentine legislature in Buenos Aires and the police refused to face them despite the new powers that Macri has given security forces to suppress demonstrations.

“The people of Argentina have had 13 years of successful leftist government backed by powerful labour unions and they are not going to let some millionaire turn their country back into a fiefdom for the rich,” says Savone.

Asad Ismi is the CCPA Monitor’s international affairs correspondent and author of the anthologyThe Latin American Revolution which can be ordered from the CCPA by writing to <[email protected]>. He is also author of the radio documentary with the same title which can be heard on his website:www.asadismi.ws. 

Sent in May 2016 to every household: We have just received from a Arret sur info reader this flyer calling for donations, distributed in letter boxes by Amnesty International.

The flyer leaves no doubt about the outrageous political bias adopted by the NGO from the beginning of the war in Syria. 

We denounce this misleading campaign that comes at the detriment of the Syrian people.

The Syrian state is the only secular state in the region, and Amnesty is combatting it, seeking the overthrow of the Assad government. This means imposing on Syrians the destruction of their state, and bringing armed groups, who want to establish an Islamic state, to power, the groups supported by obscurantist regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait.

Image translation: “Why does this man let his people suffer so much? YES I support Amnesty International and I am making a 70 Franc donation. Amnesty International, Swiss section”

Silvia Cattori, in Arret sur Info, May 23, 2016
Translated from French by Tom Winter

The International Network of Genocide Scholars will host its fifth annual conference in Israel at the Hebrew University next month.  The title of the event will be Intersections: Holocaust Scholarship, Genocide Research, And Histories of Mass Violence.  On the one hand, Israel is a natural choice to host a conference on the Holocaust since it arose in part out of the ashes of the Nazi genocide against Jews.  Israel’s Yad Vashem Museum is a primary international depository for, and commemoration of the Holocaust.

But on the other hand, such a choice raises a host of unsettling questions:  first among them is: how do you deal with the question of Israeli “mass violence” against Palestinians and, for that matter, all of the front-line states Israel has attacked repeatedly in the decades following the 1948 War?  Though most scholars agree that Israel’s Occupation regime hasn’t risen to the level of genocide, the seeds of a future catastrophe of that magnitude have been planted.  Will they germinate?  Anyone’s guess.  But why should genocide scholars sit in solemn deliberation in such a country where violence smites Palestinian victims every day?

Photo caption: David Ben Gurion: willing to dance with the Nazi devil to advance Israel’s interests

Second, how do you deal with the attempts at collaboration between the pre-1948 Zionist leadership–including figures like David Ben Gurion–and the Nazis?  I wouldn’t mind if I knew this question would be debated at the conference.  But I strongly doubt it will.

Third, how do you deal with the problematic relationship between Diaspora Jewry, which suffered overwhelmingly during the Holocaust, and Israel, which only reached out to help Jews in any numbers after the catastrophe ended?  Remember Ben Gurion, who said:

“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”

Photo caption: Hebrew University’s Mt. Scopus campus, site of genocide conference, is in occupied East Jerusalem

He can gussy this sentiment up in ponderous concepts like “the historical reckoning of the people of Israel,” but the truth is that it is precisely such choices that mark a decisive break, a profound alienation between the Zionism of Ben Gurion and the Diaspora.  Under such a philosophical concept, the two must be at war with each other.  The truth is that there is no actual war.  But there is a constant, simmering Cold War between them which neither side fully acknowledges or attempts to repair, which only makes things worse.

Fourth, how do you deal with the problem of Israel and Zionism which view the Holocaust as the result of the lack of sovereignty of the Jewish people, and hence see that catastrophe as an inexorable result of Jewish vulnerability in the Diaspora?

Though I’m not a genocide scholar, I’d be interested to know how such a field deals with relations between genocide survivors and those within their ethnic community after they return from from the Killing Fields.  In the case of Israel, the relationship is exceedingly ambivalent.  As many readers know, Israel has let many of the remaining survivors live in destitution (50,000 by last count), offering them very limited financial support.  There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is the Zionist attitude toward Holocaust and Diaspora.  It is something many would rather forget.  Israelis see themselves as apart from and superior to the Diaspora.  The Holocaust survivors are a constant reminder that they are not, that their fate is inextricably bound up in those of European Jewry.

The final problematic aspect of hosting a genocide conference in Israel is that it has refused for decades to acknowledge the Armenian genocide.  Until recently, this was due to Israel’s close alliance with Turkey, which itself was the lead denier of the Armenian Holocaust.  But even after the relationship with Turkey soured in 2010, Israel has continued to refuse to recognize any other genocide than the extermination of European Jewry.  This is profoundly troubling and a violation of historical truth.  Why should the validity of one’s own national suffering be diminished in any way by the recognition of the suffering of another nation?

Who’s going to tackle this–or any of the other troublesome subjects I raised above–at this conference?  The lack of discussion means to me that the organizers either were short-sighted or too frightened to delve into such troubling questions concerning their host nation, Israel.

Several hundreds scholars are releasing a protest statement criticizing the international organization for agreeing to host the scholarly meeting in Israel.  This is the text of the letter:

As a group of scholars, we are deeply concerned that the International Network of Genocide Scholars (INoGS) is lending its name and reputation to Israel’s occupation and ongoing colonization of Palestine by holding its annual conference, scheduled for June 26-29, at the Mt. Scopus campus of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Israel’s actions against the Palestinian people – from the Nakba to the ongoing displacement of Palestinians from their lands, and from repeated military offensives against Gaza to the ongoing blockade – are increasingly being viewed through lenses of ethnic cleansing and genocide linked to settler colonialism. It is therefore shocking that INoGS plans to hold its 2016 Global Conference at the Mt. Scopus campus of the Hebrew University that is partially built on stolen Palestinian land in occupied East Jerusalem. Additionally, the conference is sponsored by five Israeli academic institutions, including the Hebrew University, which have been deeply complicit in Israel’s decades-long oppression of Palestinians.

Billing the conference as held in ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ demonstrates that INoGS is turning a blind eye to Israel’s illegal annexation of the city, condemned unanimously by the international community, and to the ongoing campaign of dispossession against indigenous Palestinians as Israel seeks to erase their historic and diverse presence in the city through plunder and expulsion.

The significance of all this cannot be lost on genocide scholars.

The call for this conference has been issued while Israel’s state terrorism is being exposed to the world. Israeli police, military and fundamentalist settler lynch mobs have been savagely attacking Palestinian protestors and committing crimes with impunity.

New repressive and discriminatory Israeli laws and a dominant culture of racism and intolerance have created a culture of impunity, with Israel’s occupation forces now adopting a shoot-to-kill policy against Palestinian child and youth protesters in situations where they pose no serious threat…

We urgently call on InoGS to act in a principled way by cancelling the Jerusalem venue for their conference and transferring it to a location in another country.

We furthermore urge scholars and professionals to reflect upon the ethical and legal implications of participating in a conference organized by complicit institutions and taking place…on occupied land–and to boycott this event should it go ahead under these circumstances.

‘Never again’ means never again for everyone.

The Call for Papers from the Network does indicate an effort to acknowledge ongoing mass violence against Palestinians in language like this:

…Bringing the INoGS conference to Jerusalem, a city in which foundational collective traumas intersect and are experienced in everyday life, offers an opportunity to engage with the main theme of the conference:Intersections: Holocaust Scholarship, Genocide Research, and Histories of Mass Violence.

The meeting will include two roundtable panels that delve into this subject as well:

Collective Traumas and National Identities will include papers on Jews, Palestinians, as well as other cases

Studying Genocide in a Site of Conflict and Violence will address the challenges of researching and teaching the Holocaust, genocide, and mass violence in Israel in the midst of the ongoing conflict between Jews and Palestinians

But one has to wonder what sort of balance the event program will offer when only two members of the academic steering committee for the conference are Israeli Palestinian.  The remainder are Israeli Jews.

The scholars’ letter makes clear that the principles of BDS are involved in the signatories decision to denounce Israel’s hosting of the conference.  On this note, a number of the Israeli institutions serving as sponsors are deeply implicated in the Occupation.  Their scientific and social science research serves as a bulwark of the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus.  How about the secret research conducted at some of these institutions which develop Israel’s weapons of mass destruction? One wonders if anyone will deliver a paper at this conference offering a critique of the role of Israeli academia in facilitating the violence against, and oppression of the Palestinian people.

I e mailed and tweeted INoGS’ president and its Twitter account for a comment or statement of their position in this matter.  As of publication, no one had replied.

After dueling through grueling early fractions and holding the lead turning for home, Kentucky Derby winner Nyquist was overpowered in the stretch of the Preakness Stakes Saturday by his rival Exaggerator. Exaggerator would go on to win by four lengths, as Nyquist faded to third. Nyquist was unable to repeat his performance from two weeks ago when he overwhelmed 19 other three-year-olds and cruised to a 1 1/2 length victory, earning the horse’s owner, J. Paul Reddam, a cool $1.2 million.

Four years ago, Reddam’s horse I’ll Have Another won both the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes, earning $2.7 million before retiring due to injury before the Belmont Stakes. Soon after, the horse was sold for $10 million to Big Red Farm in Japan. It was a phenomenal return on investment for Reddam, who purchased the horse a year earlier at auction for $35,000.

Reddam, a former philosophy professor, is used to big profits. In 1995, he entered a considerably more lucrative industry than academia when he founded the subprime mortgage lending company DiTech. The company was one of the first to take advantage of the internet to offer home-equity loans online of 125% of the home’s value.

The Los Angeles Times said that Reddam “immediately shook up the Southern California mortgage industry with his scrappy style and aggressive advertising. Though his techniques raised eyebrows, they were often copied by rivals, most notably his use of freeway billboards to advertise the company’s daily mortgage rates.”

In 1999, Reddam capitalized on his company’s success when it was acquired by GMAC Residential Mortgage Corp., a financial arm of General Motors, for what was estimated at $265 million.

A year later, Reddam stepped down from Ditech.com (the new name of the company) when three high-level managers were indicted for extortion. The men were accused of demanding kickbacks from a Pittsburgh mortgage servicing company who relied on Ditech.com for 20% of their business. Reddam resigned on the same day as the charges were made public, though he was never charged.

At this point, Reddam became involved in thoroughbred racing. He told the LA Times: “I sold my company, Ditech Funding, and had some cash. I always loved racing, so I decided to get involved in a bigger way. I bought one horse for $700,000 at a dispersal sale, Swept Overboard, which won two Grade I’s, including the Met Mile. I later sold him to a Japanese breeder for $3 million.”

Reddam’s next business venture was CashCall, another non-bank private lender. The company offers home, business and personal loans, including loans from $850 to $10,000 that carried annual interest rates as high as 343 percent.

Like DiTech, CashCall is also known for its aggressive advertising. The late former child actor Gary Coleman, of Different Strokes fame, starred in numerous commercialsfor CashCall.

For years, various states as well as the federal government have pursued legal action against CashCall. In 2009, CashCall settled with the state of California for $1 million for using “loan shark tactics” to pursue debtors. The company was ordered not to “harrass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a Consumer Loan.”

Last year, after a lengthy legal battle with the West Virginia Attorney General, CashCall reached a $13 million settlement for practicing “abusive debt collections.”

The company is currently fighting a lawsuit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), who initiated legal action in 2013 claiming that CashCall “engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including illegally debiting consumer checking accounts for loans that were void.”

The CFPB complaint specifically names Reddam as having violated provisions of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, as well as either licensing requirements or interest-rate limits in eight different states.

The CFPB explains in its press release announcing the CashCall suit that “(u)nder statutes in at least these eight states, any obligation to pay such loans was rendered void or otherwise nullified in whole or in part by law. Therefore, the defendants are collecting money that consumers do not owe.”

While the legal action is still pending, if the accusations are proven in court they would mean that the company was essentially representing that people owed debts which they did not, and taking money which did not rightfully belong to CashCall.

Anti-government protests errupted across Kazakhstan on May 21. Dozens of protesters gathered in the main squares of major cities, including such cities as Astana and Almaty, in order to express the discontent with the government. A series of demonstrations started last month in response to the government’s plans to privatise large tracts of farmland. President Nursultan Nazarbayev has vetoed the controversial initiative. However, protests have continued with a wide range of political demands. May 20, Kazakh police reported they had found caches of Molotov cocktails, gasoline and iron rods near the protest site in Almaty. These kinds of improvised weapons used in protests in Ukraine during the coput in 2014.

Experts believe that this scenario is fueled by foreign powers, interested to destabilize the Central Asian country. The Kazakh authorities were pushed to implement counter measures to prevent the illegal riots across the country. Kazakhstan’s deputy prosecutor general, Andrei Kravchenko said on May 21 that 40 people had been arrested for organising and taking part in these unauthorised demonstrations. In turn, the Western media produced a wide range of accusation against the Nazarbayev regime, blaming it for breaking up the so-called “peaceful protests” and arguing that hundreds of protesters have been detained.

Today, Kazakhstan plays a significant in the regional security. The joined forces of Russia and Kazakhstan are the last barrier preventing the ISIS expansion in the Central Asia. If Kazakhstan is destabilized, the situation in the Central Asia will worsen, significantly. The way for an Islamist expansion and destabilization of the whole region will be open. Some Western experts argue that the recent developments in Kazakhstan could be fueled by Russia or China, both have a wide interests in the country. However, SouthFront hardly believes that Moscow or Beijing can be interested in creation of a new zone of instability at their borders.

The last major player in the region is the United States, widely known as a mastermind of color revolutions around the world. Using the protests, some powers in Washington can hope to put pressure on the Kazakh government to gain some diplomatic dividends. Or they even hope to change the Nazarbayev regime, creating chaos at the borders of the main geopolitical opponents. These moves are supported by some internal forces in Kazakhstan. Local clans, dissatisfied by Nazarbayev’s policy, have been making an attempt to redivide the financial flows and the share of the political power. Furthermore, US units, specialized in psychological operations around the world, have some time amid a formal stability of the situation in Syria and Ukraine. This fact could be used as a formal cause to intensify the actions in the Central Asia.

On September 26 1980, 12 innocent bystanders and the perpetrator, Gundolf Köhler, were killed in the most serious right-wing attack in post-war German history. Over 200 were injured, some seriously.

At the time, the investigators and secret service drew a veil over the background to the attacks and those responsible. Although evidence and witnesses pointed to the involvement of state bodies and neo-Nazi terrorist groups, the authorities soon settled on a narrative that Köhler was the sole perpetrator. The state attorney halted any investigations two years after the attack.

It was only thanks to the initiative of journalist Ulrich Chaussy and the victims’ attorney Werner Dietrich that the attorney general was forced to take up the case again at the end of 2014. In February 2015, they demanded the Secret Service and Foreign Intelligence Agency (BND) look through their files covering the Oktoberfest bombing and the right-wing scene at the time and make the relevant files available.

The state attorney in Karslruhe sent the two agencies a long list, which included the following search terms, among others: Von Karlheinz Hoffmann (the paramilitary group the culprit Gundolf Köhler trained in) and Heinz Lembke (the neo-Nazi who was suspected of providing the explosives for the attack).

But the prosecutors are still waiting. The BND has since provided a few files; however, they are redacted. The Secret Service, which possesses far more files regarding the Oktoberfest attack, the culprit’s background and the neo-Nazi organisations of the time, is keeping these under lock and key.

This was revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question lodged by Left Party deputy Martina Renner. The Karlsruhe state attorney has been waiting for 15 months. The Secret Service has justified the long wait by saying that it involved “a very extensive trawl through the evidence.” However, the Secret Service and the government were close to completion of their review, it was said.

Given the previous practice and methods of the Secret Service, it is to be suspected that the time is being used in order to “clean” the files, or even to destroy them. For example, following the uncovering of the far-right terrorist group Nation Socialist Underground (NSU), numerous files were shredded.

There are numerous clues pointing to the links between the Secret Service, Köhler and the “Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann” paramilitary group. In his updated book, Oktoberfest—the attack: How the cover up of right-wing terror began, Ulrich Chaussy describes how the authorities were not willing to carry out investigations into the right-wing scene after the assassination and even sabotaged such efforts. The penetration of the right-wing terrorist groups of that time, especially the “Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann,” by the secret service agencies is still being kept secret. In his book, Chaussy draws several parallels to the murders carried out by the NSU.

For example, the authorities dismissed confessions by two members of Wehrsportgruppe Hoffmann. The statement “that was us,” by Walter Ulrich Behle, an undercover agent for the North Rhine-Westphalia state secret service, was described as “alcohol-induced bragging.” And the statement of Stefan Wagner, who said while on the run from the police, “I was part of the action against the Oktoberfest,” was supposed to have been false. The state attorney claims Wagner had had an ironclad alibi for the day of the attack, while in his book, Chaussy cites a high-ranking Federal Criminal Agency officer saying, “Stefan Wagner’s alibi was never checked out on tactical grounds.”

Heinz Lembke, a right-wing radical who had accumulated huge caches of secret weapons and explosives, and was suspected of having supplied the explosives for the attack, was never examined in more detail as part of the investigation into the Oktoberfest bombing. He was arrested only a year after the attack, when one of his weapons caches was discovered accidentally. In early November 1981, a day before he was to testify before the public prosecutor, he was found hanged in his cell. His file contains the restrictive notice: “only partially admissible in court,” which suggests the activities of an undercover operative.

Given the close relations between the secret services and the neo-Nazi scene in Germany, the federal government and intelligence agencies have withheld background information about the Oktoberfest bombing for decades. The government has repeatedly refused to answer questions in parliament from the Greens and the Left Party. Real names are generally kept secret.

On April 7, 2015, the parliamentary justice secretary, Christian Lange, said on behalf of Justice Minister Heiko Maas (both from the Social Democratic Party), in response to an inquiry by the Greens, that the government had again come to the conclusion that “questions about the operation of undercover sources and agents—the function of people—even if it concerns long-past operations, cannot be answered to protect the operation of the intelligence services.”

Parliament’s right to information finds its limits “in the best interests of the nation or a federal state, which could be compromised by the disclosure of confidential information.” In this way, the Justice Ministry places the interests of the state and its intelligence agencies higher than the rights of parliament and the public interest.

Both the Green and Left Party parliamentary groups lodged a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court, submitted in May 2015, to force the government to answer their questions. A decision is still pending.

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has offered the post of minister of defence to Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is our Home), in order to bolster his fragile Likud-led coalition of ultra-orthodox and nationalist parties.

The coalition has had a majority of one in the 120-seat Knesset since last year’s elections. According to opinion polls, in the event of an election, Netanyahu would see his share of the vote fall in favour of another far-right party and coalition member, Jewish Home.

The appointment of this ultra-nationalist demagogue, who is holding out for better pension rights for impoverished Russian immigrants that form his support base, would bring the entire right wing into the coalition. It would send a clear message to the Israeli military and political establishment, Israeli and Palestinian workers, and Netanyahu’s political backers overseas.

Lieberman is a fascistic warmonger, a settler and provocateur whose career is mired in shady financial dealings. He has repeatedly branded the current government as defeatist. He once called for the blowing up of the Aswan Dam in a war with Egypt, saying that Egypt’s then-President Hosni Mubarak could “go to hell.”

He is a vicious opponent of liberal Israelis who seek to expose the crimes of Israel’s Defence Forces (IDF), calling members of Breaking the Silence “mercenaries who sold their soul to Satan,” and Yesh Gvul activists “kapos.” He hailed the IDF soldier Elor Azaria, who shot dead a wounded Palestinian, as a hero.

He has accused the Palestinians of being part of a global jihad, and called for the death penalty for the perpetrators of attacks on Jewish Israelis. He has repeatedly denounced Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and called for him to be removed from office.

A few weeks ago, he threatened war on Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, saying that should he become defence minister he would give Hamas two days to hand over two detained Israeli civilians who crossed into Gaza of their own accord, as well as the bodies of soldiers killed in the 2014 war—“or you’re dead.”

He has branded Israel’s Palestinian citizens as “the enemy within” and called Israeli-Palestinian legislators to be tried as in Nuremberg.

As minister of defence, Lieberman, who was foreign minister in Netanyahu’s government from 2009 to 2012, and again from 2013 to 2015, would be second only to Netanyahu in rank. He would be in charge not just of the IDF, whose upper echelons are increasingly controlled by people affiliated with the settler movement, its war plans and Israel’s security. He would also become the de facto head of the Occupied Territories, which are under military rule. Israel’s land seizures, settlement expansion, road blocks, house demolitions, stop-and-searches, and detention without trial make life a misery for the 2.5 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, while its blockade of Gaza has turned the coastal enclave into an open air prison.

The shift to the right by what is already the most right-wing government in Israel’s history has caused consternation among Israel’s political and military establishment, as well as internationally.

Former Prime Minister and Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Channel 10, “What has happened is a hostile takeover of the Israeli government by dangerous elements.” Israel has been “infected by the seeds of fascism, which should be “a red light for all of us regarding what’s going on in the government.”

On Friday, Moshe Ya’alon, the current defence minister and Likud party member, who had been expected to take up the Foreign Affairs portfolio, resigned from Netanyahu’s cabinet and the Knesset. He refused to take another government post in a cabinet with Lieberman, saying, “[E]xtremist and dangerous forces have taken over Israel and the Likud movement.”

In what is seen as a possible move to found his own political party, he said, “I have no intention of leaving the public and political life, and in the future will return to compete for the national leadership of Israel.” He took a swipe at Netanyahu saying, “I saw before me the safety of Israel and its citizens in all of my acts and decisions, and the good of the country above all other considerations. This was so in security and professional matters and in matters of values and rule of the law.”

While Ya’alon is a right-winger on most Palestinian issues, he has opposed some of the most egregious attacks on democratic norms—albeit from the perspective of not alienating Israel’s international support. He is part of that faction of the military-intelligence establishment that opposed the plans to attack Iran in 2010, criticised some aspects of Israel’s brutal suppression of the Palestinians and blocked the expansion of some settlements as counterproductive, thereby incurring the wrath of the right wing.

The resignation of his Knesset seat means that the gun-toting Yehuda Glick, as the next person on the Likud list, will take his place. Glick rejects Palestinian statehood, calling for a “one-state solution” and the “transfer” of Israel’s Palestinian population. An ardent proponent of moves to allow Jews to pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque compound, known as Temple Mount to the Jews, it was his activities—and those of his supporters—that provoked Palestinian fears about Israel’s plans to change the status of the al-Aqsa Mosque compound and sparked widespread protests last autumn. Since then, Israel’s security forces have killed more than 200 Palestinians and injured thousands.

Netanyahu announced his decision to bring Lieberman on board after months of talks with the Labour-led Zionist Unity leader Isaac Herzog. Herzog, who had previously opposed joining a Netanyahu-led government, was eager to take over the Foreign Ministry and push for talks with the Palestinians. When it became clear, however, that Herzog could not deliver his full 24 Knesset votes, facing bitter opposition from the former leader of the Labour faction Shelly Yachimovich, and Tzipi Livni of the Ha-Tnua faction, who had been minister of justice in an earlier Netanyahu government, Netanyahu ditched him in favour of Lieberman’s smaller Yisrael Beiteinu. Now Herzog is utterly discredited and faces the disintegration of his electoral coalition.

Netanyahu has rejected the French government’s proposal for an international conference, planned later this month in Paris, to relaunch peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis aimed at providing a fig leaf for Paris’ and Washington’s plans for a ramped up military intervention to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Had Zionist Unity joined the government, it would have left the Joint Arab List as the largest—and thus the official—opposition party in the Knesset. Under Israeli law, the prime minister must give regular monthly briefings, including on security matters, to the leading opposition party, while the Knesset must allow it more speaking time.

“We have been watching for nearly a month a steady buildup of American and NATO forces along Russia’s borders – on land, on sea and in the air. There has been nothing like this on Russia’s borders, such an amassing of hostile military force, since the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.”

So concludes America’s leading Russian expert, Professor Stephen Cohen (Princeton and New York University).

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-has-not-seen-such-amassing-of-hostile-military-forces-on-its-borders-since-1941/5526562

Professor Cohen asks if Washington is sleepwalking and needs to wake up or whether Washington has gone crazy and intends war.

Pepe Escobar advises Washington to “beware what you wish for: Russia is ready for war.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44725.htm

Escobar reports that recently the Rand Corporation, “essentially a CIA outpost,” concluded that “Russia could overrun NATO in a mere 60 hours, if not less.” On the level of nukes and missile systems, Russia is four generations ahead of the US military/security complex, which is mainly interested in inflating profits with cost overruns. US weapons systems are simply outclassed.

Nevertheless, the Russian high command is concerned with the Russian government’s low-key response to Washington’s aggression. The generals blame the “Atlanticists Integrationists” who infect Putin’s government. This faction is believed to be organized around Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and believes Russia should make concessions to Washington in order to be accepted as part of the West. The incompetent Russian central bank and neoliberal economists are part of the faction whose goal is to be part of the West regardless of its impact on Russian independence from Washington’s Empire.

Stephen Cohen and Alastair Crooke, a former British secret agent, almost alone in the West have noticed that the Russian military and predominant part of the government that emphasizes national sovereignty are putting pressure on President Putin to eliminate those in the government who are willing to compromise Russia’s independence in order to gain acceptance by Washington.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/putin-west-war_b_9991162.html

This has been my own opinion for some time. It is impossible to adequately stand up to an external threat when unreliable elements are part of the threatened government.

If Putin is forced to remove Washington’s agents from his government, as he must do if Russia is to survive Washington’s plots, he must not let them leave Russia. If they escape, they will end up in Washington to be used as Washington’s Russian government in exile. If Putin doesn’t want to put them on trial for treason, then a form of national house arrest would be a solution.

Alastair Crooke writes that Washington is miscalulating by seeking unipolar hegemony and, thus, is forcing Putin into the camp of the nationalists who value Russia’s sovereignty more than Western acceptance. Washington’s use of NATO in an effort to corner Russia with military buildups on Russia’s land and sea borders is forcing compromise out of Russia’s response to Washington’s aggression.

Regardless of Escobar’s description of Russian military superiority over the West, Russian independence is between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the American neoconservatives’ determination to achieve hegemony over Russia. The hard place is those within the Russian government who are more Western than Russian in their orientation.

If Trump becomes US president, there is some possibility, perhaps, that the neoconservatives will cease to dominate US foreign and military policies. Should this turn out to be the case, the Russian nationalists might ease their pressure on Putin to remove the Atlanticist Integrationists from the government.

If Hillary becomes US president, the neoconservative threat to Russia will escalate. The Atlanticist Integrationists will be eliminated from the Russian government, and Russia will move to full war standing.

Remember what an unprepared Russia did to the German Wehrmacht, at that time the most powerful army ever assembled. Imagine what a prepared Russia would do to the crazed Hillary and the incompetent neoconservatives.

As I have previously written, pushing Russia to war means the demise of the US and Europe and, considering the destructive power of nuclear weapons, most likely of all life on earth.

The main cause of this danger is the arrogance, hubris, and utter stupidity of the American neoconservatives who are ensconced in positions of power and influence and in Hillary’s presidential campaign. A secondary cause is Europe’s vassal status, which deprives Europe of a sensible foreign policy and forces Europe to enable Washington’s aggression.

What this means is that no matter what you think of Trump, if you vote for Hillary you are definitely voting for the end of the world.

Folks who aren’t influenced by emotions, campaign propaganda or hype have their own methods of evaluating political candidates – and their parties – during America’s seemingly endless campaign seasons. And when the mudslinging is finally over, comes the crucial time when they have to decide which candidates are the least bad for the future of the planet and the living things that share it.

Or at least that is what the ruling elites, the shadow puppeteers and hidden paymasters that have the actual control of most American politicians, want us to believe about elections. But that needs to be another story, one that is better told by astute commentators such as these two:

Chris Hedges, see his weekly columns starting at: 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_american_empire_murder_inc_20160103

and

F. William Engdahl, author of “Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century”. Extended excerpts are available at:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Engdahl_F_William/American_Oligarchy_GOM.html.

Nevertheless, we do have a modicum of control over the election of whomever is being bribed or threatened to do the will of the plutocrats.

These political candidates are the ones that will be helping make the life or death decisions that determine the fate of the earth and the children of the 99% that the uber-wealthy and their amoral corporations (by which they acquired their ill-gotten wealth) have little or no concern about. They know very well that exploitation of the earth and extracting its non-renewable natural resources is the quickest way to enhance their wealth, even if the rape of the earth isn’t good for it.

Comprehending the History of Fascism

The most important strategy that I use to evaluate candidates and political parties is fairly straight-forward, although it does require a little effort and some knowledge of history.

These are some of the questions that I try to answer before I vote:

1) “Where on the political spectrum would this candidate have been if he or she had run for political office in Nazi (fascist) or pre-Nazi Germany (an experiment in democracy that was destroyed by Hitler’s right-wing political party and their powerful and very wealthy corporate supporters)? Would he or she have leaned leftist/pro-labor/antiwar/non-violent (= socialist), or would he or she leaned right-wing/militarist/corporatist/racist/xenophobic/anti-labor (=fascist)?”

2) “What are the political, racial, economic beliefs of this candidate and his or her party? In 1930s Germany, would those beliefs have made him or her, upon gaining office, a fascist-supporter, an anti-fascist resister or a fear-ridden, silent bystander? Is the candidate a demagogue or a fear-monger when it comes to dealing with foreigners, non-Christians, non-whites, etc?”

3) “Would this candidate have been recruited by the Nazi Party to serve Hitler’s right-wing, pro-war agenda?” Or would he have had the courage (a la Minnesota’s Paul Wellstone) to be willing to risk his life fighting against fascism and corporatism in the battle to overthrow Hitler and his war-profiteering supporters?

4) “What are the candidate’s (and his or her supporter’s) core theological, religious or philosophical beliefs?” Does the candidate’s religion (and his supporters) – or lack thereof – preach hatred, fear and ”holy” homicide against their enemies or their religion (like the so-called “Positive” Christians in Nazi Germany who, by the way, did not resist Hitler)?

Does the candidate’s religion teach peaceful co-existence among the diverse nations of the world? Does the candidate have the courage to oppose tyranny by using nonviolent resistance?

Does the candidate’s religion (or the religion of the supporters) teach that, contrary to all scientific evidence, that global warming is a lie, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that the end of the world is coming soon (therefore making ridiculous the concept of caring for the environment for the benefit of future generations) or that those fingered as “heathen” (atheist or feminist or socialist or “green” or minority or Muslim or black or brown or GLBTQ or poor – and thus do not “share the faith”) deserve being starved, imprisoned, tortured, murdered or “left behind”? Open-minded voters would like to know before they vote if the religion or philosophy of the candidate would have any problems with book-burning (often a prelude to burning such human “heretics” at the stake)?

Figuring out the answers to these questions would make voting decisions easier were it not for the fact that there are often only small differences between the candidates of the two major political parties when it comes to their stances on militarism and corporatism. But one must try if one is forced to decide which candidate is the least worst for the history of the world.

Developing Critical Thinking Skills is More Important This Year

In 2016, when some of the candidates have seriously high disapproval numbers, developing critical thinking skills is really important. (Thinking critically is the ability to “read between the lines” and resist the temptation to automatically trust what is being promised by politicians, political parties or corporations that want your vote, your money or your neutrality.)

If the candidate’s previous voting records are available, citizens need to vote against the candidate with the most proto-fascist qualities and/or the one that is being supported by corporations (inherently anti-democratic) with anti-democracy, pro-war or wealth-extracting agendas. (Alarmingly, the infamous Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling in 2010 in which the 5 ultra-conservative, corporate lapdogs on the bench prevailed, allows unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions to political parties, political action committees and candidates that pay for multi-million-dollar attack ads and ensures that nobody will be able to find out who are the people or corporations behind the dirty tricks!)

The most dangerous candidates are firmly in the back pockets of the biggest business going, the mother of all deficit-spenders and the worst polluter on the planet, the Pentagon.

Every Republican and nearly every Democrat in Congress, and every president since the Vietnam War was finally de-funded, has reflexively voted for virtually every exotic and unaffordable weapons system that the corporate war-profiteers have demanded be built. In other words, the trillion dollar per year Pentagon budget, full of fraud, waste and abuse, is the major cause of America’s fiscal quagmire.

How could the problem – and the solution – be more obvious? Ongoing fiscal crises are predictable when the Pentagon squanders its usual 2 billion dollars a day with no visible return on “investment”.  (It needs to be pointed out here that the Pentagon budget, plus special war appropriations spending, overly-generous, unending career military retirement spending, veterans medical benefits,  the huge, unending interest payments on the war bonds, the rapidly increasing permanent service-connected disability costs and the costly  – and often futile – attempts to treat the psychological and physical war wounds of the traumatized combat veterans.)

Pentagon budgets have been massive drags on the economy, starting with the Cold War, and then massively expanding during the Reagan era when military spending, especially on America’s nuclear arsenal, went through the roof – as did the national debt, which rose to $4 trillion dollars before Reagan’s administration ended.

Too Many Politicians are Lapdogs for Pentagon Lobbyists

Our politicians have turned into obedient lapdogs for the bloated, too-big-to-fail (and too-big-to-criticize) 800-pound Pentagon gorilla that regards all critical-thinking, peace-promoting civilians with disdain. It must be said that if the US is ever going to be able to balance its budget, the warmongering politicians and pro-war political parties favored by the military-industrial complex need to be challenged – and voted out of office.

For those with some knowledge of world history, especially the history of German fascism, here are some additional questions concerning specific issues when preparing to vote: (Don’t expect the mainstream media debate hosts to ask any of them.)

A Few More Similarities Between American and Germany

1) Do the politicians remind you of that cunning silver-tongued propagandist Joseph Goebbels (Nazi party sycophant and Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda), who had iron-fisted control over all aspects of the media, including the movie and radio communications industries, never allowing opposition issues to be aired? (Recall that listening to the broadcasting of leftist information was forbidden by the liberal-hating Nazis.)

2) Are the candidates pro-militarist in their voting records or campaign promises, as was true for the ruthless WWI military hero and Luftwaffe-creator Hermann Goering, who was Hitler’s second in command? (Recall that Goering had no compunctions about ruthlessly plundering the natural resources of the conquered and the colonized – especially their oil, the essential ingredient for conducting modern wars.)

3) Are the candidates (or their families) on the hidden payrolls of wealthy industrialists or corporations whose main interests are “free” markets (as contrasted to “fair” markets) and acquiring resources through wars, regime change, colonialism and/or imperialism, as was the method of Fritz Thyssen and many other Nazi captains of industry?  (Recall that the multi- millionaire Thyssen was the industrialist who was an early and very generous financial supporter of the Nazi Party, as was the wealthy anti-Semite Henry Ford and even George W. Bush’s grandfather. Thyssen made timely “investments” and saved the Nazi party from extinction following the 1929 US stock market crash and the resultant world-wide depression.)

4) Are the candidates supported by corporations and individuals that benefit from war and military spending such as was the infamous family Krupp and their many war materiel factories? (Recall that the powerful Krupp family was the legendary German weapons manufacturer group that, for many generations prior to Hitler’s reign, had made their fortunes by producing the best and most lethal high-grade steel weaponry that the world had ever known, which they then very profitably sold to all sides of whatever war was threatening at the time. Krupp Industries, which ruthlessly chewed up tens of thousands of slaves during WWII, had, over the centuries, been caught fomenting conflicts between nations in order to expand market share and sell their superior weapons to all sides.)

5) Do the candidate’s political agendas discriminate against minorities and the working class and will the candidate blindly support wars or the illegal occupations of sovereign nations for their economic advantage (as did all of Hitler’s supporters)?

6) Has the candidate shown support for the secret police, the use of torture, “preventive detention” policies or pre-emptive military strikes, which were popular with the likes of Heinrich Himmler and the many party functionaries and bureaucrats who made the concentration camps, prisons and transportation systems for the doomed run so smoothly?

7) Is there a history of disregard for human rights or the refusal to effectively deal with justice issues like war refugees, the abuse of prisoners of war, the maltreatment of minorities, degradation of the environment, the exploitation of workers and the withholding of adequate healthcare? Is there a disregard for displaced and impoverished people, those often labeled as “Untermenschen”, “vermin” or “cockroaches” who, through such stigmatization, become easy targets for all forms of violence – including genocide – as was so well exemplified by Nazi bureaucrats like Adolf Eichmann?

8) Is the religion of the candidate compatible with the mass slaughter and the enormous wastage of precious resources that always happens during war? Is the candidate’s god a violent, wrathful, punitive god (which blesses war and makes the slaughter “holy”) or is the candidate’s god an unconditionally loving, merciful, forgiving god? Does the church that the candidate belongs to, if he claims to be a Christian, follow and preach the ethical teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount? Or is the candidate a member of a church like the racist, nationalist and anti-Semitic “Positive German Christian” church that had destroyed the evangelical protestant church of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller? (Recall that Ludwig Muller, an inept Nazi army chaplain, was handpicked by Hitler to be the new bishop at the national synod conference in September of 1933.)

Many concerned observers of the current political scene in America have seen alarming trends in the noisy far right-wing, Neo-Conservatives that have usurped power in the once respectable Republican Party. And, of course, the quite similar, Neo-liberals in control of the Democratic Party have been a concern of many progressives. The power behind each seems to be as amorally militarist and amorally corporatist as that which brought Hitler to power.

Fascism could happen here (if it isn’t already here).. The main thing that might be lacking for a future American-style fascist regime is a frowning, screeching dictator-type. The American form of fascism, which I call “Friendly American Fascism”, will probably come about in a slow, rolling, bloodless coup by a diverse bunch of smiley-faced, attractive spokesperson. This group won’t look anything like the Nazis we love to loathe.

Those of us who are barely, hopelessly clinging to an uncertain middle class existence, are being hypnotized by a group of misleaders that are allowed to spew their hate in the mainstream media, but those of us in the disappearing middle class haven’t really experienced the racism, police violence and economic oppression, that the impoverished, the homeless, the jobless, the starving and the discriminated-against non-Aryans that have been suffering for centuries.

Simple suspicion that a candidate (or a Big Business) might be a devotee of extreme right-wing politics is a good-enough reason for me to withhold my vote and my purchases from that entity until I know more about their hidden agendas. I judge such suspicious candidates “guilty until proven innocent”. Potentially ruthless people or organizations that might be my future oppressors do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

For more information about fascism, check out Professor Lawrence Britt’s important article, titled “Fascism Anyone?” originally published in Free Inquiry Magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. The essence of the article is posted online at:http://tuccgary.org/files/Duty-to-Warn-Fascism-Anyone.pdf

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Reader, Duluth’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, psychiatric drugging, over-vaccination regimens, Big Pharma and other movements that threaten the environment or America’s health, democracy, civility and longevity.

Many of his columns are archived at

http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn and at http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls.

We are commemorating the 58^th anniversary of African Liberation Day on May 25. When most of us think of Pan-Africanism and its major icons, women will not instinctively come to mind. Pan-Africanist history and activism might appear as the exclusive domain of African men. However, I am encouraging the readers to embrace the position of the radical hip hop group Public Enemy and “Don’t Believe the Hype” about women not being major contributors to Pan-Africanism. In the Hakim Adi and Sharika Sherwood authored book Pan-African History: Political Figures from Africa and the Diaspora since 1787, forty Pan-Africanists are surveyed and only three of them are women.

Pan-Africanism is an ideology and a movement that calls for global solidarity and cooperation among Africans in order to liberate themselves from racist oppression and (neo)colonial and imperialist domination. Africa holds a central place in Pan-Africanist thoughts and organizing. It is the ancestral land of Africans. The harnessing of the continent’s resources for the benefit of the people will serve as the basis for liberation. A Pan-Africanism of liberation should be based on the labouring classes as its principal constituency and, as such, must be an anti-capitalist, feminist, anti-imperialist and anti-racist movement. This article will focus on Pan-Africanist women from the African Diaspora.

Diaspora Pan-Africanist women have contributed to movement Pan-Africanism from its inception at the Henry Sylvester Williams-initiated Pan African Conference in 1900 in the city of London. According to the Haitian Pan-Africanist Benito Sylvain’s conference report, its principal goal was to “examine the situation facing the African race in every corner of the globe, to solemnly protest the unjust contempt and odious treatment which are still heaped upon the race everywhere.” This conference wanted to form an organization that would coordinate the worldwide struggle against the oppression of Africans and advance their interests. Sylvain’s historic report is available in Tony Martin’s book The Pan-African Connection: From Slavery to Garvey and Beyond.

There were at least six African women (Anna H. Jones, Anna Julia Cooper, Fannie Barrier Williams and Ella D. Barrier from the United States, and a Mrs. Loudin and Ms. Adams from Ireland) among the fifty-one African delegates at the conference. These women were not simply observers at this international gathering. Anna Julia Cooper, an educator, a women’s club leader and anti-racist advocate, delivered a presentation entitled The Negro Problem in America. Her compatriot Anna H. Jones, a linguist, women’s club activist and educator, tackled the subject The Preservation of Racial Individuality. These women delegates were actively involved in social movements committed to transforming the oppressed condition of Africans. For example, Ella Barrier was an educator and an active participant in the Washington, D.C. Colored Women’s League.

The Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) was the foremost 20^th century Pan-Africanist mass organization that mobilized Africans for the fight against colonialism and imperialism. Rhoda Reddock, a Caribbean-based academic and feminist, suggests in her article “The first Mrs Garvey” that the UNIA was “one of the most successful pan-Africanist organisations of all time and certainly the most internationalist.”

Garvey is universally celebrated as the founder of the UNIA. However, that perception is not accurate. Amy Ashwood Garvey was a co-founder of the group as she states in the document “The Birth of the Universal Negro Improvement Association,” (appended to Martin’s “The Pan-African Connection”). She was the founder of the UNIA’s internationally circulated newspaper The Negro World and served in other significant roles. She later participated in other Pan-Africanist organizations and initiatives such as the anti-colonial and anti-imperialistInternational African Service Bureau and involvement in organizing the Fifth Pan-African Congress.

As a feminist, Amy Ashwood centred the emancipation of African women as a major part of her politics. In the 1 April 1944 edition of the African-American publication New York Amsterdam News, she demonstrated her feminist and internationalist commitments: “There must be a revolution among women. They must realise their importance in the post-war world … Women of the world must unite.” At the October 1945 Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, she objected to the marginalizing of African women: “very much has been written and spoken of the Negro, but for some reason very little has been said about the black woman – she has been shunted into the social background to be a child bearer – this has been principally her lot.”  Amy Ashwood also addressed the exploitative working condition of “The labouring class of women who work in the fields, take goods to the market, and so on” in Jamaica and the lack of solidarity from African men.

Amy Jacques Garvey, the second wife of Marcus Garvey, is adequately recognized for her contribution to Pan-Africanism. After the imprisonment of Garvey, she disseminated his Pan-Africanist ideas by editing and publishing his writings in the book The Philosophy and Opinion of Marcus Garvey. Her 1963 memoir Garvey and Garveyismexposed the thoughts and legacy of Garvey to the Black Power Movement. Keisha N. Blaine states that Jacques Garvey could legitimately be “be credited as co-creator of Garveyism” given her influence on Garvey’s thoughts and her intellectual input into his articles and speeches as someone who helped him in writing them.

Jacques Garvey spread the ideals of Pan-Africanism across the world in her position as editor and columnist of The Negro World and creator of “Our Women and What They Think” – a page dedicated to politically educating women. Jacques Garvey was a liberal or bourgeois feminist. Her 25 October 1925 column Women As Leaders, approvingly highlighted the emerging gender “equality”: “No line of endeavor remains closed for long to the modern woman. She agitates for equal opportunities and gets them; she makes good on the job and gains the respect of men who heretofore opposed her. She prefers to be a bread- winner than a half-starved wife at home.”

Jacques Garvey’s article “Listen Women” in The Negro World on 9 April 1927 elevated bourgeois white men’s perceived treatment white women as the model of gendered relations between African women and men: “They have braved the tropical jungles, slain black men, in order to get gold and diamonds with which to adorn their women… build up a great republic, so that their women may live in comfort and luxury.” Obviously, white working-class women were not living such a lifestyle.

Claudia Jones was a Pan-Africanist, feminist, anti-imperialist and communist whose constituency was the working-class. During her American years, she had a more internationalist than Pan-Africanist focus, exceptt for her articles on the Caribbean. On international questions, she opposed United States’ imperialism and exploitation in the global South and its military aggression and threat to world peace. In her work as a communist organizer, educator and journalist, she placed the triple oppression of working-class African women at the heart of her theoretical work as evidenced in We Seek Full Equality for Women and An End to the Problems of the Negro Woman.

Jones’ Pan-Africanist commitment intensified after her politically-motivated deportation to Britain. Jones created theWest Indian Gazette as an instrument to resist racist and class exploitation of Africans in Britain. The newspaper was also used to expose imperialism in Africa and the Caribbean as well as elsewhere in the global South. TheWest Indian Gazette positively covered the Cuban Revolution, exposed the criminal activities of apartheid in South Africa, covered the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in the Congo and advocated for decolonization in the British Empire. Carole Boyce Davies brought to light in Left of Karl Marx, a political study of Claudia Jones, that she “influenced pan-Africanists – such as Nkrumah – from the standpoint of bringing Marxist-Leninist views to bear on their pan-Africanist thinking.”

In conclusion, there are numerous women in the African Diaspora who have worked and/or working for the liberation of Africans under the banner of Pan-Africanism. They must be rescued from political obscurity. There is a need to elevate the Pan-Africanist work of Diaspora women in countries whose official languages are Spanish, French, Portuguese and Dutch. When Pan-Africanist women are placed in a position to express their needs at the strategic, operational and ideological levels of the liberation project, they are going to consummate the union of feminism and Pan-Africanism.

In order for Pan-Africanism to serve as a revolutionary ideology and movement, it must centre the emancipation needs of African women by way of a firm embrace of feminism. It would have to be an ideological stream of feminism that is opposed to imperialism, capitalism, racism, heterosexism/homophobia and other forms of oppression. Liberal or bourgeois feminism is an enemy of working-class African women. Claudia Jones’ intersectional and revolutionary feminism is a good starting point for the marriage of feminism and Pan-Africanism.

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

President Barack Obama will finish up his current Asia trip by becoming the first sitting US president to visit Hiroshima, Japan, site of the fateful atomic bombing attack on Aug. 6, 1945, that killed tens of thousands of Japanese citizens.

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered unspeakable horrors that day, and in the months and years that followed. Some in the US government didn’t want Americans to see what really happened. For perspective — and revelations — on that paradigm-changing event, in concurrence with Obama’s visit, WhoWhatWhy revisits past coverage of a painful final chapter to World War II.

What follows is author Greg Mitchell’s piece (which originally ran in 2014), examining Hollywood’s role in sanitizing the devastation and suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

*       *       *

You might wonder why most Americans, after Hiroshima, accepted the new nuclear dangers so readily, even as atomic bombs led to hydrogen bombs and the world’s stockpile of warheads mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles expanded from mere dozens to thousands.

An important factor was the active suppression, by the Pentagon and other US agencies, of vital information about radiation effects and other nuclear dangers. I have documented this in two books, Hiroshima in America (with Robert Jay Lifton) and  Atomic Cover-up: Two U.S. Soldiers, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and The Greatest Movie Never Made. The cover-up extended even to Hollywood.

This is a cautionary tale, one that has only recently seen the light after being buried for decades. It exposes the official censorship—by the Truman White House—of a major Hollywood film on the bombing of Hiroshima. And the tale goes beyond censorship: it involves the outright falsification of major historical facts.1

A Propaganda Film is Born

The MGM drama, The Beginning or the End emerged in 1947, after many revisions, as a Hollywood version of America’s official nuclear narrative: The bomb was clearly necessary to end the war with Japan and save American lives—and we needed to build new and bigger weapons to protect us from the Soviets.

Just weeks after the Hiroshima attack in August 1945, Sam Marx, a producer at MGM, received a call from agent Tony Owen, who said his wife, actress Donna Reed, had received some fascinating letters from her high school chemistry teacher. That teacher, Dr. Edward Tomkins, who was then at the Oak Ridge nuclear site, wrote to ask if Hollywood had a feature on the atomic bomb in the works, one that would warn the world about the dangers of a nuclear arms race. He was surprised to learn they did not. But this would soon change.

Tompkins’ letter set in motion what MGM boss Louis B. Mayer, a conservative Republican, called “the most important story” he would ever film. MGM hired Norman Taurog to direct the film, and Hume Cronyn to star as physicist Robert Oppenheimer, who headed the scientific effort to create the bomb.

President Truman himself provided the title, The Beginning or the End. Within weeks, as I learned through archival research, MGM writers were meeting with the atomic scientists at Oak Ridge and elsewhere.

My fascination with the making, and unmaking, of this seminal film about the dawn of the Atomic Age took me to the Truman Library, where I was the first to consult key documents, White House letters and scripts. The story of the derailing of the movie, and why it was important, is told in my book, “Hollywood Bomb.”

The Bombing Gets a Hollywood Makeover

The early scripts, which I discovered at the library, raised doubts about President Truman’s decision to drop the bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima—and portrayed the effects of the bombing with a stark realism that would have shocked many viewers.

The script called for shots of a bombed-out Hiroshima as ghostlike ruins, with close-ups of a baby with a burned face. The underlying message reflected the regrets of many of the scientists who had worked to create the bomb: It would have been better to continue the war—even if it meant a full-scale invasion of Japan—“than release atomic energy in the world.”

But then something happened, and the “message” of The Beginning or the End shifted radically.

The reason for the shift was clear: General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project who was back at the Pentagon, had secured the all-important right of script approval—along with a then-hefty $10,000 fee—and was playing an active role in reshaping the film.

Unlike Groves and Truman, nearly all of the scientists impersonated in the film—even Albert Einstein—were not given script approval (although they signed releases). The Hollywoodization of the bomb had begun.

Facts were suppressed, and events were completely fabricated:

Suppression of fact:

In revised scripts, the decision to use the bomb was presented as justifiable, even admirable. The doubts raised earlier just disappeared. And now, after scenes depicting the bombing of Hiroshima, no victims were shown, just a charred landscape filmed from the air.

Suppression of fact:

Under General Groves’ guidance, the revised script made light of nuclear fallout.

Fabrication:

The B-29s flying over Hiroshima were pelted with heavy flak, a detail that made the attack seem more courageous. In fact, there was no anti-aircraft fire over Hiroshima.

Fabrication:

One scene depicted fictional German scientists visiting a fabricated Japanese nuclear facility in—Hiroshima!

Fabrication:

In another entirely false episode, Matt Cochran, a young scientist arming the bomb, prevents a chain reaction from blowing up 40,000 people on a Pacific island—and thereby exposes himself to a fatal dose of radiation. But before he dies, Matt concludes,

“God has not shown us a new way to destroy ourselves. Atomic energy is the hand he has extended to lift us from the ruins of war and lighten the burdens of peace.”

Harry Truman’s Behavior Gets a Hollywood Makeover

After screening the film, Walter Lippmann, the famed columnist, said he still found one scene “shocking.” It pictured Truman deciding, rather cavalierly, after only a brief reflection, that the United States would use the weapon against Japan. President Truman felt uncomfortable with the scene, as well.

Following protests from the White House, the rightwing MGM screenwriter James K. McGuinness deleted the offending scene and wrote a new one:

Fabrication:

In the revised scene, Truman “reveals” that the United States would drop leaflets over Hiroshima warning of the coming attack with a new weapon as a means to “save lives.” There were no such leaflets.

Fabrication:

The fictional Truman also says there was a “consensus” that dropping the bomb would shorten the war by a year. No such consensus existed.

Fabrication:

And in the film the President predicts this “will mean life for…from 300,000 to half a million of America’s finest youth.” This was a highly inflated figure.

Fabrication:

President Truman says that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been picked as targets for their military value. In fact, they were selected because they had not been bombed previously and so would demonstrate the power of this new weapon. In any case, the aiming points for release of the bombs was the center of the cities, not military bases.

Fabrication:

The new scene also had Truman claiming he had spent “sleepless nights” making the decision. But in real life he proudly insisted he had never lost any sleep over it.

Suppression of fact:

The Truman White House demanded further changes. Among them, deleting a reference to morally concerned scientists who favored setting off a demonstration bomb for Japanese leaders in a remote area, to give them a chance to surrender before we dropped an atomic bomb on a city.

Fabrication:

The claim that the bombing would shorten the war by “approximately” a year was ordered changed to “at least” a year.

Truman even wrote a letter to the actor who had portrayed him in the original scene, complaining that he made it seem as if the president had come to a “snap judgment” in deciding to use the bomb. As indicated above, the offending scene was rewritten. This prompted the actor, Roman Bohnen, to write a sarcastic letter to the President, informing him that people would be debating the decision to drop the bomb for 100 years “and posterity is quite apt to be a little rough.” He went on to suggest that Truman should play himself in the movie. Truman, who normally ignored critical letters, took the trouble to reply and defend the atomic bomb decision, revealing, “I have no qualms about it whatever.”

Soon—likely on orders from the White House—Bohnen was replaced by another actor.

A Manufactured “Aura of Authenticity”

The drama that emerged in 1947, after many revisions, was a Hollywood version of what became America’s official nuclear narrative: The bomb was clearly necessary to end the war with Japan and save American lives—and we needed to build new and bigger weapons to protect us from the Soviets. The movie was seen by hundreds of thousands of Americans. Because of its quasi-documentary form, most viewers probably accepted its depiction of events as accurate.

The Beginning or the End, which billed itself as “basically a true story,” opened across the country in March 1947 to mixed reviews. Time laughed at the film’s “cheery imbecility,” but Variety praised its “aura of authenticity and special historical significance.” Bosley Crowther, the New York Times critic, applauded its handling of the moral issues in portraying the “necessary evil” of the atomic attacks.

On the other hand, Harrison Brown, who had worked on the bomb, exposed some of the film’s factual errors in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. He called the claim that warning leaflets had been showered on Hiroshima the “most horrible falsification of history.”

Physicist Leo Szilard knew what violence had been done to the truth. He summed it up this way: “If our sin as scientists was to make and use the bomb, then our punishment was to watch The Beginning or the End.”

Mutual Assured Destruction

Mankind’s punishment would be the era of MAD, or Mutual Assured Destruction—the Cold War doctrine that pitted the locked-and-loaded nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union against each other in a 50-year standoff. Those nuclear weapons, still on hair-trigger fuses—as well as those possessed by China, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and other nations—continue to threaten the existence of life on earth whenever political leaders play “chicken” with one another for “strategic” advantage. And the nuclear arms race fed the vast nuclear power industry, marked by its own unprecedented dangers and accidents from Three Mile Island to Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Greg Mitchell is the author of more than a dozen books, including “Hiroshima in America” (with Robert Jay Lifton) and “Atomic Cover-up” and “Hollywood Bomb.” He is the former editor of Nuclear Times and Editor & Publisher and writes a daily column at The Nation.

The economy, the people, the heart and soul of Greece have been demolished by a lower order of bureaucratic seizure that plagues the world. It is scorched-earth economic warfare, ordinarily referred to as neoliberalism.

The newest twist/manipulation in negotiations with Troika for Greece survival (demise) in order to provide the country with €86 billion of which 90% pays off debt, 10% to the state, demands Greece cut pensions (again), raise taxes (again), privatize state assets (for a song), and deregulate (squelch) labor. Inspirational?

The country has already unloaded state assets like ports and airports at bottom-feeder prices. Gee whiz, after essentially giving away prized state assets, which “define the Greek economy and define the people,” GDP is expected to grow. How?

For example, the sale of Port of Piraeus, one of the largest seaports in Europe and the world, has served as the port of Athens since ancient times. The sale, effective April 2016 to COSCO (Chinese company), is part of creditor demands to secure a third €86 billion bailout package. The sale goes against PM Tsipras’ pre-election promise not to privatize the country’s infrastructure. But, in milquetoast fashion, he knuckled under.

Athens also sold 14 regional airports to Fraport AG on a 40-year contract worth €1.23 billion. Monopolistic assets like ports and airports are sure-fire moneymakers… now to foreign interests.

Already, because of stringent austerity measures, Greece is hamstrung and thus because of a resultant shrinking budget, the country cannot alleviate pain in the streets; i.e., help its people. King Louis XVI of France (beheaded in 1793) had a similar problem 223 years ago. At the time, Parisians were starving in the streets, scrunched under the wheels of golden carriages.

John Kenneth Galbraith, one of America’s foremost economists, famously said, “All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door.” Today, his son carries his torch.

James Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations and Professor of Government, University of Texas speaking at the USC Global Leadership Summit April 30, 2016 addressed the Greece issue.

The final minutes of his speech succinctly sums up the fate of Greece at the hands of Troika, consisting of the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission (EC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which launched a powerful supersonic heat-seeking missile, affectionately nicknamed “Troika Boy” boldly emblazoned in cursive on its warhead, successfully hitting its target dead-on, total destruction!

According to Professor Galbraith:

The decision taken at the European level was to attempt to destabilize and to defeat the government [Greece]. In the end, the government, in effect, defeated itself. It made a decision that it did not have the capacity to push a confrontation past a certain point. The Greek people took a different view. They were braver than their government. And, so came… the capitulation… to terms that were effectively dictated entirely outside of Greece.

Paraphrasing Mr. Galbraith, the process is essentially (1) a debt collection, (2) a land grab, (3) foreclosure policy, and (4) a backbreaking “policy of taking as much as possible of the state’s assets.” As a consequence, the dictates of Troika rapidly bring on bankruptcy of businesses as well as many households into default followed by foreclosures. A Greek bailout?

In a nutshell, Troika’s missile launch brings “the dispossession of a European population from the ownership of capital assets,” or looked at another way, as between nation/states, an act of war.

Bottom line, the people are stripped of assets in lieu of paying debts from which they benefitted very little. The upshot, according to Mr. Galbraith, a spirit of rebellion is growing and spreading, likely beyond Greece to Portugal, Spain, and Italy.

Since in Greece there is no longer a political outlet, it will become more unpleasant as the fires burn. That’s the price ultimately that both Greeks and Europeans will bear from accepting a set of policy recommendations dictated by economists, driven by ideology, utterly disconnected from the reality of what it takes to restore a viable economic and social entity. (Galbraith)

By all appearances, the Troika group is not clever enough to help Greece by any means other than slashing and burning and stomping on its lifeblood. Which brings to mind Chile in the 1970s under General Augusto Pinochet, dictator 1973-1990, a student of Milton Friedman and Henry Kissinger and of how neoliberal tendencies have been superlatively perfected over the ensuing decades. Troika’s 100-proof.

“There will be more resistance,” Galbraith warns. “It’s the only sensible thing. The Greek people are being maneuvered into a position where they cannot pay their mortgages, and they are being dispossessed from their homes. For what? For debts that were incurred under previous governments for completely useless things where the benefits went to German construction companies and French arms firms. The notion that this debt should be paid is absurd.”¹

Galbraith believes a Greek default may still be likely, which will bring a stop to unsustainable austerity. Come to think about it, why not?

Notes:

1. James K. Galbraith on Greece: Austerity Without Debt Relief, Defend Democracy Press, May 20, 2016 []

Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide. He can be contacted at: [email protected]. 

Quale colIegamento c’è tra società geograficamente, storicamente e culturalmente distanti, dal Kosovo alla Libia e alla Siria, dall’Iraq all’Afghanistan, dall’Ucraina al Brasile e al Venezuela? Quello di essere coinvolte nella strategia globale degli Stati uniti, esemplificata dalla «geografia» del Pentagono.

Il mondo intero viene diviso in «aree di responsabilità», ciascuna affidata a uno dei sei «comandi combattenti unificati» degli Stati uniti: il Comando Nord copre il Nordamerica, il Comando Sud il Sudamerica, il Comando Europeo la regione comprendente Europa e Russia, il Comando Africa il continente africano, il Comando Centrale Medioriente e Asia Centrale, il Comando Pacifico la regione Asia/Pacifico.

Ai 6 comandi geografici se ne aggiungono 3 operativi su scala globale: il Comando strategico (responsabile delle forze nucleari), il Comando per le operazioni speciali, il Comando per il trasporto. A capo del Comando Europeo c’è un generale o ammiraglio nominato dal presidente degli Stati uniti, che assume automaticamente la carica di Comandante supremo alleato in Europa.

La Nato è quindi inserita nella catena di comando del Pentagono, opera cioè fondamentalmente in funzione della strategia statunitense. Essa consiste nell’eliminare qualsiasi Stato o movimento politico/sociale minacci gli interessi politici, economici e militari degli Stati uniti che, pur essendo ancora la maggiore potenza mondiale, stanno perdendo terreno di fronte all’emergere di nuovi soggetti statuali e sociali.

Gli strumenti di tale strategia sono molteplici: dalla guerra aperta – vedi gli attacchi aeronavali e terrestri in Iugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia – alle operazioni coperte condotte sia in questi che in altri paesi, ultimamente in Siria e Ucraina. Per tali operazioni il Pentagono dispone delle forze speciali, circa 70000 specialisti che «ogni giorno operano in oltre 80 paesi su scala mondiale». Dispone inoltre di un esercito ombra di contractors (mercenari): in Afghanistan, documenta Foreign Policy, i mercenari del Pentagono sono circa 29.000, ossia tre per ogni soldato Usa; in Iraq circa 8.000, due per ogni soldato Usa.

Ai mercenari del Pentagono si aggiungono quelli della tentacolare Comunità di intelligence comprendente, oltre la Cia, altre 15 agenzie federali.

I mercenari sono doppiamente utili: possono assassinare e torturare, senza che ciò sia attribuito agli Usa, e quando sono uccisi i loro nomi non compaiono nella lista dei caduti. Inoltre il Pentagono e i servizi segreti dispongono dei gruppi che essi armano e addestrano, tipo quelli islamici usati per attaccare dall’interno la Libia e la Siria, e quelli neonazisti usati per il colpo di stato in Ucraina.

Altro strumento della stessa strategia sono quelle «organizzazioni non-governative» che, dotate di ingenti mezzi, vengono usate dalla Cia e dal Dipartimento di stato per azioni di destabilizzazione interna in nome della «difesa dei diritti dei cittadini».

Nello stesso quadro rientra l’azione del gruppo Bilderberg – che il magistrato Ferdinando Imposimato denuncia come «uno dei responsabili della strategia della tensione e delle stragi» in Italia – e quella della Open Society dell’«investitore e filantropo George Soros», artefice delle «rivoluzioni colorate».

Nel mirino della strategia golpista di Washington vi sono oggi il Brasile, per minare dall’interno i Brics, e il Venezuela per minare l’Alleanza Bolivariana per le Americhe. Per destabiizzare il Venezuela – indica il Comando Sud in un documento venuto alla luce – si deve provocare «uno scenario di tensione che permetta di combinare azioni di strada con l’impiego dosato della violenza armata».

Manlio Dinucci

Sullo stesso argomento vedi La notizia su Pandora TV

Quale colIegamento c’è tra società geograficamente, storicamente e culturalmente distanti, dal Kosovo alla Libia e alla Siria, dall’Iraq all’Afghanistan, dall’Ucraina al Brasile e al Venezuela? Quello di essere coinvolte nella strategia globale degli Stati uniti, esemplificata dalla «geografia» del Pentagono.

Il mondo intero viene diviso in «aree di responsabilità», ciascuna affidata a uno dei sei «comandi combattenti unificati» degli Stati uniti: il Comando Nord copre il Nordamerica, il Comando Sud il Sudamerica, il Comando Europeo la regione comprendente Europa e Russia, il Comando Africa il continente africano, il Comando Centrale Medioriente e Asia Centrale, il Comando Pacifico la regione Asia/Pacifico.

On May 23rd, Amanda Marcotte, at Salon, argued against Bernie Sanders’s Presidential candidacy as if it were comparable to Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000, and she cited an article from me as having presented the key historical record and basis for that opinion she was putting forth; but the historical analogy of Nader’s candidacy doesn’t really apply in the case of Sanders’s candidacy in 2016, and understanding why it doesn’t apply is important for any progressive who is considering whether Sanders should be viewed as possibly being today’s Ralph Nader — the “spoiler” for the Democratic Party. 

Marcotte said, linking to my article titled “Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party” (which headline was true as I there documented in detail), that Nader’s having received under 3% of the vote that year “was enough to tip a close election towards George W. Bush [this was her link to my article], but it’s also so paltry that it debunks the claim that the people would back a lefty alternative to the main parties if only The Man would let them have a chance.”

But actually, Bernie Sanders is no Ralph Nader whatsoever.

Unlike Nader, Sanders has been running a campaign designed for the specific purpose of winning the U.S. Presidency, not for the purpose (as I documented in that article) to take enough Electoral College votes away from the Democratic Party’s nominee (Al Gore) so as to throw the election to the Republican one (George W. Bush), which as I also showed there, Nader succeeded at doing by drawing off enough otherwise-Gore voters to him so as to hand all of the Electoral College votes of two states, New Hampshire and Florida, to Bush instead of Gore, in an election so close that if either one of those two states had instead been won by Gore, then there wouldn’t even have been any Supreme Court Bush v. Gore case, because even if Bush were to have been declared the winner of Florida (because of the 97,488 Nader votes there), Gore would still have won New Hampshire’s 4 Electoral College votes (if Nader hadn’t been in the race) and thus would have won the White House, by the EC margin of 270 votes to 267 votes. (Gore won the national popular vote by 543,895 of the counted votes; although he clearly won the most votes, he lost the ‘election’, and Nader’s participation did that to him in the Electoral College.) I proved there that in 2000 “Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party” because without Nader’s participation in the contest, Gore would surely have become the U.S. President (because won both NH and FL), and I also documented there that Nader was assisted by Republican Party mega-donors for that specific purpose, and that he focused his campaign in its closing days especially on toss-up states in order precisely to achieve his goal of drawing off enough liberals in enough toss-up states so as to make Bush President. Nader wasn’t campaigning anywhere in order to win for his own Presidential bid even a single state’s Electoral College votes, nor did he win any; he was instead running a campaign designed specifically to make Bush President, by blocking Gore from winning the Presidency. In that sense, Nader was utterly deceiving his voters; he was taking advantage of their naïveté, and there’s no other well-informed and honest way to characterize what he was doing.

But there are also many other reasons why the 2000 election is fundamentally different from the 2016 one, and here they are:

Although every intelligent person recognized by the time of Election Day in 2000 that Nader wasn’t going to win even a single state, much less the Presidency, and no poll showed him to be preferred for the Presidency by more voters than any of the other candidates (including Bush and Gore) were preferred, the polls that have been taken thus far in the 2016 Presidential campaign do consistently show Sanders to be preferred not only over Clinton but over Trump. Naïve persons can cite against this the fact that in Democratic Party primaries and caucuses, more votes have been cast for Clinton than for Sanders, but those are only voters in Democratic Party primaries and caucuses, not at all representative of the entire U.S. electorate, no more so than Donald Trump’s similar achievement on the Republican side reflects the entire electorate. (And, to see the very latest chartings of these head-to-head poll-results click here and here.)

Furthermore, unlike Nader, who had no record in public office, Sanders’s career in elected political positions is far lengthier than Hillary Clinton’s is (even just his service in Congress is), and the only major Presidential candidate this time around who has no political record — a record of statements on a few issues, but no record of actual actions in public office — is Trump. Trump, unlike Nader, has been serious about winning the Presidency, and so he contested for the nomination of one of the two Parties, the Republican Party. Furthermore, Trump possesses the wealth and the contacts and the personal attributes that appeal strongly to a large enough section of the electorate for him to be a major contender, but Nader never did, not any of that. If one might reasonably allege Trump to be also a showman and (like Nader was) a deceiver, then certainly his deception of his supporters in 2016 is far less than was Nader’s deception of his supporters in 2000 (a deception that placed Bush into the White House — something that very few of Nader’s voters were wanting).

And the final key reason why Sanders is no Nader is that the United States government and political system have changed in fundamental ways since 2000, such that this country is far more like the America of 1860 which saw the end of the Whig Party and its replacement by the new upstart Republican Party, than it’s like the pre-2000 USA, which was a country where the level of public trust of governmental institutions, and trust of both Parties and of the press, was enormously higher than it is today. The American public is far more willing today to consider an anti-Establishment candidate than they were in 2000.

During just the past few years, these changes have been of such historical magnitude that I no longer agree any longer with the statement I made at the end of my article about Nader:

The only way forward for progressives is inside the Democratic Party, fighting relentlessly to take it over as completely as possible, so that it represents the progressive vision, and all conservatives will thus be represented by the Republican Party. That’s democracy, and then our elections can have clear and honest battle-lines. Only then will the aristocracy encounter a formidable public, and be forced to back down so that we won’t continue to be financing (through our taxes) their investment-losses, and consuming their polluted air and toxic products.

Today’s Democratic Party is instead sufficiently attractive to Republicans so that the Republican Party’s mega-donors are donating heavily now to Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign. The chief matters in which the Democratic Party has become, for any progressives who still remain in it, only a fool’s political haven, are:

It, like the Republican Party, is intensely supportive of what Mitt Romney infamously said in his 2012 contest against Obama, asserting about “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.” And, despite Obama’s having for political reasons condemned that Romney-statement, Obama himself believed it to be true and promptly began acting upon it once he had won a second term and was therefore freed from needing any longer to pretend that he didn’t actually feel that way. Consequently, the urgent danger now of a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia is currently even more important to reverse than is the danger of runaway global warming — which Obama likewise promotes even while saying pretty words against it. And even if Obama gets only just one of his three mega-‘trade’ deals passed, the recent Paris agreement to limit global warming could effectively be dead as a consequence of that.

These are issues that progressives say they care a lot about; but, if they do actually care, they won’t vote for either Clinton or Trump (maybe Trump, certainly not Clinton). This time around, both political parties are so bottom-line similar on the issues that count the most, so that no political Party that stands a chance of winning the White House, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party, is really on the good side of either climate change, or geostrategic issues (war-and-peace), or winning back America’s democracy (which has been only for show since at least 1980). And the lone current candidate who is good on these issues and who also has the name-recognition and the existing political following who stands any chance of winning the White House — perhaps notas a Democrat — is Bernie Sanders. If he will need to run a write-in candidacy in order to be able to salvage this nation and this planet, then at least there will be a chance that the future won’t be vastly worse than the present, and he therefore ought to do it. And, in any case: he’s no Ralph Nader, and the differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are far less important than the differences between Al Gore and George W. Bush were in 2000 (and Gore was passionately opposed to invading Iraq, and that invasion would not have happened under a President Gore).

Nader was indispensable to Bush’s becoming President, and that was a terrible thing. But, even if a write-in candidacy for Sanders might end up causing Trump to beat Clinton this November, even that wouldn’t be as bad as would be Clinton’s beating Trump, because Clinton has a real record in public office and it’s horrific, whereas Trump has no public-office record at all, and no intelligent person will trust the mere statements and promises of either liar — only the record speaks to an intelligent voter, this time around.

Having no record in public office is far better than having Clinton’s record in public office.

And so, those are the main reasons why anything that Bernie Sanders can do to continue on in his fight for the White House will be praised and supported by intelligent progressives — not condemned by any of them on the basis of whether he’s a ‘Democrat’. A ‘Democrat’ such as Hillary Clinton is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. Regardless of whether or not Sanders is a ‘Democrat’, his record and not only his words prove that he carries on in the great tradition of the Democratic Party, the tradition of FDR, which Hillary’s husband Bill did so much to end by deregulating Wall Street and by ending AFDC to poor children.

To put it simple: Sanders is the anti-fascist candidate. Whether he contests for the White House as a Democrat or on his own, all intelligent progressives will support him in the effort. He has created a movement, and it’s far bigger than just some portion (the non-Hillary part) of today’s Democratic Party. It’s all of what remains of FDR’s Democratic Party, and much of that is no longer even included within today’s Democratic Party. And it could win the White House, even if Sanders ends up running against both the Republican and the ‘Democratic’ Parties to do it. Unlike Nader, he wouldn’t be running against the ‘Democratic’ nominee; he’d be running, in any case (and,unlike Nader) honestly, to win.

America has changed a lot since 2000.

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.

Back in April,  just before the New York primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign aired a commercial on upstate television stations touting her work as secretary of state forcing “China, India, some of the world’s worst polluters” to make “real change.” She promised to “stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say ‘no.’”

The television spot, which was not announced and does not appear on the official campaign YouTube page with most of Clinton’s other ads, implied a history of opposition to fracking, here and abroad. But emails obtained by The Intercept from the Department of State reveal new details of behind-the-scenes efforts by Clinton and her close aides to export American-style hydraulic fracturing — the horizontal drilling technique best known as fracking — to countries all over the world.

Far from challenging fossil fuel companies, the emails obtained by The Intercept show that State Department officials worked closely with private sector oil and gas companies, pressed other agencies within the Obama administration to commit federal government resources including technical assistance for locating shale reserves, and distributed agreements with partner nations pledging to help secure investments for new fracking projects.

The documents also reveal the department’s role in bringing foreign dignitaries to a fracking site in Pennsylvania, and its plans to make Poland a “laboratory for testing whether US success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country,” particularly in Europe, where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.

The campaign included plans to spread the drilling technique to China, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Chile, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Indonesia, and Ukraine.

In 2014, Mother Jones reporter Mariah Blake used diplomatic cables disclosed by WikiLeaks and other records to uncover how Clinton “sold fracking to the world.” The emails obtained by The Intercept through a separate Freedom of Information Act request provide a new layer of detail.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment. During the April 15 Democratic debate in Brooklyn, New York, Clinton insisted there was no inconsistency between her positions:

Q: OK. Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. Fracking, of course, a way of extracting natural gas. Now as a candidate for president, you say that by the time you’re done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country. Why have you changed your view on fracking?

CLINTON: No, well, I don’t think I’ve changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are, where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but principally coal, to where we need to be, which is clean renewable energy, and one of the bridge fuels is natural gas. And so for both economic and environmental and strategic reasons, it was American policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time, also to get out from under, especially if they were in Europe, the pressure from Russia, which has been incredibly intense. So we did say natural gas is a bridge. We want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible, because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can.

Industry-Backed Launch

The Global Shale Gas Initiative, Clinton’s program for promoting fracking, was announced on April 7, 2010, by David Goldwyn, the State Department’s special envoy for energy affairs, at the United States Energy Association (USEA), whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Shell.

In a widely covered event in Krakow three months later, Clintonannounced that “Poland will be part of the Global Shale Gas Initiative,” and that the State Department would “provide technical and other assistance.”

Goldwyn, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment, spoke to National Journal last month, explaining that, “[Clinton’s] instruction to me was that it was OK to talk about helping other countries get access to their own resources, as long as the focus of our engagement was how they could do it safely and efficiently, and that’s why the program had almost an entirely regulatory focus.” Goldwyn emphasized that the shale gas initiative was not designed to help the private sector and instead should be seen as “a really very modest government-to-government.”

But the emails show an aggressive effort to engage private energy companies and use Poland as part of a larger campaign to sell fracking throughout the region.

An email dated December 3, 2010, shows that the State Department had Poland firmly in its bull’s-eye and that companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Canadian firm BNK Petroleum and Italian energy company Eni expressed interest in tapping into Polish shale. One officialsuggested “enlisting Eni” to help organize the pro-fracking campaign in Poland, as well as bringing in U.S. companies. Earlier that year, in April, Poland’s then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Radoslaw Sikorski also took a trip to Texas to visit a fracking production site.

“I think we should be open to working with the Poles to spread knowledge and understanding of Poland’s (and Europe’s) shale gas potential,” wrote the State Department’s Chuck Ashley, who now works in the Office of the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.

“Poland,” Ashley wrote, “is a laboratory for testing whether US success in developing shale gas can be repeated in a different country, with different shales, and a different regulatory environment.” Ashley also noted that “popular and political support is strong now, but this could change when shale gas wells come to their backyards.”

In fact, that did change. As drilling rigs transformed from prospect to reality, Polish citizens attempted — as it turns out, successfully — to fend off companies interested in fracking in Poland, including Chevron. A group called Occupy Chevron formed in reaction to the potential for shale drilling in Poland and Chevron filed a lawsuit against the occupiers. Facing the backlash and low global oil prices, in January 2015, Chevron announced it would halt operations in Poland.

Public-Private Partnerships

Despite Goldwyn’s recent assertion that the fracking campaign was a modest effort, the emails show what Goldwyn referred to as a “whole of government” approach that included deploying assistance from a range of agencies. At least 13 different government agencies were part of the effort.

Take Morocco, for example. A joint program with Clinton’s Global Shale Gas Initiative and the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) event for visiting Moroccans involved several U.S. government federal agencies in the proceedings. That included the EPA, National Security Council, USTDA, USGS, BLM, FERC and the Commercial Law Development Program.

After signing the agreement, Moroccan officials visited the U.S. for a series of meetings with the National Security Council, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Bureau of Land Management, along with meetings with the American Gas Association and America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a lobbying group for the largest American fracking companies.

The emails reveal that the NSC had a “biweekly shale gas call” in which it offered the State Department its input on Global Shale Gas Initiative priority countries.

Moving Forward

The Global Shale Gas Initiative eventually became enveloped in the broader and still-existing Bureau of Energy Resources, a special wing within the Department of State devoted to the geopolitics of energy. “You can’t talk about our economy or foreign policy without talking about energy,” Clinton said, announcing the new bureau in 2011.

The office, staffed by 85 people, focuses on a range of energy development, but with a special focus on unconventional gas development and infrastructure, such as fracking and liquefied natural gas terminals, to support the development of the international gas market.

Now called the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program, the Global Shale Gas Initiative lives on under Secretary of State John Kerry (though they’ve taken down the website) but with the prospect of a commercial-scale global shale gas boom greatly reduced. Only the U.S., Canada, Argentina and China have commercialized the controversial horizontal drilling technique.

The pause in fracking, however, might be momentary. A number of energy companies that worked closely with the State Department now employ lobbyists that are fundraising furiously for Clinton’s campaign. ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist, as well as lobbyists for liquefied natural gas terminals designed to connect the U.S. to the global gas market, areamong the most prolific fundraisers.

Goldwyn, too, is still actively promoting similar policies in the private sector through his consulting company Goldwyn Global Strategies, as counsel to the energy lobbying firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and through his association with the Atlantic Council, a think tank thatpromotes fossil fuel development.

The State Department’s shale gas initiative “was clearly driven by the promotion of Big Oil’s expansion,” Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace USA, told The Intercept. “That it was one of State’s highest priorities undermines their credibility as leaders in the global effort to prevent the calamitous threats of climate change.”

Among Americans who lean toward the Democratic Party, trust in their nation’s elections plunged from 71% on 10-13 January 2008, down to 31% on 15-18 December 2011, and has since edged slightly down to 28% on 13-15 May 2016.

Among Americans who lean toward the Republican Party, trust in their nation’s elections plunged from 46% on 15-16 January 2016, down to 30% on 16-17 March 2016, and is now 29% on 13-15 May 2016.

This is shown in a Gallup news report on May 23rd, “Sanders’ Backers Most Likely to Say Election Process Faulty”, and the question that the respondents there were answering was: “Does the way the presidential campaign is being conducted make you feel as though the election process is working as it should, or not?”

Their recent poll showed that the electoral process is now trusted by 39% of Hillary Clinton supporters, 35% of Donald Trump supporters, 23% of Republicans who supported a different Republican than Trump, and 17% of Democrats who support Bernie Sanders.

Consequently, achieving Party-unity will be determined only by the Republican Party’s major donors, if at all (with them uniting to donate to his campaign instead of to Clinton’s); whereas, achieving Party-unity will be achieved only by the Democratic Party’s voters, if at all; and the possibility that a popular well-known and well-respected person who has high name-recognition and high net-favorable rating could possibly beat both Trump and Clinton (each of whom has high net-unfavorable ratings) if a well-financed write-in campaign for that person were to be waged vigorously nationwide, exists now for the first time in history, but only if such a person comes forward to organize and run such a Presidential campaign, and only if not more than one such person does so (because otherwise a split of the write-in votes could assure victory for one or the other of the major-Party nominees).

If that write-in candidate were to be someone like Michael Bloomberg, whose write-in votes would be at the expense of Trump more than at the expense of Clinton, then he could be throwing the election to Clinton, or else he could win the Presidency.

If, instead, that write-in candidate were to be either Bernie Sanders or else Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose write-in votes would be at the expense of Clinton more than at the expense of Trump, then he could be throwing the election to Trump, or else he could win the Presidency.

However, clearly — considering the plunge that has occurred (after 2008 for Democrats, and after 2015 for Republicans) in Americans’ trust of their nation’s electoral process, and considering the many other anti-Establishment indications during the current electoral season — the possibility does exist, for the first time in American history, that the U.S. Presidency could be won by a write-in candidate. The only proviso for this possibility would be that there mustn’t be more than one such candidate who has high net-favorables and runs a vigorous national campaign.

The possibility really does exist that some of America’s political rule-books could be thrown out by the 2016 Presidential contest. If that does happen, then one or both of America’s major Parties could thereby be transformed or even ultimately replaced (such as, for example, happened in the 1860 Presidential contest, which ended the Whig Party and started the Republican Party).

History is not always to be copied. Sometimes, it is to be transformed.

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.

For years now, the Western elite have been incessantly pushing the slogan that ‘Assad must go.’ Under the pretext of removing an ‘evil’ dictator and helping the people of Syria, the West has been funding, arming and training an array of Al-Qaeda affiliated legions to force regime change in the country. Contrary to helping the people of Syria however, this has only worked to bring pain, misery and tragedy to Syria.

Even the former US Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, admitted that the insistence on ‘Assad must go’ has “paralyzed” any rationale Syrian strategy.  Whenever the West appears to have moved on from this demand in any negotiations, it always seems to be brought up again at future talks. The persistence in trying to direct the blame for the Syrian crisis on Bashar al-Assad only serves to distract from the central problem in the conflict; namely Western imperialism. Syria is only the most recent imperial venture pursued by the Western cabal, following the disasters of Ukraine; Libya; Iraq; and Afghanistan (to name a few).

Saudi and Israel: Creatures of British Imperialism

 Saudi Arabia and Israel are two of the most barbarous, despotic and corrupt nations in the world, who both share a common master; in the form of the British Empire. Following the end of the Great War, Britain was territorially at its zenith; stretching from the mountainous peaks of Canada to the crown in jewel, India. The actions of the British strategists around the time of the Great War have profoundly shaped the modern-day map of the Middle East, and the Western establishment is again in the process of trying to redraw the map today.

Supporting Ibn Saud

For control of Arabia, Britain supported both Hussein bin Ali and Abdulaziz Ibn Saud during and following the First World War. Hussein was an instrumental figure in the Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule, which began in the summer of 1916, shortly after the Sykes-Picot agreement was signed to divide the Middle East between Britain and France. Both London and Paris sent agents over to assist the revolt, including Thomas Edward Lawrence (more famously known as Lawrence of Arabia).

The revolt accelerated the partition and eventual fall of the Ottoman Empire, and resulted in the two prospective rulers clashing over control of the territory. Initially, the British favoured a Hussein victory for control of Arabia; but after Ibn Saud defeated Hussein during the 1920s, London fully backed the founder of Saudi Arabia. As the British author and historian, Mark Curtis, wrote in his book, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam:

Britain had already provided arms and money to Ibn Saud during the First World War, signing a treaty with him in 1915… By the end of the war, he was receiving a British subsidy of £5,000 a month – considerably less than the £12,000 a month doled out to Hussein, whom the British government at first continued to favour… In 1919 London used aircraft in the Hijaz in support of Hussein’s confrontation with Ibn Saud. It was to little avail: after accepting a temporary ceasefire in 1920, Ibn Saud’s 150,000-strong Ikhwan advanced relentlessly, and by the mid-1920s had gained control of Arabia, including the Hijaz and the Holy Places, defeating Hussein for supremacy in the region. Ibn Saud established Saudi Arabia in an orgy of murder… The British recognised Ibn Saud’s control of Arabia, and by 1922 his subsidy was raised to £100,000 a year by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill.

The British were well aware that Ibn Saud was heavily influenced by Wahhabism, an extreme branch of Sunni Islam. Today, Saudi is one of the main forces involved in funding and arming terror groups – including the terrorists in Syria. Saudi’s human rights record is appalling, perhaps unrivaled by any other nation on the planet; but as a Western puppet, it’s allowed to operate with total impunity.

The New Ulster

Israel is another product of British imperialism. Israel’s violations of international law are relentless, and the incremental genocide perpetuated by the Israeli establishment against the people of Palestine is one of the greatest crimes of our time. Similar to Saudi and many other powers that are part of the Western cabal, Israel has also played a dirty role in the destabilisation of Syria.

Founded in 1948, one of the most significant documents in the creation of Israel is the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a letter from the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, Arthur Balfour, to the banker and top Zionist, Walter Rothschild. The Balfour Declaration articulated that the British government strongly supported the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

Despite much of the debate surrounding Israel being focused on religious arguments and the horrors inflicted on the Jewish people for millennia, an important piece of historical evidence is usually omitted. Ronald Storrs, Britain’s first Governor of Jerusalem, referred to a potential Jewish state in 1937 as a “little loyal Jewish Ulster.” Storrs’ remark is an important one; as it reveals that the creation of Israel was designed from its very inception to be antagonistic and divisive.

Ulster of course refers to the province in the north of Ireland which was a pivotal part in England’s strategy for colonising Ireland. In the early seventeenth century, Scottish and English (mainly Protestant) settlers were moved into Ulster, displacing many of the native people of those lands. Prior to the plantation, the people of Ulster were predominantly Catholic and Gaelic speaking, and it was one of the strongest regions in Ireland that resisted English rule. Flooding Ulster with loyal serfs to King James I was an attempt to dilute the Gaelic culture and the anti-unionist sentiment that was so prevalent in that region, in addition to exacerbating and creating new divisions within Ireland.

Despite the West’s attempts to blame Assad for the Syrian crisis, the blame should instead be directed against Western imperialism. For centuries, Western imperialism has been causing devastation around the globe, as European colonial powers have ravaged and pillaged every region of the globe. Two of the most despotic regimes on earth are the direct creation of the British Empire; with both Saudi Arabia and Israel major obstacles to any stability in the Middle East. The people of Syria should decide whether Assad stays or goes – not the political elite of any foreign country. Western imperialism ‘must go’ however, if peace is to be achieved in the world.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The operation of the Syrian government forces in the Aleppo city is facing a real challenge.

A critical moment in the activity of the loyalists was the fall of the town of Khan Touman that has been seized by Al Nusra and the group’s allies.

Iranians took major casualties in the clashes there. Meanwhile, Palestinian militias failed to cut the militants’ supply lines in the area of Handarat. The source of this situation isn’t a secret. It’s a low level of the staff planning exercise and tactics of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC). For example, to rely only on irregular military formations in the attempt to cut off the supply lines of the militants near Aleppo is a major mistake.

Describing this operation, Western experts argue some difficulties between Moscow and Teheran. According to them, Iran is pushing a military solution of the Syrian crisis, while Russia is supporting the international diplomatic efforts as the only successful way. Iranian forces are also dissatisfied by the low level of the Russian air support at Khan Touman, ignoring bad weather conditions at that time. SouthFront doesn’t support the radical views of the Western experts because the ongoing diplomatic efforts don’t exclude the ability to conduct military operations against the sides, excluded from the ceasefire. However, the recent developments have shown clearly that the IRGC isn’t able to independent offensive or defensive operations without the Russian air support and let’s be clear without Russian military strategists.

The very same time, SouthFront can’t confirm the rumors, launched by the Western media that Hezbollah units are to be re-deployed from Aleppo to the Syrian-Lebanon border and the Shia group is decreasing its involvement in the conflict.

This misinformation has arisen from the fact that some Hezbollah units have been sent from Aleppo to Daraa and Homs where the situation is acute, recently. The death of Mustafa Badreddine changes nothing in Hezbollah’s approach in Syria. The group will participate in the conflict as long as it‘s needed for its main foreign sponsor, Iran. The problem is the IRGC, Hezbollah and the SAA aren’t able to deal a devastating blow to the terrorists in the country because of a low level of the officers’ qualification. The solution of the problem could be the recognition of the leading role of the Russian command staff in planning and coordination of the ongoing operations. If Teheran isn’t ready to do this because of some reasons, we all will continue to observe heavy loses of the loyalists in hardly successful attempts to develop the moment against terrorists.

Iran has always had an image of a hard-nosed negotiator and a skittish ally. The rigid conformity to this approach with the only allied world power could easily undermine Teheran’s claims to the regional leadership.

Interview with operative reaffirms Washington’s role in the destabilization of the continent

A further confirmation of United States efforts to prevent Africa from reaching its full potential in the areas of genuine self-determination and national liberation, resurfaced in mid-May when damning reports about the pivotal role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the arrest of African National Congress (ANC) and South African Communist Party (SACP) official Nelson Mandela in 1962 were circulated in the international press.

Donald Rickard, who in 1962 was the United States vice-consul in Durban, said he and his superiors believed that Mandela was “the world’s most dangerous communist outside of the Soviet Union” and he had no reservations in regard to alerting the apartheid regime about his location. (Telegraph, UK,May 15, 2016)

Nelson Mandela in Ethiopia, 1962

Mandela was stopped at a police roadblock in Howick, KwaZulu Natal on August 5, 1962 and arrested. His capture provided the legal and political basis for a number of trials which culminated with the Rivonia Treason convictions resulting in him spending over 27 years in prison. The CIA’s pivotal role in his arrest after 17 months of underground work has been repeatedly documented going back to at least 1990 on the eve of his first visit to the U.S. after his release from prison.

Rickard claimed that ANC informants made him aware that Mandela was traveling to the seaside city and relayed this information to South African police noting that the ANC-SACP leader was planning to return to Johannesburg.

Secret Travels from South Africa

Mandela had traveled outside of South Africa, then under the subjugation of the racist apartheid system of settler colonialism, to garner international support for the national liberation movement and to receive arms training aimed at building the military wing of the ANC, Um Khonto we Sizwe (MK). By early 1961, the ANC declared that it was futile to continue peaceful methods of struggle in the aftermath of the Sharpeville massacre of March 1960 and other atrocities committed by the Boer-dominated Republic of South Africa.

In March of 1962 Mandela undertook military instructions from the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) at their bases across the border in Morocco. Mandela in his testimony in the South African court during the Rivonia Trial in 1964, said that “In Africa I was promised support by such men … Ben Bella, now President of Algeria …It was Ben Bella who invited me to visit Oujda, the Headquarters of the Algerian Army of National Liberation, the visit which is described in my diary, one of the Exhibits.” (nelsonmandela.org)

This diary in question detailed his instruction in Oujda and other Moroccan locations. At present these documents are stored in the national archives under the ANC-dominated government.

An autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” written by Mandela during the transition process of reshaping South African political control from the racist Nationalist Party to the ANC in 1994, he recounted the following: “… we spent several days with Dr. Mustafa, head of the Algerian mission in Morocco … At the end of the three days, he sent us to Oujda, a dusty little town just across the border from Algeria …”

In another publication by Mandela “Conversations with Myself”, includes numerous extracts from his 1962 diary, all of which verifies his military training at Algerian National Liberation Front facilities in Morocco.

Around the same time period Mandela also took military courses in Ethiopia then led by Haile Selassie I. According to an article published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), it says “In July 1962, Col. Fekadu Wakene taught South African political activist Nelson Mandela the tricks of guerrilla warfare – including how to plant explosives before slipping quietly away into the night. Mr. Mandela was in Ethiopia, learning how to be the commander-in-chief of Umkhonto we Sizwe – the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC).” (Dec. 9, 2013)

Col. Fekadu later praised the future South African president saying “Nelson Mandela was a very strong and resilient student, and he took instruction well and was really very likeable. You couldn’t help but love him.”

The Ethiopian officer was part of a specialist police force – the riot battalion – located in the suburbs of Kolfe, in barracks that were still being utilized in 2013 at the time of Mandela’s death at the age of 95. Col. Fekadu recalls a “happy, cheerful person” who “concentrated on the task in hand. He was polite, always happy and you never saw him lose his temper.”

South Africa Reflective of Continent-wide Strategy

This phenomenon was part of a broader policy extending from the 1960s to the present.

In 1960, the CIA and the U.S. State Department plotted to overthrow and assassinate Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba. Immediately after the former revolutionary Congo prime minister won the largest bloc of votes for his Congolese National Movement (MNC-Lumumba), his government was neutralized and displaced in a coup.

Lumumba later fled to the east of the country where he was kidnapped by forces allied with the imperialists. He was subjected to torture and a brutal assassination. Army Col. Mobutu Sese Seko, a CIA asset, served as the front man for Washington and various mining corporations for 37 years when he was displaced in a national uprising in 1996-97.

Later in the West African state of Ghana, the first prime minister and President, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, was overthrown in a military and police coup on February 24, 1966 which was coordinated by the CIA. Nkrumah had been a staunch supporter of Lumumba along with dozens of other liberation movements across the continent. (See In Search of Enemies by John Stockwell)

The former Portuguese colony of Angola in southwest Africa was on the verge of national independence in November 1975 when the country was invaded by the South African Defense Forces (SADF) and the CIA in order to prevent the revolutionary government led by Dr. Agostino Neto from taking power. The Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) was aligned with the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) of Namibia and the ANC of South Africa.

55,000 Cuban internationalist forces were deployed by the-then President Fidel Castro who worked in conjunction with national and regional forces to drive back the SADF, establishing Angola as a rear base of the struggle to eliminate white-minority rule in the sub-continent.

Between 1975 and 1989, approximately 350,000 Cubans served in Angola. The defeat of the SADF and the CIA in Angola represented a major turning point in the overall movement of the African people for self-determination and sovereignty.

As recent as 2011, the administration of President Barack Obama dispatched hundreds of CIA operatives to Libya setting the stage for a massive bombing campaign which lasted for seven months toppling the government of Col. Muammar Gaddafi, a former chair of the African Union (AU), a continental organization that he co-founded in 2002.

Business Insider reported this fact at the time saying “CIA operatives have been working in Libya along with MI6 agents and other spies to gather information for use in airstrikes. They are also finding out details about the rebels who may come to power after Qaddafi. They claim not to be directing rebel actions, according to the New York Times. Obama signed an order several weeks ago authorizing the CIA to provide arms and other support to the rebels. Supposedly they have not supplied arms yet.” (March 30)

These instances represent a few important cases highlight the legacy of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of the African continent. Such occurrences reveal that Washington has never been a supporter of African independence contrasting its stance with that of the socialist countries such as Cuba and the former Soviet Union.

One of the best-ever news reports I’ve seen on the Democratic Party Presidential contest was Tierney McAffee’s “ BernieOrBust: Why 20 Percent of Sanders Supporters Say They Would Vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton” at people.com, the website of People magazine — hardly a place where one would normally expect to find such crackerjack well-researched reporting on politics.  

That article, on May 23rd, summarized several recent polls to estimate the percentage of Sanders supporters who would vote for Trump over Clinton if the election were held today; and the gist of it is actually even more negative for Clinton’s chances than just “20 Percent of Sanders Supporters Say They Would Vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton”; that was only the most favorable finding for Clinton; by contrast, the NBC/WSJ poll released on May 23rd found “just 66 percent of Democratic primary voters preferring Sanders support Clinton in a matchup against Trump (compared with 88 percent of Clinton primary voters who favor Sanders in a hypothetical general-election contest).”

What all of the evidence taken together (and so well-summarized there by McAffee) shows is that both Clinton and Trump are disliked by the American electorate but Sanders is liked by the electorate and is therefore far easier for Clinton’s supporters to vote for on Election Day than Clinton is easy for Sanders’s supporters to vote for on Election Day.

Furthermore, an article at Huffington Post, on the same day, May 23rd, by the team of Howard Fineman, Jason Linkins, and Lauren Weber, adds yet further depth to this picture of a substantial percentage of the Sanders electorate who really detest Clinton: the HuffPo team headlined “Here’s What Bernie Sanders Should Ask For At The Convention”, and listed ten recommendations for Sanders, all of which assumed that Sanders’s voters trust what Clinton says, and that they trust the symbolic actions she takes during her campaign, such as to “GIVE BERNIE A SERIOUS ROLE IN THE ‘VEEPSTAKES’,” and “PRIMETIME SPEECH SLOT,” and “PUT SANDERS IN THE PARTY PLATFORM,” and “WALL STREET PROMISE PART TWO,” and other things which, to the extent Hillary is promising something, just won’t be trusted by Sanders’s voters; and, to the extent Sanders would be agreeing to them (such as to run on the same ticket as she) would turn off Sanders’s voters so hard and so fast that his high net favorable rating would collapse — he’d suddenly become viewed as having been just a fake during his prior campaign.

Nearly all of the hundreds of reader-comments to that piece are from die-hard Clinton voters who say such anti-Sanders things as this one did:

While Sanders should get some concessions, giving him too much would be an affirmation that his negative behavior enabled him to get his way. Giving him a prime time speech may be a mistake considering he hasn’t been able to be positive at all about the DNC. It IS the Democratic convention after all and a lot of Dems are really mad at Bernie for the disruption and negativism that has done nothing but help Trump.

The Sanders supporters who were commenting there were more like this:

The downticket Dem $ that Hillary is supposedly raising is going directly back to DNC, being passed on to Hillary. Kentucky recent FEC filings and others show that. . .get informed and research!

In other words: most of the comments were pro-Clinton and anti-Sanders, and many of the rest were pro-Sanders and anti-Clinton. How likely is it that the individuals who posted those two representative comments, just cited, will be anything but enraged at being on the same team — especially the Sanders supporters? How many of them (especially of the Sanders voters) will even want to be on the same team? Very few. And, as far as whether they’ll even vote for Clinton: the mutual hostility is likelier to be building each and every day of the general-election campaign. The disgust that’s felt toward Clinton by many of Sanders’s supporters would only increase, notdecrease. This isn’t really a Party that’s coming together; it’s one that increasingly will be splitting apart.

Such real hostility can’t be eliminated by any of the tactics that the Huffington Post team were recommending.

Clinton and Sanders represent very different value-systems: pro-aristocracy (respecting Wall Street’s mega-bankers and the corporate executives they represent) on Clinton’s side, and anti-aristocracy (respecting Main Street and detesting Wall Street) on Sanders’s. Whereas Clinton is trickle-down Democratic Party, Sanders is the old percolate-up FDR Democratic Party — something that Bill Clinton with his NAFTA and with his ending FDR’s Glass-Steagall and other Wall Street regulations has ended, and that Hillary has worked even more feverishly than her husband to end. Plus, Clinton ended AFDC and sent millions more children into even deeper poverty. Hillary is very strongly trickle-down — even more so than her husband; Sanders is equally strongly percolate-up.

Bill Clinton built the new, Republican, Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders had tried to restore it to its former FDR Democratic Party. (Meanwhile, of course, the Republican Republican Party has to veer even farther toward the right, in order for its candidates to be able to win their own primaries.) That’s a basic difference of values, and when Sanders recognizes and publicly acknowledges that the Clinton-Obama, or Republican, Democratic Party needs to be replaced, he’ll quit it, and all that will remain of it will be the former shell of it, filled with the billion-dollar-plus mega-donations from its beneficiaries, and with the liberal suckers who still buy into it. (The only way to prevent that from happening would be an indictment of Hillary on the emails matter, in which case Sanders would simply be handed the ‘Democratic’ nomination by the super-delegates, whose primary concern is to protect the Party from electoral catastrophe.)

For Sanders to become the leader of a new anti-Republican-Party, anti-Democratic-Party, pro-authentic-democracy political movement, in the United States will be easy, but leading it against the deep and pervasive corruption of today’s American government will be extremely hard, for anyone to do. But he just might have to try.

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

On the eve of President Obama’s April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission’s conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayatpublished an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia. He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls “victory by means of archives.”

Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari’s article:[3]

 “Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting… [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi’ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.

“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 [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] 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 [into them] 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 policy] can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.’

“On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

“1.   The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

“2.   Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…

“3.   The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country’s budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

“Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

“The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans’] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

“So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives.”

Notes:

The ability of Israel to continue its illegal settlement on Palestinian land is wholly dependent on profits from its bilateral trade with the EU which is the single most important factor that fuels the illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights by the Right-­wing Likud government.

Without the extraordinary agreement that allows a non-European state (in the Middle East) to freely exploit the European Single Market, the policy of expropriating Palestinian land would not be possible and the Israeli government would be forced to sue for peace.

It has been long  established that the Israel lobby exerts considerable influence over the European Parliament’s decisions to not only offer Israel free access to the single market but also to make research grants of billions of euros to the Israeli defence industries that currently export arms to regimes worldwide.

There are many factors that will influence Britain’s decision to leave the EU but the ability to break away from the hold of the Israel lobby on EU trade is of prime importance to both the safety of Europe and to world peace.

The United Kingdom should no longer be associated with a European Union that has already seen the delivery by Germany of a fleet of high­-powered, Dolphin 2-­class AIP submarines to the Israeli navy that were designed for and subsequently retro­fitted with, undeclared cruise missiles (SLCMs) with a minimum range of 1500km and carrying 200kg nuclear warheads.

This astonishing fact has provided Israel with an offshore nuclear second strike capability that has now made it the 3rd most powerful nuclear­-armed entity in the world after the US and Russia. It is not known what Chancellor Merkel was thinking when she made Germany itself, and the entire European community with its 750 million inhabitants, vulnerable to an offshore nuclear threat from the Mediterranean or what pressures were applied to the German government that enabled this extraordinary act of apparent negligence that has irrevocably changed the balance of military power in the region.

BREXIT cannot rectify the failure of the EU to have ensured the safety of the 500m citizens in its 28 member states ­ but it is beyond time that Britain now extricates itself from such a dangerously infiltrated, political union.

Britain needs to make urgent plans for the future defence and security of its own people, which is the primary duty of any government and one that supersedes even that of trade and jobs, for without security there is no future.