Global Research

The summit of the chiefs of staff and governmement of NATO has just finished its meeting in Warsaw (7 and 8 July 2016). It should have been the triumph of the United States over the rest of the world, but was in fact the beginning of its downfall.

Let’s remind ourselves of what NATO means.

What the Atlantic Alliance used to be

When the European elites were panicking at the idea of the possible accession to power by the Communist Parties after the Second World War, in 1949, they sought refuge under the «umbrella» of the United States. Above all, this was a means for them to present a threat to the Soviets in order to dissuade them from supporting the Western Communists.

The Western states progressively extended their alliance, in particular by adding, in 1955, Western Germany, which had just been authorised to rebuild its army. Worried about the capacities of the Alliance, the USSR responded by creating the Warsaw Pact six years after the creation of NATO.

However, with the Cold War, the two alliances evolved in an imperial fashion – on one hand, NATO, dominated by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by the United Kingdom, and on the other, the Warsaw Pact, dominated by the Soviet Union. As a result, it became impossible to abandon these structures – NATO did not hesitate to use its Gladio network to organise various coups d’état and preventive political assassinations, while the Warsaw Pact openly invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia, which had shown signs of wanting their independence.

Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union put an end to this system. Mikhaïl Gorbatchev allowed each member of the Warsaw Pact to declare their independence («My Way»), which he ironically named his «Sinatra doctrine». When the USSR collapsed, its allies dispersed, and it took several years of stabilisation before the present Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) could be constituted. Having learned from past errors, the CSTO was based on the strict equality of its member states.

It is worth noting, by the way, that both NATO and the Warsaw Pact are organisations which are contrary to the United Nations Charter, since their member states lose their independence by agreeing to place their troops under US or Soviet command.

Unlike Russia, the United States have remained an empire, and continue to use NATO to batter their allies into obedience. The initial objective of pressuring the Soviets so that they would refrain from helping the Western Communists to gain power, no longer has any meaning. So all that is left now is US guardianship.

In 1998, NATO waged its first war, against a tiny state (presently Serbia) which posed no threat whatsoever. The United States deliberately created the condition for the conflict, forming the Kosovar terrorist mafia which operated from the Turkish base of Incirlik, organising a terror campaign in Serbia, then accusing the Serbian government of repressing it with disproportionate force. Once the NATO anvil had crushed the Serbian fly, it was noted in the chancelleries that the Alliance was in fact extremely unwieldy and mostly inefficient. This is when profound reforms were initiated.

The Alliance since the 11 September 2001

With the disappearance of the USSR, there remained no state in the world capable of military confrontation with the United States, and thus even less with NATO. At this point, it should have disappeared, but nothing of the sort happened.

First of all, a new enemy sprang into being – terrorism, which struck at various capitals of the Alliance, forcing the member states to support one another.

Of course, there is no common measure between the erstwhile Warsaw Pact and a band of bearded fanatics holed up in a cave in Afghanistan. Nonethless, all the member states of NATO pretend to believe – since they have no choice – that the only way to protect their populations is by signing the NATO communiqués, and holding firm to their obligatory unilateral discourse.

Despite an abundant historical literature, the Western powers have still not understood that NATO was originally created by their governing classes for use against them, and that today, it is being used by the United States against their elites. The case is a little different for the Baltic states and Poland, which entered into the Alliance only recently, and are still at the stage of elitist fear of the Communists.

The almost unlimited geographical zone of the Alliance

If NATO were a defensive alliance, it would limit itself to the defence of its member states, but instead of that, it has expanded its zone of geographical intervention. When we read the final communiqué from the Warsaw meeting, we can not avoid noting that NATO interferes in everything; from Korea – where the United States have still not signed a peace treaty with the Democratic Republic; to Africa – where the Pentagon still hopes to base AfriCom. The only part of the world which continues to escape NATO influence is Latin America, a zone which has long been reserved by Washington («the Monroe doctrine»). Everywhere else, the vassals of the Pentagon are invited to send their troops to defend the interests of their overlord.

The Alliance today is involved in all current wars. It was the Alliance that coordinated the fall of Libya, in 2011, after the commander of AfriCom, General Carter Ham, had protested against the use of Al-Qaïda to overthrow Mouamar el-Kadhafi. It was the Alliance, in 2012, that coordinated the war against Syria from the installation of the Allied Land Command at Izmir in Turkey.

Little by little, non-European states have been integrated into NATO, with different levels of participation. The latest members are Bahreïn, Israël, Jordan, Qatar and Kuwait, who each have an office at the Alliance headquarters since the 4 May.

What the Alliance is today

Each member state is required to arm itself in preparation for the next round of wars, and to dedicate 2% of its GDP to this preparation, even if, in reality, this is far from being an accurate figure. Since the weapons have to be compatible with NATO standards, members are invited to buy them from Washington.

Of course, there are still some national arms producers, but not for much longer. Over the last twenty years, NATO has systematically pressured for the destruction of the military and aeronautical industries of its member states, except for those of the United States. The Pentagon had announced the creation of a multirole combat aircraft at unbeatable prices, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. All states ordered them and closed down their own industries. Twenty years later, the Pentagon has still not managed to produce a single one of these ingenious planes, and is forced instead to present jerry-rigged F-22’s at the various arms fairs. Their clients are constantly solicited to help finance research, while Congress is studying the possibility for a reboot of the production of old planes, because in all probablilty, the F-35 will never see the light of day.

So NATO functions like a mafia racket – those who don’t pay will have to get used to terrorist attacks.

Now that the United States have backed their allies into a position of dependency on their military industry, they have ceased to update it. Meanwhile, however, Russia has rebuilt its own arms industry, and China is close behind. The Russian army has already out-produced the Pentagon in terms of conventional equipment. The system it deployed in Western Syria, the Black Sea and in Kaliningrad enabled it to scramble the communications networks of NATO, which had to abandon the surveillance of these regions. In terms of aeronautics, Russia has already produced multirole combat aircraft which, amongst their other functions, are capable of turning Alliance pilots green with envy. As for China, it will probably overtake NATO in terms of conventional weaponry within the next two years.

So the Allies are now witnessing the decline of the Alliance, and consequently their own decay, without reaction – with the exception of the United Kingdom.

The case of Daesh

After the hysteria of the 2000’s about al-Qaïda, a new enemy now threatens us — the Islamic Emirate in Iraq and the Levant — or «Daesh». All member states have been invited to join the «Global Coalition» (sic) and overthrow it. The Warsaw summit congratulated itself for its victories in Iraq and even in Syria, despite the «military intervention of Russia, and its important military presence and support for the régime» which represent a «source of risk and extra challenges for the security of the Allies» (sic) [1].

Since everyone knows that the Islamic Emirate was created in 2006 by the United States, we are now told that the organisation has today turned against them, just as we were told the same story about al-Qaïda. And yet, on the 8 July, while the Syrian Arab Army was fighting several terrorist groups, including Daesh, in the East of Homs, the US Air Force flew in to cover the terrorists for four hours. This time was used by Daesh to methodically destroy the pipeline linking Syria, Iraq and Iran. Or again, during the terrorist attacks of the 4 July in Saudi Arabia (especially the attack across the street from the US Consulate in Jeddah, Daesh used high-tech military explosives which only the Pentagon possesses. So it is not difficult to understand that while the Pentagon is fighting the Islamic Emirate in certain zones, it is simultaneously supplying them with weapons and logistical support in other zones.

The Ukranian example

The other bogeyman is Russia. Its «aggressive actions (…) including its provocative military activities on the periphery of NATO territory, and its avowed intention to attain its political objectives by threat or by the use of force, constitute a source of regional instability, and represent a fundamental challenge for the Alliance» (sic).

The Alliance blames Russia for having annexed Crimea, which is true, but denies the context of the annexation – the coup d’état organised by the CIA in Kiev, and the installation of a goverment of which several members are Nazis. In short, the members of NATO are allowed to do what they want, while Russia is charged with violating the agreements it concluded with the Alliance.

The Warsaw summit

The summit did not enable Washington to plug the leaks. The United Kingdom, which has just put an end to its «special relation» by leaving the European Union, has refused to increase its participation in the Alliance to compensate for its cancelled partnership in the EU. London is presently hiding behind its coming change of government in order to avoid questions.

At best, they have been able to make two decisions – to install permanent bases along the Russian frontier and to develop the anti-missile shield. Since the first decision is contrary to NATO’s engagements, it will probably proceed by installing troops on an alternate basis so that there will never be a permanent contingent, but soldiers will always be present. The second decision consists of using Allied territory to deploy US soldiers and a weapons system. In order to avoid annoying the populations they will be occupying, the United States have accepted to place the anti-missile shield not under their own command, but under that of NATO. However, this is a change which only exists on paper, because the Supreme Commander of the Alliance, currently General Curtis Scaparrotti, must be, by obligation a US officer named by the President of the United States alone.

“Some fell to the ground and their stomachs already expanded full, burst and organs fell out.

Others had skin falling off them and others still were carrying limbs. And one in particular was carrying their eyeballs in their hand.”

The above is an account by a Hiroshima survivor talking about the fate of her schoolmates.

It was recently read out in the British parliament by Scottish National Party MP Chris Law during a debate about Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

Hiroshima Street Scene August 1945

In response to a question from another Scottish National Party MP, George Kereven, British PM Theresa May said without hesitation that, if necessary, she would authorise the use of a nuclear weapon that would kill hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Previous PMs have been unwilling to give a direct answer to such a question.

.

But let’s be clear: a single modern nuclear weapon would most likely end up killing many millions, whether immediately or slowly, and is designed to be much more devastating than those dropped by the US on Japan.

On the other hand, opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has stated that he would not make a decision that would take the lives of millions. He said, “I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about international relations.”

It says much about the type of society we have when someone like Corbyn or Green Party MP Caroline Lucas is attacked by the mainstream and depicted as some kind of harebrained extremist who places ‘the nation’ in danger because they do not want Britain to renew its submarine-based Trident nuclear missile system (at the cost of at least £100 billion in ‘cash-strapped’ austerity Britain).

Chiming in with emotive gutter tactics, May suggested that those wishing to scrap Britain’s nuclear weapons are siding with the nation’s ‘enemies’.

Theresa May reading from the script

Politicians like May are reading from a script devised by the elite interests. Members of this elite comprise the extremely wealthy of the world who set the globalisation and war agendas at the G8, G20, NATO, the World Bank, and the WTO. They are from the highest levels of finance capital and transnational corporations. This transnational capitalist class, dictate global economic policies and decide on who lives and who dies and which wars are fought and inflicted on which people.

The mainstream narrative tends to depict these individuals as ‘wealth creators’. In reality, however, these ‘high flyers’ have stolen ordinary people’s wealth, stashed it away in tax havens, bankrupted economies and have imposed a form of globalisation that results in devastating destruction and war for those who attempt to remain independent from them, or structurally adjusted violence via privatisation and economic neo-liberalism for millions in countries that have acquiesced.

While ordinary folk across the world have been subjected to policies that have resulted in oppression, poverty and conflict, this is all passed off by politicians and the mainstream media as the way things must be.

The agritech sector poisons our food and agriculture. Madelaine Albright tries says it was worth it to have killed half a million kids in Iraq to secure energy resources for rich corporations and extend the wider geopolitical goals of ‘corporate America’. The welfare state is dismantled and austerity is imposed on millions. The rich increase their already enormous wealth. Powerful corporations corrupt government machinery and colonise every aspect of life for profit. Environmental destruction and ecological devastation continue apace.

And nuclear weapons hang over humanity like the sword of Damocles – not to protect the masses from the wicked bogeyman, but to protect the power and wealth of a US-led capitalist elite (that institutes all of the above) from competing elites in other countries or to bully, cajole and coerce with the aim of expanding influence.

The public is supposed to back this status quo. And ordinary young men (and women) are supposed to sign up to fight ‘their’ wars. In reality, to fight for what? Austerity, powerlessness, imperialism, propping up the US dollar and a moribund system. For whom? Monsanto, Occidental Petroleum, Soros, Murdoch, Rothschild, BP, JP Morgan, Boeing and the rest of the elite and their corporations whose policies are devised in think tanks and handed to politicians to sell to a largely ignorant public.

For those who are aware of the ruthlessness of imperialist intent and the death and destruction it brings, Theresa May’s comments may come as no surprise at all.

But what about the wider population? Those who swallow the lie about some ‘war on terror’ or Washington as the world’s policeman, protecting life and liberty. Those who believe the sanctimonious dross pumped into their heads by Hollywood, the BBC and other mainstream media about the US-led West being a civilising force for good in a barbaric world.

What civilised ‘values’ is May basing her threat of mass murder on when she talks about unleashing a nuclear weapon? The media and much of the public seem to shrug their shoulders and accept that nuclear weapons are essential and the mass murder of sections of humanity is perfectly acceptable in the face of some fabricated, whipped-up paranoia about ‘Russian aggression’ (or Chinese, Iranian or North Korean – take your pick).

Many believe nuclear weapons are a necessary evil and fall into line with hegemonic thinking about humanity being inherently conflictual, competitive and war-like. Such tendencies do of course exist, but they do not exist in a vacuum. They are fuelled by capitalism and imperialism and played upon by politicians, the media and elite interests who seek to scare the population into accepting a ‘necessary’ status quo.

Co-operation and equality are as much a part of any arbitrary aspect of ‘human nature’ as any other defined characteristic. These values are, however, sidelined by a system of capitalism that is inherently conflict-ridden and entangled in its own contradictions and which fuels wealth accumulation for the few, exploitation (of labour, peoples and the environment), war and a zero-sum class-based system of power.

Much of humanity has been convinced to accept the potential for instant nuclear Armageddon hanging over its collective head as a given, as a ‘deterrent’. However, the reality is that these weapons exist to protect elite, imperialist interests or to pressure others to cave in to their demands. If the 20^th century has shown us anything, it is these interests are adept at gathering the masses under notions of the flag, ‘the bomb’ and king/god/goodness (or whatever) and country to justify their slaughter.

Theresa May is on cue with her finger-pointing ‘enemy of the state’ rhetoric concerning opposition to nuclear weaponry.

Now and then, though, the reality of a nuclear armed world comes to the fore, as May’s response demonstrates. But to prevent us all shuddering with the fear of the threat of instant nuclear destruction on a daily basis, it’s a case of don’t worry, be happy, forget about it and watch TV. It was the late academic Rick Roderick who highlighted that modern society trivialises issues that are of ultimate importance: they eventually become banal or ‘matter of fact’ to the population.

People are spun the notion that nuclear-backed militarism and neoliberalism and its structural violence are necessary for securing peace, defeating terror, creating prosperity or promoting ‘growth’. The ultimate banality is to accept this pack of lies and to believe there is no alternative, to acquiesce or just switch off to it all.

There is an alternative

Instead of acquiescing and accepting it as ‘normal’ when someone like May advocates mass murder in the name of peace or she and others accuse those who refuse to comply as being a danger to the nation, it is time to move beyond rhetoric and for ordinary people to take responsibility and act.

Writing on the Countercurrents website, Robert J Burrowes says this about responsibility:

“Many people evade responsibility, of course, simply by believing and acting as if someone else, perhaps even ‘the government’, is ‘properly’ responsible. Undoubtedly, however, the most widespread ways of evading responsibility are to deny any responsibility for military violence while paying the taxes to finance it, denying any responsibility for adverse environmental and climate impacts while making no effort to reduce consumption, denying any responsibility for the exploitation of other people while buying the cheap products produced by their exploited (and sometimes slave) labour, denying any responsibility for the exploitation of animals despite eating and/or otherwise consuming a range of animal products, and denying any part in inflicting violence, especially on children, without understanding the many forms this violence can take.”

Burrowes concludes by saying that ultimately, we evade responsibility by ignoring the existence of a problem.

The ‘problem’ humanity faces goes beyond the threat of nuclear war.

The ‘problem’ encompasses not only ongoing militarism, but the structural violence of neoliberal capitalism, aided and abetted by the World Bank, IMF, WTO and trade deals such as NAFTA or the proposed TTIP. It’s a type of violence that is steady, lingering and a daily fact of life under globalised capitalism.

Of course, not everything can or should be laid at the door of capitalism. Human suffering, misery and conflict have been a feature throughout history and have taken place under various economic and political systems. Indeed, in his various articles, Burrowes goes deep into the psychology and causes of violence.

Burrowes is correct to argue that we should take responsibility and act because there is potentially a different path for humanity. In 1990, the late British MP Tony Benn gave a speech in parliament that indicated the kind of values that such a route might look like.

Benn spoke about having been on a crowded train, where people had been tapping away on calculators and not interacting or making eye contact with one another. It represented what Britain had become under Thatcherism: excessively individualistic, materialistic, narcissistic and atomised.

The train broke down. As time went by, people began to talk with one another, offer snacks and share stories. Benn said it wasn’t too long before that train had been turned into a socialist train of self-help, communality and comradeship. Despite the damaging policies and ideology of Thatcherism, these features had survived her tenure, were deeply embedded and never too far from the surface.

For Tony Benn, what had been witnessed aboard that train was an aspect of ‘human nature’ that is too often suppressed, devalued and, when used as a basis for political change, regarded as a threat to ruling interests. It is an aspect that draws on notions of unity, solidarity, common purpose, self-help and finds its ultimate expression in the vibrancy of community, the collective ownership of productive resources and co-operation. The type of values far removed from the destructive, divisive ones of imperialism and capitalism, which May and her backers protect and promote.

Legal action is to commence against Tony Blair after a crowdfunding campaign reached its objective.

The Iraq War Families Campaign Group, which represents the families of the 179 servicemen and women killed in the conflict, is to commence legal action against the former Prime Minister after reaching its £50,000 target on Crowd Justice.

Led by Roger Bacon and Reg Keys, who sons were killed in the War, the Iraq-War Families Campaign Group (IFCG) has campaigned tirelessly to find answers to what went wrong – both politically and operationally – and who was responsible.

The publication on July 6th of the Iraq Inquiry report was a key moment in their search for the truth – as Sir John Chilcot confirmed that there had been catalogue of mistakes and wrongdoing. However, the Inquiry was not a court of law. Justice is still to be done.

Reg Keys, whose son died in Iraq, said: “The public support the Families have received over the years has been unstinting. With the Report’s publication, we now have the evidence that may mean individuals could now face trial. We hope and trust the British people will take this unique opportunity to help us determine what legal actions can be taken and support the campaign to get justice for our loved ones and our country.”

There are also plans of a cross-party group of MPs putting a resolution to Parliament holding Tony Blair in contempt of Parliament for his conduct in the run-up to the Iraq War.

Israel has recently, officially, committed to supporting the NATO backed Saudi Coalition war of aggression against Yemen. Importantly, Israel is imposing the condition that it has use of the Taiz air-base in the Red Sea.

“According to reports, the Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, general Gadi Eizenkot said on the meeting between Jordan’s ambassador and his Saudi confrere, Khalid bin Faisal bin Turki, that was held in Amman, the capital of Jordan. The general added that the situation in Yemen was discussed at this meeting. Saudi ambassador said that the war of attrition in Yemen has changed the strategy of the kingdom that is ready to use the experience of Israel now.

Israeli ambassador answered that Tel Aviv is ready for military cooperation with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. But he also noted this cooperation depends on the provision to Israel of the air base Taiz on the Red Sea.” ~ SouthFront

IDF Man Killed Working for Saudi Military

The following is a report from Hassan Al-Haifi, an academic and political analyst living in Sana’a, Yemen’s capital city.  He writes for Yemen Breaking News:

“A Yemeni military source said that a Toschka Ballistic Missile fired by the Army and Public Committees Rockets Forces into the Operations Room of a Military Camp of the Saudi-led Coalition and their local mercenaries killed several foreign and local officers and troops.  Among the dead foreigners is an Israeli Colonel named Vegedora Yagronovesky, a Data Analyst with the Israeli Army. The military camp is called Al-Hajf South of Ta’ez Governorate.

Yemeni forces shot down a drone spy plane said to be supplied by Israel on July 10, 2016 North of Sana’a in Arhab District.

Image: Facebook

The Saudis and Israelis have entered into negotiations about the latter providing assistance to the “Saudi-led Coalition” to defeat the Army and Popular Committees in Yemen who have remained undefeatable against all the invading forces  including official armed forces of Saudi; United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, Sudan as well as US and British advisors, US and Egyptian naval vessels, in addition to private mercenary armies like Blackwater and Dyna and local tribal mercenaries and Islahi militias.

Reports of these talks have appeared in Haaretz Israeli newspaper and at South Front.

The Toschka Missile has dealt a deathly blow to the hodgepodge forces of the Saudi led cheaply bought alliance on a number of occasions once, in Ta’ez and another in Marib, both of which killed scores of UAE and Blackwater troops, including senior officers of both.

Blackwater has since left Yemen and UAE troops have also left Mareeb and Bab Al-Mandeb area.

The grubby underside of US electoral politics is on show once again as the Democratic and Republican candidates prepare to fight it out for the presidency. And it doesn’t get seamier than the battle to prove how loyal each candidate is to Israel.

New depths are likely to be plumbed this week at the Republican convention in Cleveland, as Donald Trump is crowned the party’s nominee. His platform breaks with decades of United States policy to effectively deny the Palestinians any hope of statehood.

The question now is whether the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, who positions herself as Israel’s greatest ally, will try to outbid Mr Trump in cravenly submitting to the Israeli right.

It all started so differently. Through much of the primary season, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government had reason to be worried about Israel’s “special relationship” with the next occupant of the White House.

Early on, Mr Trump promised to be “neutral” and expressed doubts about whether it made sense to hand Israel billions of dollars annually in military aid. He backed a two-state solution and refused to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

On the Democrat side, Mrs Clinton was challenged by outsider Bernie Sanders, who urged “even-handedness” towards Israel and the Palestinians. He also objected to the huge sums of aid the US bestows on Israel.

Mr Sanders exploited his massive support among Democrats to force Mrs Clinton to include well-known supporters of Palestinian rights on the committee that drafts the party’s platform.

But any hopes of an imminent change in US policy in the Middle East have been dashed.

Last week, as the draft Republic platform was leaked, Mr Trump proudly tweeted that it was the “most pro-Israel of all time!” Avoiding any mention of a two-state solution, it states: “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier. … Support for Israel is an expression of Americanism.”

The capitulation was so complete that even the Anti-Defamation League, a New York-based apologist group for Israel, called the platform “disappointing” and urged the Republican convention to “reconsider”. After all, even Mr Netanyahu pays lip service to the need for a Palestinian state.

But Mr Trump is not signalling caution. His two new advisers on Israel, David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, are fervent supporters of the settlements and annexation of Palestinian territory.

Mr Trump’s running mate, announced at the weekend, is Indiana governor Mike Pence, an evangelical Christian and a stalwart of pro-Israel causes.

So why the dramatic turnaround?

Candidates for high office in the US need money – lots of it. Until now Mr Trump has been chiefly relying on his own wealth. He has raised less than $70 million, a fifth of Mrs Clinton’s war-chest.

The Republican party’s most significant donor is Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate and close friend of Mr Netanyahu. He has hinted that he will contribute more than $100 million to the Trump campaign if he likes what he sees.

Should Mr Netanyahu offer implicit endorsement, as he did for Mitt Romney in the 2012 race, Christian Zionist preachers such as John Hagee will rally ten of millions of followers to Mr Trump’s side too – and fill his coffers.

Similar indications that money is influencing policy are evident in the Democratic party.

Mr Sanders funded his campaign through small donations, giving him the freedom to follow his conscience. Mrs Clinton, by contrast, has relied on mega-donors, including some, such as Haim Saban, who regard Israel as a key election issue.

That may explain why, despite the many concessions made to Mr Sanders on the Democratic platform, Mrs Clinton’s team refused to budge on Israel issues. As a result, the draft platform fails to call for an end to the occupation or even mention the settlements.

According to The New York Times, Mrs Clinton’s advisers are vetting James Stavridis as a potential running mate. A former Nato commander, he is close to the Israeli defence establishment and known for his hawkish pro-Israel positions.

Mrs Clinton, meanwhile, has promised to use all her might to fight the growing boycott movement, which seeks to isolate Israel over its decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory.

The two candidates’ fierce commitment to Israel appears to fly in the face of wider public sentiment, especially among Democrats.

A recent Pew poll found 57 per cent of young, more liberal Democrats sympathised with the Palestinians rather than Israel. Support for hawkish Israeli positions is weakening among American Jews too, a key Democratic constituency. About 61 per cent believe Israel can live peacefully next to an independent Palestinian state.

The toxic influence of money in the US presidential elections can be felt in many areas of policy, both domestic and foreign.

But the divorce between the candidates’ fervour on Israel and the growing doubts of many of their supporters is particularly stark.

It should be dawning on US politicians that a real debate about the nation’s relationship with Israel cannot be deferred much longer.

Yakov Rabkin is the author of the recently published What is Modern Israel? In this essay, he takes on the question that’s affected, most recently, the Labour Party in Britain. Prof Rabkin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. In this article (courtesy of Pluto blog, he develops the history and contemporary resonance of that ever-controversial subject, Zionism.

In the last few decades, there has been an important shift in the way Western media and political circles relate to Zionism and Israel. What is Zionism? In the version that ultimately prevailed, it represents a nationalist movement with four essential goals: 1) to transform the transnational confessional Jewish identity centered on the Torah into a secular national identity similar to that of European nations; 2) to equip the new nation with a new vernacular language, based lexically on Biblical and rabbinical Hebrew, and syntactically on Yiddish and Russian – the first Zionist settlers grew up with; 3) to move Jews from their countries of origin to Palestine; and 4) to establish political and economic control over the new homeland. At the turn of the 20th century, other nationalisms had only to ensure political and economic control of their respective countries, while Zionism was much more ambitious and revolutionary.

Zionism stands today as the last vestige of the 20th century movements committed to radical social transformation. Ben-Gurion was an admirer of Lenin; one can better understand the daring character of the Zionist project through his admiration of the Bolshevik overhaul of Russia: ‘the great revolution, the primordial revolution, which has been called upon to uproot present reality, shaking its foundations to the very depths of this rotten and decadent society.’ Most founding fathers of Zionism had just as negative, and arguably anti-Semitic views of the Jews they proposed to regenerate and rehabilitate.

As historians of Zionism have pointed out, the founders of Zionism emerged from among the Jews who had long cast away Judaism. As the veteran Israeli scholar Shlomo Avineri, author of a major intellectual history of Zionism, prominent political scientist and former director general of his country’s foreign ministry writes:

They did not come from the traditional religious background. They were all products of European education, imbued with the current ideas of the European intelligentsia. Their plight was not economic nor religious. […] They were seeking self-determination, identity, liberation within the terms of the post-1789 European culture and their own newly awakened self-consciousness.

Avineri acknowledges that it would be ‘banal, conformist and apologetic’ to link Zionism to the Jewish tradition’s ‘close ties with the Land of Israel.’ One must instead view Zionism as a transformation of Jewish consciousness, rather than the triumphal conclusion of centuries of religious yearning for the Messiah who would take Jews to the Holy Land. The transformation was all the more radical in that it took place at what can be considered the most surprising of historical junctures. Avineri writes:

From any conceivable point of view, the nineteenth century was the best century Jews had ever experienced, collectively and individually, since the destruction of the Temple. With the French Revolution and emancipation, Jews were allowed for the first time into European society on an equal footing. For the first time Jews enjoyed equality before the law; and schools, universities, and the professions were gradually open to them.

Yet, in the late 19th century, assimilated Jews of Central Europe suffered from repeated outbreaks of social anti-Semitism, experiencing a rejection of their desire to merge into the dominant culture, even when they, and often their parents, no longer obeyed the commandments of the Torah and were unacquainted with Jewish tradition. Following the path of secularization that was sweeping across Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, yet experiencing a lack of acceptance from their surrounding communities, was a source of frustration for many assimilated Jews.

Zionism thus provided its first promoters with the hope of rejecting individual assimilation in favor of a broader vision of collective assimilation;  a ‘normalization’ of the Jews. Some of them even opted for conversion to Christianity, either on an individual basis, or as Theodore Herzl, the founder of political Zionism proposed in 1893, collectively.

No wonder, the majority of Jews found Zionism innovative, bold and, for quite a few, unacceptable. For those Jews who practice Judaism and identify with Jewish tradition, Zionism raises basic existential questions. How could one interpret the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel before messianic times? Would their return obliterate the unique nature of Jewish history and its metaphysical dimension? Finally, what were the Zionists’ ultimate goals? Was their rebellion directed solely at creating a new homeland, or did the Zionists intend to eradicate Judaism, root and branch, that is to say, to uproot the entire religious tradition?

These questions remain relevant today. As late as 2014, the Israeli edition of my previous book dealing with Jewish opposition to Zionism was subtitled ‘A History of Continuing Struggle.’ Zionism, as the State of Israel embodies it, raises the issue of the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism and of a specifically Jewish political or military activism.

Zionism remains at root a response to the challenges of liberalism rather than a reaction to ambient anti-Semitism, genuine as it was. In fact, liberalism continues to attract Jews. Despite a rich variety of programs designed to promote immigration of Jews to Israel, far more Israelis take up residence in the world’s liberal democracies than citizens of those countries immigrate to Israel. Migration statistics could not be clearer. Most indicators point that Jews have a clear preference towards liberal democracies over the State of Israel, despite the fact that it is often identified as the ‘Jewish State.’ Thus, Zionist leaders and Israeli political figures believe and stress the impossibility for the Jew to live fully as a Jew anywhere else than in an ethnocracy called the State of Israel.

The pretention of Herzl, to represent the Jews of the world irritated both the rabbinical authorities and rank-and-file Jews in the late 1890s. The pretention of the State of Israel to represent the Jews of the world continues to irritate them. The conflation of Jews with Israel, and of Judaism with Zionism, is not only intellectually incorrect, but it is politically incorrect, undermining liberal democracy by treating Jewish citizens as though they belong to a different body politic and a different country. In fact, this conflation brings to mind the old anti-Semitic refrain that Jews do not belong in the countries they are born in and inhabit. Moreover, it is this conflation that is at the root of global violence against Jews, as if in retaliation for Israel’s misdeeds. That such conflation may fuel anti-Semitism hardly seems to concern convinced Zionists: an increase in anti-Semitism would only validate Zionism and encourage still more Jews to immigrate to Israel. It is truly a win-win situation.

Yet, paradoxically, it is criticism of Israel and its policies that is now delegitimized as anti-Semitic. This manner of deflecting blame for Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians has long been the goal of Israel advocates, ever since the illustrious advocate of Israel in the international arena, Abba Eban, articulated it in the 1960s. This goal took several decades to reach, but nowadays legislatures in Europe and North America condemn and occasionally outlaw peaceful boycott of Israel (BDS) as anti-Semitic. In doing so they explicitly link Jews of their countries to Israel and its actions. This constitutes a serious danger, not only for the Jews, but also for basic freedoms underpinning the liberal principles of Western democracies.

Thus the State of Israel not only enforces an ethnically exclusive regime within its borders, but it also undermines liberal values around the world. Israel has succeeded in making the Zionist outlook—by definition anti-liberal—acceptable to the general public, as well as in the media and parts of the academic world, even in countries with a long liberal tradition where the state, rather than confessional or ‘tribal’ solidarity, theoretically ensures the rights of the citizen.

Israel is a country without borders in more ways than one. Its ideology ignores borders, affirming the existence of a state of the world’s Jews, while expressions such as ‘Jewish State’ or ‘Hebrew State,’ rather than Zionist state, are now widely used in the media. At the same time there occurs an increasingly overt transformation of Jewish organizations around the world into Israel’s vassals. In several countries, courses of Jewish advocacy have been imposed on students of Jewish schools, and Jewish youth are offered free trips to Israel, during which they are subjected to professional Zionist education.

Moreover, ever since its inception, the Zionist movement and later successive Israeli governments have taken great pains to avoid defining the borders they envisage for their state. In the meantime, the IDF pays borders no heed when striking targets in neighboring countries. Israel has thus placed itself above the constraints of International Law and, a fortiori, beyond the moral limitations of the Jewish tradition that the founders of the State expressly—and scornfully—rejected. Israeli leaders also ignore borders by intervening in the political process of other countries, namely in the United States where Israel often plays Congress against the White House. Israel, for all its trappings of modernity, remains bound by the Zionist ideology, which ensures that in spite of its respectable age, it remains a daring frontier experience rife with conflict. It is no wonder that Israel provokes criticism, which should not be dismissed as either anti-Semitic or a manifestation of the so-called ‘Jewish self-hatred.’ True, there are anti-Semites among critics of Israel, just as there are among cyclists or bankers. Rather, it is Zionism that bears resemblance to anti-Semitism, considering it eternal and accepting its basic postulate that Jewish citizens of other nations are flawed and incomplete, alien in their countries, and ultimately belonging to ‘the Jewish state.’

Yakov M. Rabkin is the author of What is Modern Israel? He is Professor of History at the University of Montréal, Canada. He has published and edited five books and more than three hundred articles. His is also the author of A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (Zed Books, 2006).

The upcoming elections are unique in US political life. One of the candidates is, for the first time, a woman. The other candidate had never stood for election for any public post, and has defeated his party’s professional politicians. Both potential presidents are noted for their scandalous reputations. This state of affairs is a symptom of the US electoral system, the bias of official institutions, and the population’s willingness to risk radical solutions. The voters, however, are in a difficult situation since they will have to make a choice between two very bad candidates.

Party conventions will soon nominate both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Trump already nominated). What baggage are Trump and Clinton carrying following the primaries? Trump had an impressive run, receiving 1542 delegates out of 2472, with 1237 required for nomination. Ted Cruz, who came second (with 559 delegates) dropped out of the race in May.

During the Democratic Party convention, 4765 delegates will cast their votes. Clinton needs more than half, or at least 2383 votes. 2220 are already guaranteed, plus 592 superdelegates who are not obligated to vote for her but it is highly unlikely they would vote for anyone else. At this point, we can be certain she will be the nominee.

According to opinion surveys, Clinton is ahead of Trump by 5-10%. In one poll, 47% favored Clinton, while 40% favored Trump. In addition, 5% plan to vote for someone else, 6% are undecided, and 2% don’t intend to vote or refused to answer. Therefore, even a small change can launch Trump into the lead.

However, he would first need to overcome intra-party divisions, which he will most likely succeed in doing. Naturally, one can expect all manner of surprises from the upcoming convention, but the party elite will hardly be able to implement its treacherous plan to overthrow the billionaire in the name of “anyone but Trump.” Thus far, no plot against Trump has succeeded. He has literally out-Trumped them.

It is evident there exists a sizable GOP faction opposed to the New York magnate. They want the rules committee to allow the delegates to vote “their conscience”, rather than in accordance with the will of their states’ voters. This scenario is not very plausible. The GOP lacks an alternative to Trump—had one existed, it would have been presented to voters already. Secondly, nominating someone else would inevitably lead to GOP defeat because people who voted for Trump during primaries will simply stay home in November. Thirdly, any discussion of removing Trump would further weaken the declining GOP bloc by showing the absence of political unity on the eve of an election.

It would appear, however, that Trump has made an important step toward reconciliation with the GOP establishment. After the primaries, he replaced his campaign manager, 42-year-old Corey Lewandowski, with the scandal-prone Paul Manafort who, back in the day, was an advisor not only to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, but also such luminaries as Somali dictator Siyad Barre, Zair’s president-for-life Mobutu Sese Seko and Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort has spent his whole life working for GOP candidates, has good ties within the party, and is appreciated and valued there. Trump probably wants to use Manafort’s abilities in order to prevent a split right before the convention, and wants to establish mutually beneficial cooperation.

Showing flexibility and willingness to negotiate helped Trump win over the “undecideds”, given Clinton’s continuing scandals. It’s obvious that, in spite of her guaranteed nomination, her position is fragile. She struggled during the primaries, winning 29 states against 21 won by Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. Her modest opponent offered tough competition and mobilized millions of disaffected voters using his fiery liberal rhetoric, not allowing his heiress competitor to try on the crown before the final vote was counted. Clinton had to change her position on a number of issues after Sanders’ criticism of US inequality resonated with millions of voters.

Her constant scandals are also destabilizing the ranks of her potential supporters. The entire executive branch and corporate media establishment is being employed to keep her afloat. Any other candidate who suffered such irretrievable damage to her reputation following scandals associated with Middle Eastern Monarchies financing the various Clinton Foundations (while Hillary was the Secretary of State), the case of the sale of Uranium One from which Hillary, apparently, received a “commission,” plus her mishandling of classified information on a large scale. However, since the current administration is backing Hillary to the hilt, she still remains the nominee. The Justice Department recently ended the probe into her emails and her private email servers. Obama already endorsed Hillary’s candidacy, though he was expected to do so later in the race.

Many Americans were outraged that Clinton came to the campaign rally where the endorsement was made on Obama’s presidential plane, which is a violation of campaign laws in any law-abiding country. In Europe, a candidate would simply have to resign the candidacy and then leave political life for a long period of time. But in the current political situation in the US, the “right” candidate can get away with almost anything thanks to an intentional lack of media and government oversight, which is provoking protest activity among average citizens.

In reality, both Trump and Clinton are being promoted by current political and financial elites who have steered the country into, if not a crisis, then definitely a pre-crisis situation. They have provoked the worsening of the international situation, the growth of crime and terrorism inside the US, the growth of unemployment and the worsening of citizen’s welfare. That is the primary reason the “socialist” Sanders won in 21 states and also why many Sanders supporters are now flocking to Green Party candidate Jill Stein now that Sanders has thrown in his lot with Clinton.

On the other hand, many believe that Trump spent his entire business career fighting against big banks—this is, after all, what a real estate developer does. Clinton, on the other hand, has been their favored candidate for well over a decade, dating to her term in the US Senate, where she represented New York—the biggest US financial hub. Likewise most of Trump’s primary opponents came from the globalist faction of the GOP, with many of them currently openly advertising their willingness to shift loyalties and to align themselves with Clinton. By the same token, many Sanders voters, who are predominantly anti-globalist, will almost certainly vote for Trump in November. So the battle lines are drawn: globalism versus economic nationalism, and Trump’s potential electorate resembles that of the Brexit Leave voting population. Especially amid the fact, that Sanders is now supporting Clinton despite the all previous rhetoric.

One should also not prejudge the US elite preferences. After all, in spite of all the predictions to the contrary, Brexit appears to be on track which suggests that a sizable chunk of the British financial elite prefers a return to economic independence. Clinton offers the continuation of policies that have been in place since the early 1990s: economic expansion through market penetration and dominance, until every country on the planet is inextricably woven into the web of US-based corporations, by force if necessary. But that approach is beginning to fail economically. While these policies still have widespread support, the fact that Brexit is taking place and Trump is about to become the GOP nominee indicate the elites are entertaining a major change in policies that would end the post-Cold War “New World Order” and lead to the return of economic nationalism. In other words, Clinton is supported by the military industrial complex, oil and gas companies, the Wall Street and the world’s virtual space cartel. Trump is representative of the national industrial corporations aimed on the home consumption and export of civil industrial production.

The majority of voters disapprove of both candidates. Recent ABC News and Washington Post polls showed that 60% of US citizens disapprove of Trump, while 53% disapprove of Clinton.

It is an unprecedented result since 1984, when such polls started to be taken. It would seem US voters will go to vote not for, but against a candidate this time around. At the same time, 44% of Americans say they would vote for a third party candidate. Clinton continues to lead in a one-on-one match-up against Trump, but the gap has closed in spite of all her campaign advantages. One can expect a heated campaign, bold slogans, and fiery speeches, which are all part of the US election show. But, in spite of the two candidates’ unattractiveness and the inconsistent US electoral system, Trump is likely than Clinton to deliver the changes the voters want. But will he be able to satisfy the hopes of his voters once he becomes president? Will the US elites allow him to do that?

The 6^th Fundamental Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion) seems to be forgotten long ago.  In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes.  But in the twentieth century the Olympics have become a political weapon.  Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request of that country’s legitimate government (in contrast, the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were held as usual, to the applause of the “civilized” world).

On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a broadcast about doping in Russia.  The interviews featured recorded conversations between a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov.  That program was just the fourth installment in a lengthy series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.

A few days later the New York Times published an interview with Rodchenkov.  There that former official claims that a state-supported doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost directly from the Russian president.

One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around the “testimonies” of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.

Yulia Stepanova née Rusanova

A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal. This young athlete’s personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics Indoor Championship in 2011.  At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth.  Stepanova’s career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation’s Anti-Doping Commission disqualified her for two years based on “blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological Passport.” Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping.  All of Stepanova’s results since 2011 have been invalidated.

In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won running in professional races in 2011-2012.  Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted as the primary informant for ARD journalist Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports.  After the release of ARD’s first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband and son.  In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada.  Even after her suspension ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time) to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange for concealing those test results.

Vitaly Stepanov

Yulia Stepanova’s husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA.  He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia.  In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer.  Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary.  Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.  In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova’s blood tests went positive starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA.

With a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until Yulia was disqualified.  Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering to tell them the “truth about Russian sports.”  In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance.

Gregory Rodchenkov

And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov.  According to Vitaly Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces, and had also come up with the idea of “doped Chivas mouth swishing” (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions.  This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does.  He graduated from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping lab as early as 1985.  He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and in 2005 he became the director of Russia’s national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow.  In 2013 Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov’s sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling anabolic steroids to athletes.  Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation into charges that he supplied banned drugs.  Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and “subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination.”  A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from “schizotypal personality disorder,” exacerbated by stress.  As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped.  But the most surprising thing was that someone with a “schizotypal personality disorder” and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia’s only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory.  In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics.  Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and the Stepanovs.  In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes.  He personally denied all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet another made-to-order documentary about doping in Russia.

Prof. Richard H. McLaren

As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a report  from an “Independent Person,” the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing drugs.  McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after the NYT published interview with Rodchenkov.  The goal was clear: to concoct a “scientific report” by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics.  At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself acknowledged that with a timeline of only 57 days he was unable “to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to conceal positive doping tests.”  WADA’s logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship.  No matter what duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an “independent person,” period.  However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person – Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a “credible and truthful” source.  Of course that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a “valuable witness” and “prisoner of conscience” who is being persecuted by the “totalitarian regime” in Russia.

The advantage enjoyed by this “independent commission” – on the basis of whose report the IOC is deciding the fate of Russia’s Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused.  Nor is the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.

It appears from Professor McLaren’s statement that no charges will be brought against any specific Russian athletes.  Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the Olympics.  There are obvious reasons for this selectivity.  A law professor and longstanding member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in “legally significant acts” (such as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence.  All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant’s advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution.

As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well.  Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.

During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken from Russian athletes, exchanging them for “clean” urine samples.  This agent is said to have possessed a plumbing contractor’s security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory.  In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a “mouse hole” in the wall (!).  Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing  “credible evidence” – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes’ clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples.  If the specific gravity of the clean urine did not match the original profile, it was “adapted” using table salt or distilled water.  But of course the DNA was incompatible.  And all of this was going on in the only official, WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!

How would something like that sound in any court?  We have witnesses, but the defense team cannot subject them to cross-examination.  We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but we believe it.  We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal who has already confessed to his crime.  We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct.  We cannot accuse the athletes, so we will accuse and punish the state!

To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians.  That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system of sports as a whole.  Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue, but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like Russia?  Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the multi-volume history of doping scandals in every single country in the world?  And in view of these facts that have come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support and cover up athletic doping all over the world?

In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee’s statement in response to the WADA report:

“The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties.  The Russian Olympic Committee has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping.  It is ready to provide its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.

We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren’s view that the possible banning of hundreds of clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable ‘unpleasant consequence’ of the charges contained in his report.

The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov.  This is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity of the entire international Olympic movement.

Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitabile punishment.

The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.

At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always protect the rights of clean athletes.  Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain individuals.  For us this is a matter of principle.”

As the United States and the Western world continue to harp on the unproven allegations of Assad’s alleged “crimes against humanity” and claims that have never had one shred of evidence behind them in regards to his supposed “killing his own people,” the U.S.-backed “moderate” rebels are beheading children in front of the video camera for all to see.

Always known for their brutality and inhumanity to innocent men, women, and children, America’s “rebels” have now sunk to a new low with the beheading of a child (under the age of 12) they had accused of fighting alongside the Liwaa al-Quds (Quds Brigade), a Palestinian militia fighting alongside the Syrian government.

The video, which was recorded by the terrorists of Nour al-Din al-Zinki, an American-backed “rebel” group, shows the child in ragged clothes sitting in the back of a pickup truck surrounded by five bearded terrorists. The child is then laid on his stomach and his hands tied behind his back. After a short intro speech by the executioner, the child’s head is then lifted up and the executioner begins sawing with a small and, apparently, dull knife through the child’s neck. After a few muffled attempts at screaming, the knife having severed the vocal chords early enough to prevent most of that, the executioner holds the child’s head above his own and utters the familiar cry of “Allahu Akbar!” At this point, his chanting friends, more akin to a pack of crazed apes more than anything resembling human, begin repeating the chant and holding their hands in the air, celebrating their kill.

In the video, it should be noted that the terrorist says “We will leave no one in Handarat,” an open admission of the intent and purpose of committing an act of genocide.

The Jerusalem Brigade (al-Quds Brigade) released a statement saying that the boy was not a fighter with the brigade and identified him as Abdullah Issa.

“He lived in al-Mashhad [Aleppo] with his family, among multiple poor families that live in the area under the control of terrorists,” said al-Quds, adding that the boy was ill. “By taking one glance at the child – the argument that he was a fighter is immediately disapproved.”

Meanwhile, the United States continues its funding to the so-called “rebels” amid yet another horrific atrocity while claiming moral high ground over Assad despite the fact that the U.S. has yet to produce a shred of evidence to show that he or his forces have ever committed attacks, much less atrocities, on civilians.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner responded to the reports saying, “If we can prove that this was indeed what happened and this group was involved in it, I think it would certainly give us pause.” Of course, there is video evidence of the crime if Toner is interested. In addition, for most people, although admittedly not for the U.S. government, the beheading of a child is reason enough to do more than simply pause. Nevertheless, we expect the United States to continue supporting their terrorist proxies to the fullest extent possible until their goal of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad is accomplished or until the plan is stopped by other actors.

America’s terrorists in Syria have long been known for killing children. In addition to murdering them in the general indiscriminate attacks and regular acts of genocide, these so-called rebels have been implicated in the hanging of small children as well as the execution of teens for making simple comments construed as being “insulting to the prophet.”

Brandon Turbeville is a writer out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of seven books, The Road To Damascus- The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, Codex Alimentarius- The End of Health Freedom, Seven Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions, The Difference It Makes: 36 Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Dispatches From A Dissident Vol. 1 and 2. He is a staff writer for Activist Post and has published over 800 hundred articles dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, war, government corruption, and civil liberties. He has been a guest on numerous alternative media broadcasts as well as mainstream outlets. Turbeville is also an occasional contributor to other media outlets such as Natural Blaze, The Anti Media, and Progressive Gazette, Era Of Wisdom, and Off Rail Alliance. His books can be found in the bookstore at BrandonTurbeville.com, www.FalseFlagPublications.blogspot.com, TheBookPatch.com, and Amazon.com.

Turbeville is also a the host of Truth on the Tracks, a weekly news round up that serves as a hub for activists, information, and solutions. Truth on the Tracks airs every Monday and Friday night at 9pm EST on UCY.TV/TT.

As readers may know, I generally do not delve into the ideas of false flags and whatnot. It isn’t that I don’t think that false flags don’t exist, it’s just that it isn’t what I do my research in. However, the information surrounding the coup attempt gets more and more interesting and perplexing, certain events and occurrences don’t make sense.

1. According to Reuters, pro-coup planes had Erdogan’s presidential plane in their sights, but didn’t shoot him down. Specifically Reuters reported that “At the height of the attempt to overthrow Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, the rebel pilots of two F-16 fighter jets had Erdogan’s plane in their sights. And yet he was able to fly on” and quoted a Turkish military official as saying “At least two F-16s harassed Erdogan’s plane while it was in the air and en route to Istanbul. They locked their radars on his plane and on two other F-16s protecting him.”[1]

Why would you have the president in your sights, are locked on to him, and not shoot? If this is a serious coup attempt, one of the first things that is done is the capture or killing of a leader.

2. It was reported on July 17, 2016 that due to the attempted coup, a little over 2,700 judges were dismissed “along with several members of the council itself.”[2] That’s a large amount of judges and it seems rather strange to have the coup first be reported on July 16, 2016[3] and literally the day after suddenly have over 2,000 judges that you want dismissed.

This is further backed up by EU commissioner Johannes Hahn, who is dealing with Turkey’s EU membership bid. He has said that the swift rounding up of judges and others indicates that the lists were made beforehand.[4]

3. The coup plotters had no media presence and did a horrible job of shutting down communications and promoting their own agenda via television and the internet. That’s a special kind of incompetence.

4. This is not the first time a coup has been attempted against Erodgan. There was an alleged attempt back in 2010[5] which Erdogan responded to by pushing constitutional changes, some of which involved the military. Specifically, Articles 145, 156, and 157 made it so that “Crimes against state security and the constitutional order allegedly committed by military personnel would not be tried in military courts but in civilian courts.” This actually worked to Erdogan’s advantage as Articles 146, 147, 148, 149 made changes to the Constitutional Courts so that “Parliament, the president and the Higher Education Council would nominate judges to the court” and “Top generals will be tried for offences related to their duties by the Constitutional Court.”[6]

So, due to Erdogan and his Justice and Development (AKP) Party controlling Parliament at that time (and currently have majority rule today due to winning elections in 2015[7]), the judges on the Constitutional Courts would be hand-picked by the President and his party allies and thus could very well hand out rulings that would harshly punish any those military officials who plotted a coup or engaged in a coup attempt.

Now, the President has tried to push the blame onto Fethullah Gulen, who is in a self-imposed exile, having left Turkey for the US in 1990 during increased legal action against Islamists. Gulen heads the Hizmet movement, “a moderate, pro-Western brand of Sunni Islam that appeals to many well-educated and professional Turks”[8] and has established a number of NGOs that are credited with helping to address a number of Turkey’s social problems.

In the recent past, there been strife in Turkey between the Gulenists and Erdogan supporters within the state bureaucracy. In late 2013, “law-enforcement and judicial officials thought to be loyal to Mr. Gulen went on an anti-corruption drive against people close to Mr. Erdogan, targeting one of his sons as well as several ministers,” but the very next year, Erdogan struck back hard, “purging thousands of police officials, prosecutors and judges suspected to be linked to Mr. Gulen.”[9] So, there is some basis for there to be suspicion of him. However, only ten percent of Turkey’s population, or about 7.5 million people[10], are supporters of Gulen. It should also be noted that this was a military coup and the military has historically been an enforcer of secular rule.[11] Thus, it is rather questionable if the Gulenists are behind the attempted coup.

A coup attempt would aid Erdogan, who has been moving for quite some time to consolidate his own power[12] amid recent low popularity[13], as it would allow him to gain even more power and maintain his control on the state.

More information is still coming out and at the end of the day, only time will tell if the coup was a false flag or not, however, it would be wise to remain skeptical of what is coming from the Turkish government and to keep an ear to the ground.

Notes

[1] Orhan Coskun, Humeyra Palmuk, “At height of Turkey coup bid, rebel jets had Erdogan’s plane in their sights,”Reuters, July 18, 2016 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-plot-insight-idUSKCN0ZX0Q9)

[2] Harry Cockburn, “Turkey coup: 2,700 judges removed from duty following failed overthrow attempt,” The Independent, July 17, 2016 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-coup-latest-news-erdogan-istanbul-judges-removed-from-duty-failed-government-overthrow-a7140661.html)

[3] Haaretz, Erdogan Arrives in Istanbul as Turkish Military Coup Crumbles, http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/turkey/1.731225 (July 16, 2016)

[4] Reuters, Turkey govt seemed to have lists of arrests prepared- EU’s Hahn, https://www.yahoo.com/news/turkey-govt-seemed-list-arrests-prepared-eus-hahn-061434174.html(July 18, 2016)

[5] NBC News, 52 Turkish commanders held in coup plot,http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35526156/ns/world_news-europe/t/turkish-commanders-held-coup-plot/#.V42IWDX9Dm4 (February 22, 2010)

[6] Reuters, Factbox: Turkey’s constitutional amendments,http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-referendum-articles-idUSTRE68B28B20100912 (September 12, 2010)

[7] Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey’s AKP makes strong comeback, wins enough seats for single party rule,http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-akp-makes-strong-comeback-wins-enough-seats-for-single-party-rule.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90603&NewsCatID=338 (November 1, 2015)

[8] Amy La Porte, Gui Tuysuz, Ivan Watson, “Who Is Fethullah Gulen, the man blamed for the coup attempt in Turkey?” Reuters, July 16, 2016 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/16/middleeast/fethullah-gulen-profile/)

[9] Financial Times, Who Is Fethullah Gulen?https://next.ft.com/content/63cae764-1332-33dc-8b80-e7bab90c910c (July 16, 2016)

[10] Olivia Goldhill, “Turkey threatens war on ‘any country’ supporting exiled Gulen- like US,” Quartz, July 16, 2016 (http://qz.com/734174/turkey-threatens-war-on-any-country-supporting-exiled-cleric-gulen-like-the-us/)

[11] Janine Zacharia, “In Turkey, military’s power over secular democracy slips,” Washington Post, April 11, 2010 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002860.html)

[12] Semih Idiz, “Erdogan continues to consolidate power,” Al Monitor, December 16, 2014 (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/12/turkey-erdogan-consolidate-his-power-gulen-movement.html)

[13] Press TV, Most Turks hold negative view of Erdogan:Poll, http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/10/21/434349/Turkey-Erdogan-Pew-AKP-Syria-Iraq(October 21, 2015)

“There is a rich thesaurus of things I have said that have, one way or the other, I don’t know, that has been misconstrued.” — Boris Johnson, Jul 19, 2016

It might have been seen as a form of expressive penal servitude. The UK Foreign Secretary’s position is usually one of the more prestigious ones.  Even with Britain being a faded power, a historical scarecrow relative to its former meatier self, the position remains relevant.

Given the Brexit vote, the office has assumed even greater importance, though the new Prime Minister Theresa May was careful to make sure a separate cabinet position was created specific to those consequences.

The reputation of the new office holder, Boris Johnson, is not that of dedicated industriousness and organisation, and floundering through history is not necessarily a tradition that will assist him.  David Davis, for that reason, will be keeping a close eye over him at close quarters.

The recipe of being the stand up comic has been Johnson’s preferred form of engagement. At times, it is a wonder whether he is, like figures such as Russell Brand and Eddie Izzard, a comedian turned politician or a politician turned comedian.  In the wrong transformation, seriousness, or an undue comic turn, can prove fatal.

Johnson’s manner wins him followers; it provides reels and loops of entertainment and cringe worthy moments in equal measure.  Underlying it is a sense that the British private school boy might still run the show, pulling strings of empire that have long been loosened, if not severed.

Nothing will save Johnson from the nest he has made for himself. Having been economical with a range of figures in the pro-Brexit campaign, he is showing signs of claustrophobia when confronted by them.

His first major press conference as Foreign Secretary, held alongside US Secretary of State John Kerry, caused visible emotional tension. Prior to it, Johnson had suggested that Kerry walk headfirst into the Number 10 door, the price of entertainment, even between officials of the “special relationship”. Kerry was not obliging.

The press conference brought to light another side of the May gamble: to place Boris before the proverbial press firing squad, and witness how he would fend off the criticism.

The questions were thick with an insisting tone, finding the comic turned serious politician hard to take.  An American journalist from Associated Press reminded Johnson of his Telegraph contribution on the former First Lady and presumptive Democrat nomination for the US presidency. “She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”

As far as descriptions go about the deeply sociopathic complex of the Clinton establishment, that description of Hillary was as good as any. But given that Johnson was fronting now, not as polemic scribbler, but British representative on foreign affairs, the point was clear: humour and cutting observations have no place in such dry matters of state.  More to the point, dumping on a potential future leader of the “free world” is bound to rile a good many in freedom land.

“You compared her to Lady Macbeth,” continued the journalist.  “Do you take these comments back or do you want to take them with you into your new job as some kind of indicator of the type of diplomacy you will practice?”

Johnson preferred a different manoeuvre, which was a vain attempt to bring the conservation back to the straight road.  There were serious matters to discuss.  “I’d think we’d all much rather talk about Syria.”  Or not, as the case seemed, when Johnson decided to lob a few other distracting bombs by confusing Turkey with Egypt on no less than two occasions.

The issue of exaggeration was also bound to come up.  The New York Times representative pointed out in its question “an unusually long history of wild exaggerations and frankly outright lies that I think few foreign secretaries have prior to this job.”  What would Mr Kerry think about that?

The Secretary of State seemed to be in visible agony, while Johnson switched gears again into reflecting on being the apologist-in-chief. No one, and nothing, has escaped the Boris insult machine:

“We can spend an awfully long time going over lots of stuff that I’ve written over the last 30 years… All of which, in my view, have been taken out of context, through what alchemy I do not know – somehow misconstrued that it would really take me too long to engage in a full global itinerary of apology.”[1]

Johnson has shown himself to be a fire that burns with inspiration in the scandal of the moment, drawing strength from such publicity fanning moments as hosting the satirical news program Have I Got News For You.  That program, team captains Paul Merton and the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop, reflect, did much to launch his career. They rue that fact to this day.

In what is also another gamble, placing Johnson in such a setting will either have the effect of eliminating him as a future prime minister, forever condemning him to comic little England status, or embolden him as idiosyncratic, infuriating patriot.  The former Mayor of London remains erratically dangerous to his opponents.

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

On June 28th 2009, Honduran soldiers marched into the bedroom of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya while he was in his pajamas and forced him at gunpoint to walk into a waiting jet and exiled him to Costa Rica. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the ouster of the Honduran President as a coup as she called for “the full restoration of democratic order in Honduras.” The “democratic order” Clinton was suggesting was not to restore Zelaya as the legitimate president but a president (or more like a U.S. Puppet) that Washington finds suitable for its interests. Roberto Micheletti replaced Zelaya as an interim president. Micheletti lived in the U.S. (Florida) early in his life.

Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Honduras Manual Zelaya is clear while most of the main-stream media ignores Clinton’s involvement in destroying yet another democracy in Central America by the U.S. government. Central America has experienced U.S. orchestrated coups and civil wars in the past including Guatemala (1954), Costa Rica (mid 1950’’s and 1970-71) and civil wars in Nicaragua (1981-90) and El Salvador (1981-92).

Journalist and author Juan Gonzalez of The New York Daily News and co-host of Democracy Now brought up the issue this past April when Clinton, the democratic presidential frontrunner at the time met with the editorial board of The Daily News. Here is the exchange between Gonzalez and Clinton:

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Secretary Clinton, I’d like to ask you, if I can, about Latin America—

HILLARY CLINTON: Yes, Juan, yes.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —and a policy specifically that you were directly involved in: the coup in Honduras.

HILLARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As you know, in 2009, the military overthrew President Zelaya.

HILLARY CLINTON: Right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: There was a period there where the OAS was trying to isolate that regime. But the—apparently, some of the emails that have come out as a result of State Department releases show that some of your top aides were urging you to declare it a military coup, cut off U.S. aid. You didn’t do that.

HILLARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You ended up negotiating with Óscar Arias a deal for new elections.

HILLARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm, right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But the situation in Honduras has continued to deteriorate.

HILLARY CLINTON: Right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: There’s been a few hundred people killed by government forces. There’s been all these children fleeing, and mothers, from Honduras over the border into the United States. And just a few weeks ago, one of the leading environmental activists, Berta Cáceres, was assassinated in her home.

HILLARY CLINTON: Right, right.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Do you have any concerns about the role that you played in that particular situation, not necessarily being in agreement with your top aides in the State Department?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, let me again try to put this in context. The Legislature—or the national Legislature in Honduras and the national judiciary actually followed the law in removing President Zelaya. Now, I didn’t like the way it looked or the way they did it, but they had a very strong argument that they had followed the Constitution and the legal precedents. And as you know, they really undercut their argument by spiriting him out of the country in his pajamas, where they sent, you know, the military to, you know, take him out of his bed and get him out of the country. So this was—this began as a very mixed and difficult situation.

If the United States government declares a coup, you immediately have to shut off all aid, including humanitarian aid, the Agency for International Development aid, the support that we were providing at that time for a lot of very poor people. And that triggers a legal necessity. There’s no way to get around it. So, our assessment was, we will just make the situation worse by punishing the Honduran people if we declare a coup and we immediately have to stop all aid for the people, but we should slow walk and try to stop anything that the government could take advantage of, without calling it a coup.

So, you’re right. I worked very hard with leaders in the region and got Óscar Arias, the Nobel Prize winner, to take the lead on trying to broker a resolution without bloodshed. And that was very important to us, that, you know, Zelaya had friends and allies, not just in Honduras, but in some of the neighboring countries, like Nicaragua, and that we could have had a terrible civil war that would have been just terrifying in its loss of life. So I think we came out with a solution that did hold new elections, but it did not in any way address the structural, systemic problems in that society. And I share your concern that it’s not just government actions; drug gangs, traffickers of all kinds are preying on the people of Honduras.

So I think we need to do more of a Colombian plan for Central America, because remember what was going on in Colombia when first my husband and then followed by President Bush had Plan Colombia, which was to try to use our leverage to rein in the government in their actions against the FARC and the guerrillas, but also to help the government stop the advance of the FARC and guerrillas, and now we’re in the middle of peace talks. It didn’t happen overnight; it took a number of years. But I want to see a much more comprehensive approach toward Central America, because it’s not just Honduras. The highest murder rate is in El Salvador, and we’ve got Guatemala with all the problems you know so well.

So, I think, in retrospect, we managed a very difficult situation, without bloodshed, without a civil war, that led to a new election. And I think that was better for the Honduran people. But we have a lot of work to do to try to help stabilize that and deal with corruption, deal with the violence and the gangs and so much else

Honduras faced a constitutional crisis as Zelaya planned to rewrite the Constitution of Honduras by holding a poll on a referendum for a constitutional assembly to essentially reform the constitution that would allow the people of Honduras a “legitimate voice” for a future political process.  Government officials, the Supreme Court and members of his own party declared such plans as unconstitutional including Hillary Clinton. An important note to consider is that Zelaya was also was becoming closely aligned with leftist governments in Latin America including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador. Washington was and still is concerned that its imperial power was becoming obsolete in their backyard so they decided to remove an easy target, President Zelaya.

Honduras was an easier target for regime change since it is a smaller and weaker country militarily, besides Washington has armed and trained the Honduran military (who are loyal to Washington) for decades. Coups and civil wars in Central America were carried out by military officers and soldiers (several became U.S. approved dictators) who were trained by the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) located in the state of Georgia which is now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC).

One of the military leaders in the 2009 coup was an Army General Romeo Vasquez, a former student who attended the SOA in 1976 and 1984 and Air Force Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo who also attended the school in 1996 according to the School of the Americas Watch. Washington wanted to turn the tide of leftist governments that was sweeping the continent so Hillary Clinton did what every past U.S. administration has always done, orchestrate a coup and replace the president with someone that will “obey” Washington.

‘Clinton & the Coup’ Video by Democracy Now!

Hillary Clinton’s emails released in 2015 confirmed how that the State Department under the Obama administration sought the permanent removal of Zelaya from the start. The emails titled ‘Notes from the Peanut Gallery’ where Cheryl D. Mills, Counselor and Chief of Staff to Clinton wrote an email to Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs about the removal of both Honduran presidents as a success for the Honduran voters because they will take back their “democracy”:

If our early assessment of today’s election in Honduras holds, we will have just been witness to a remarkable thing. Honduras voters have taken back their democracy from two failed leaders – Zelaya and Micheletti – who had driven Honduras to isolation and despair

Let’s take a closer look at who is driving “Honduras to isolation and despair”.

Clinton’s State Department, USAID and the Murder of Activist Berta Caceres

The aftermath of the coup allowed Honduras to become one of the most dangerous countries in the world with one of the highest murder rates per capita. The coup installed a repressive government that has contributed to a high-rate of immigration (especially children) to the United States. According to an article written by ‘The Nation’ this past April titled ‘How Hillary Clinton Militarized US Policy in Honduras’ explained how Hillary Clinton’s state department financed ($26 million) a program by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) called‘Honduras Convive’ in an effort “to reduce violent crimes.” But in all honesty Honduras Convive was to “cover-up” the orchestrated coup by Washington that allowed the Honduran security forces to continue its human rights abuses including murder:

It was part of a larger US program to support the conservative government of Pepe Lobo, who came to power in 2009 after the Honduran military ousted the elected president, José Manuel Zelaya, in a coup that was widely condemned in Central America. In reality, critics say, the program was an attempt by the State Department to scrub the image of a country where security forces have a record of domestic repression that continues to the present day.

“This was all about erasing memories of the coup and the structural causes of violence.” —Adrienne Pine, American University “This was all about erasing memories of the coup and the structural causes of violence,” says Adrienne Pine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University who spent the 2013-14 school year teaching at the National Autonomous University of Honduras. “It’s related to the complete absence of participatory democracy in Honduras, in which the United States is deeply complicit”

The interesting part of The Nation’s article is that ‘Honduras Convive’ or ‘Honduras Coexists’ was created under theOffice of Transition Initiatives (OTI) (which really means supporting a new government approved by Washington after a successful coup) a unit of USAID:

Honduras Convive (“Honduras Coexists”) was the brainchild of the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a controversial unit of USAID that operates overseas much like the CIA did during the Cold War.

Sanctioned by Congress in 1994, OTI intervenes under the direction of the State Department, the Pentagon, and other security agencies in places like Afghanistan, Haiti, and Colombia to boost support for local governments backed by the United States. Sometimes, as it has in Cuba and Venezuela, its programs are directed at stirring opposition to leftist regimes. Clinton gave the office a major boost after she became Secretary of State; its programs are overseen by an undersecretary of state as well as the top administrator of USAID

OTI is to influence political and economic outcomes that favor Washington not the Honduran people who are currently under a U.S. sponsored dictatorship.

On March 3rd, 2016 Indigenous rights and environmental activist Bertha Caceres who won the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2015 for stopping one of the world’s largest dam builders from completing the Agua Zarca Dam at the Río Gualcarque was murdered in her home by an assassin. Caceres received numerous threats over the years for her activism. She was also the co-founder of the Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH). Caceres’s murder is not the first one of its kind in Honduras as many activists for various causes have been murdered, tortured and imprisoned over the years by U.S. sponsored government forces and private security hired by corporations. According to a ‘Democracy Now’ article on March 11th, 2016 titled ‘Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup’ documented what Caceres said about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the coup that removed Zelaya:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is facing a new round of questions about her handling of the 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most violent places in the world. Last week, indigenous environmental activist Berta Cáceres was assassinated in her home. In an interview two years ago, Cáceres singled out Clinton for her role supporting the coup. “We’re coming out of a coup that we can’t put behind us. We can’t reverse it,” Cáceres said. “It just kept going. And after, there was the issue of the elections. The same Hillary Clinton, in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ practically said what was going to happen in Honduras. This demonstrates the meddling of North Americans in our country

The Latino community in Los Angeles knows the truth about Hillary Clinton as The Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) published an article titled “Hillary Clinton Killed Berta!” this past May reported that protesters in a ‘Cinco de Mayo LA rally’ confronted Hillary Clinton with one of them declaring “She killed Berta!”:

ABC News reports in “Hillary Clinton’s Cinco de Mayo LA Rally Anything but Festive Due to Protesters,” that: “Clinton was confronted on the rope line by a protester who was quickly surrounded by police and taken out. And during her remarks, one woman, who appeared to be protesting Clinton’s role in the 2009 coup in Honduras, shouted loudly, ‘She killed Berta! She killed Berta!’ — referring to Berta Cáceres, a Honduran environmental activist and indigenous leader, who called out Clinton for her role in the coup, before being assassinated in March. As this was happening, Clinton supporters countered with chants of ‘Hillary! Hillary!’

Hillary Clinton’s involvement in Honduras shows what she is capable of. The assassination of activists who fight U.S. backed corporate powers that exploit land and natural resources or remove democratically elected leaders will be the norm with another Clinton administration.

Governments and activists throughout Latin America know what to expect if Hillary Clinton is elected to the White House. Clinton will focus on Venezuela since they are in a U.S. orchestrated economic collapse and declare that the Maduro government is violating human rights and plan a coup similar to the 2009 coup in Honduras. Clinton will support the Venezuelan oligarchy that wants to regain the power they had before the late Hugo Chavez was elected president with the majority of votes. Ecuador has upcoming elections in 2017 which also makes it a dangerous situation for its current president Rafael Correa with a Clinton presidency.

Latin American governments and people know that Washington wants to keep the continent as its “backyard”. Clinton will attempt to expand corporate powers who are vested in Latin America, besides they funded her campaign and it will be payback time. Clinton promised the corporate and banking sectors that donated vast sums of money to her political campaign and to the Clinton Foundation “profits” in U.S. dominated countries throughout Latin America. Another Clinton presidency will attempt to subjugate Latin America once again. Brazil and Argentina who took a stand against Washington’s interests are out of the picture for now. Now Clinton wants to end Latin America’s resistance to Washington’s demands, with Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua in the crosshairs. The resistance will continue in Latin America and criminals like Hillary Clinton will continue Washington’s Imperial agenda.

The good news is that at least Latin American governments and the people understand what a Hillary Clinton presidency (if she is elected) will mean and that is more coup attempts and possibly even assassinations against democratically elected leaders who defy Washington’s interests in the region.

A failed coup in Turkey has changed the geopolitical landscape overnight realigning Ankara with Moscow while shattering Washington’s plan to redraw the map of the Middle East. Whether Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan staged the coup or not is of little importance in the bigger scheme of things. The fact is, the incident has consolidated his power domestically while derailing Washington’s plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors from Qatar to Europe. The Obama administrations disregard for the national security interests of its allies, has pushed the Turkish president into Moscow’s camp, removing the crucial landbridge between Europe and Asia that Washington needs to maintain its global hegemony into the new century. Washington’s plan to pivot to Asia, surround and break up Russia, control China’s growth and maintain its iron grip on global power is now in a shambles. The events of the last few days have changed everything.

This is from the Daily Sahbah:

Turkey’s changing rhetoric toward Russia is also a direct consequence of Ankara’s unmet expectations regarding the Syria conflict. Turkey’s disappointment with the United States’ policy in Syria has increased with time, especially considering Washington’s continued support for the Kurdish fighters of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria. Ankara sees this group as an affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorist organization (Daily Sabah, 12 June).
(A Change in Turkish-Russian Relations: What Sort of Rapprochement?, The Jamestown Foundation)

Obama can only blame himself for the debacle that is now unfolding. Erdogan was completely clear about Turkey’s red lines, the most important of which is preventing the Kurdish militias from moving west of the Euphrates and creating a contiguous state along the Syrian side of Turkeys southern border. Here’s Erdogan commenting on developments a few months ago:

Right now, there is a serious project, plan being implemented in northern Syria. And on this project and plan lay the insidious aims of those who appear as ‘friends’. This is very clear, so I need to make clear statements.

Instead of addressing Erdogan’s security concerns, Obama brushed him aside in order to pursue the US goal of establishing bases and seizing territory in East Syria that will eventually be used as pipeline routes from Qatar to the EU. Naturally, Erdogan responded in kind, forming alliances with former enemies (Russia, Syria, Israel) in order to reset Turkish foreign policy and address the growing threat of an emerging Kurdish state on his southern flank. Keep in mind, Turkey believes that America’s new proxies in Syria–the Kurdish YPG– are linked to the PKK, which is listed as a terror organization by the U.S. and EU. Had Obama committed US troops to the fight, (instead of using the YPG) Erdogan would not have reacted at all. But the fact that Obama was deliberately strengthening Turkey’s traditional rivals in their westward move, was more than Erdogan could bear.

Erdogan Apologizes

At the end of June, Erdogan apologized to President Vladimir Putin for the death of a Russian pilot who was killed when Turkey downed a bomber flying over Syrian territory last November. The shootdown prompted Putin to break off relations with Ankara ending all communication between the two countries. Then, in the last week of June, Erdogan sent a letter to Putin “expressing his deep sympathy and condolences to the relatives of the deceased Russian pilot.” He added that Russia was “a friend and a strategic partner” with whom the Turkish authorities would not want to spoil relations.” (The Turkish pilots who shot down the Russian Su-24 have since been arrested and charged as members of the Gulenist coup.)

The White House inexplicably never commented on this thawing of relations which posed obvious risks to US ambitions in the region.

Why?

Then, just two weeks ago, reports began to emerge that Erdogan was making an effort to normalize relations with Syrian President Bashar al Assad. The news wasn’t reported in most of the western media, but the Guardian ran an article titled “Syrian rebels stunned as Turkey signals normalisation of Damascus relations”. Here’s an excerpt:

More than five years into Syria’s civil war, Turkey, the country that has most helped the rebellion against the rule of Bashar al-Assad, has hinted it may move to normalise relations with Damascus.
The suggestion made by the Turkish prime minister, Binali Yıldırım, on Wednesday, stunned the Syrian opposition leadership, which Ankara hosts, as well as regional leaders, who had allied with Turkey in their push to oust Assad over a long, unforgiving war.

I am sure that we will return [our] ties with Syria to normal,” he said, straying far from an official script that has persistently called for immediate regime change. “We need it. We normalised our relations with Israel and Russia. I’m sure we will go back to normal relations with Syria as well.
(Syrian rebels stunned as Turkey signals normalisation of Damascus relations, Guardian)

You’d think that would set off alarms at the White House, after all, if Turkey wanted to normalize relations with Damascus, then clearly it had abandoned the war it had supported (through its proxy militants and jihadists) for more than five years signaling a fundamental shift in policy that could have broader implications for the US effort. But did the Obama team show any interest in the announcement or make any attempt to keep Erdogan in the fold?

Of course not. Washington gives orders and everyone else is expected to click their heels and stand at attention. Obama and Co don’t bother with the incidentals like the fear of the nascent Kurdish state that could pose a direct threat to Turkey’s national security. Why would they bother with something as trivial as that? They have an empire to run.

Then came the coup which, by the way, Erdogan may have been tipped off to by Russian intelligence agents who have a strong presence in Turkey. By informing Erdogan of the coup, Putin might have hoped that Erdogan would return the favor and block NATOs plan to deploy permanent fleet to the Black Sea that will further encircle and threaten Russia. (And, yes, Putin knows that Erdogan is a ruthless autocrat and a backer of terrorist organizations, but he also knows he can’t be “too picky” when NATO is making every effort to surround and destroy Russia. Putin must take his friends as he finds them. Besides, some analysts have suggested that Putin will require Erdogan to abandon his support for jihadists in Syria as a condition of their new alliance.)

In any event, Putin and Erdogan have settled their differences and scheduled a meeting for the beginning of August. In other words, the first world leader Erdogan plans to meet after the coup, is his new friend, Vladimir Putin. Is Erdogan trying to make a statement? It certainly looks like it. Here’s the story from the Turkish Daily Hurriyet:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Russian President Vladimir Putin may meet in a face-to-face meeting in August as part of mutual efforts to normalize bilateral ties following months of tension due to the downing of a Russian warplane by the Turkish Air Forces in November…

With the normalization of ties, Russia removed some sanctions on trade and restrictions on Russian tourists, though it will continue to impose visa regime to Turkish nationals. A deeper conversation between the two countries over a number of international issues like Syria and Crimea will follow soon between the two foreign ministers before the Putin-Erdoğan meeting.(Putin, Erdoğan to meet soon in bid to start new era in Turkey-Russia ties, Hurriyet)

Is it starting to sound like Turkey may have slipped out of Washington’s orbit and moved on to more reliable friends that will respect their interests?

Indeed. And this sudden rapprochement could have catastrophic implications for US Middle East policy. Consider, for example, that the US not only depends on Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase to conduct its air campaign in Syria, but also, that that same facility houses “roughly 90 US tactical nuclear weapons.” What if Erdogan suddenly decides that it’s no longer in Turkey’s interest to provide the US with access to the base or that he would rather allow Russian bombers and fighters to use the base? (According to some reports, this is already in the works.) More importantly, what happens to US plans to pivot to Asia if the crucial landbridge (Turkey) that connects Europe and Asia breaks with Washington and joins the coalition of Central Asian states that are building a new free trade zone beyond Uncle Sam’s suffocating grip?

One last thing: There was an important one-paragraph article in Moscow Reuters on Monday that didn’t appear in the western press so we’ll reprint it here:

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia’s joint projects with Turkey, including the TurkStream undersea natural gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey, are still on the agenda and have a future, RIA news agency quoted Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich as saying on Monday.” (Russian Dep PM says joint projects with Turkey still on agenda, Reuters)

This is big. Erdogan is now reopening the door the Obama team tried so hard to shut. This is a major blow to Washington’s plan to control the vital resources flowing into Europe from Asia and to make sure they remain denominated in US dollars. If the agreement pans out, Putin will have access to the thriving EU market through the southern corridor which will strengthen ties between the two continents, expand the use of the ruble and euro for energy transactions, and create a free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. And Uncle Sam will be watching from the sidelines.

All of a sudden, Washington’s “pivot” plan looks to be in serious trouble.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

Hillary Clinton said Monday that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, was the most dangerous presidential candidate in the history of the United States. -CNN

Clinton, in an interview with CBS News’ Charlie Rose, believes Donald Trump has “no self-discipline, no self-control, no sense of history, no understanding of the limits of the kind of power that any president should impose upon himself.”

All of this could be applied to Clinton. She is by far the more dangerous of the two candidates.

If Clinton gets into office, she will start or expand wars and through large economic programs will ensure the US’s quasi-depression deepens and that the economy never truly recovers at all (even though it may seem to.)

If things aren’t getting worse, Hillary’s power is not advancing. She is good at making things worse.

As her opponent, Donald Trump’s main recommendation is that he has not been a politician before.

Donald Trump has chiefly been a builder and businessman.

But Hillary has basically been a politician.

Economically speaking, politics is price fixing. Laws are price-fixes, forbidding people from taking certain actions in favor of other ones.

We may agree or disagree with these price-fixes, but they exist and are a function of lawmaking.

Price-fixes always distort and degrade economies. The more laws you have, the more price-fixing and the more degradation.

We’ve often argued for private justice for instance in which individuals work out their own civil and criminal differences.

The less price-fixing (state control), the better.

The modern state – with its massive economic, political and judicial interference – is already well on its way to toppling.

Hillary Clinton has done well in the current system. She and her husband have built a gigantic non-profit and reportedly use it to trade favors with powerful people around the world.

She and Bill are connected at the highest levels and can influence US political and military decisions.

People will pay lots of money to anyone with this sort of clout. But the money does not apparently go directly to the Clintons. Instead it reportedly goes to their non-profit, so it does not seem as if the Clintons are accepting payments for their “help.”

How well is this non-profit run? Here, from an April 2015 New York Post in an article entitled, “Clinton Foundation a ‘Slush Fund.’

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.  The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends …

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog.

Supporters of the Clintons would no doubt disagree with this assessment, as would Hillary herself.

In her interview, Hillary said of Trump, “What he has laid out is the most dangerous, reckless approach to being president than I think we’ve ever seen.”

More from the article:

“There is a lot of fear in our country. And when Americans are worried they’re looking for answers. He’s providing simplistic, easy answers,” Clinton said.

The article quotes poll numbers that indicate Americans are more confident about Hillary’s experience and ability to be president, even though they don’t trust her.

This is unfortunate. As political price-fixes must by definition make economies worse (unless they are removing laws), the more “experienced” a politician is,  the more destructive he or she has the capacity to be.

In fact, Hillary and Bill are multimillionaires many times over. Their overarching priority is self-enrichment and the accumulation of power.

Bottom line: Hillary is being groomed for president because she will help usher in the next wave of democracy, which is a form of global technocracy.

This form of government  with emphasize the power of multinational corporations and those run them.

These corporations, more than ever, will work closely with powerful politicians to generate and expand serial wars necessary to advance globalist control.

When the Gutenberg press undermined the Catholic Church and the divinity of kings, the powers-that-be began to promote “democracy.” The French Revolution was created to further the concept.

Now that the Internet has exposed the phoniness of most “democracy,” a new form of governance is being promoted. This will emphasize the global marketplace as run by multinational corporations and their technocratic “experts.”

New international trade courts are being created that will allow corporations to have equal footing with nation-states.

None of this is coincidence.

Trade deals TPP and TPIP are both foundational building blocks of this new era. Hillary, from what we can tell, is intended to be the point person to advance this paradigm.

Tomorrow’s globalism, as Hillary’s backers conceive of it, will be racked by war and ruled via corporate authoritarianism. As we pointed out previously, HERE, Hillary is no “democrat” and no “liberal.”

Conclusion: Win or lose, Hillary will continue to be a dangerous backer and builder of corporate, globalist technocracy. If she wins, she’ll pursue her goals on the national stage. If she  loses, she will continue to work behind the scenes. Either way she’s dangerous.

The tyrannical corporate trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), is increasingly facing a multitude of challenges that threaten to derail the entire agreement. With negotiations officially beginning in 2013, US trade officials were arrogantly forecasting that a deal would have been reached by the end of 2014. Today in 2016, 14 rounds of intense negotiations later, there is a serious potential that a deal will not be reached by the end of this year, if at all.

There are, and will continue to be, many implications of the momentous Brexit vote; but one implication that has got less media coverage than it deserves is how it further impedes and complicates TTIP negotiations. In anarticle for one of the most influential organisations in the UK, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (or Chatham House), Geo-Economics Fellow, Marianne Schneider-Petsinger, admits that the Brexit vote is a “serious blow” to the chances of TTIP being concluded in the immediate future. Petsinger argues that as Britain was one of greatest advocates for TTIP within the EU, the US has lost an important partner who shares Washington’s fervour for corporate fascism. Petsinger adds that even though a British exit from the EU will severely delay negotiations, TTIP will still survive the vote.

With each passing week however, the fate of the entire agreement looks in jeopardy. The proposed deal has increasingly faced resistance from both government officials and the public. Many French officials have been amongst the most critical of the agreement. At the end of June, the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, statedthat TTIP was against “EU interests,” adding that the deal is “not on track.” The French Junior Minister for Trade and Commerce, Matthias Fekl, also stated at the start of July that it was “impossible” for negotiations to be concluded by the end of 2016.

Public opposition to the deal has surged since 2013, with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets in Berlin last October. Also last year, a petition that called for the halt to all TTIP and CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) negotiations gained over three million signatures. TTIP is seen by many around the world as a deal that will further drive the vast disparity between the rich and the poor that has exploded in our globalised world. A report from Oxfam in January of this year is illustrative of this phenomenon, as it revealed that “62 people own as much as the poorest half of the world’s population.”

TTIP and other similar trade deals solely benefit multinational corporations at the expense of the people. TTIP would completely undermine the national sovereignty and any semblance of democracy in countries signed on to the deal. As the economist and geopolitical analyst, Peter Koenig, wrote in his article for Global Research titled:The EU to Become a “U.S. Colony”? TTIP would Abolish Europe’s Sovereignty:

At stake would be the EU’s and EU members’ legal and regulatory system, environmental protection regulations – and Europe’s economy. Europe’s basic social infrastructure, what’s left of it after the 2008 invasion of the infamous troika – IMF (FED, Wall Street), European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission (EC) – like education, health, as well as water supply and sanitation services would become easy prey for privatization by international (mostly US) transnationals.

Despite the numerous setbacks that TTIP has faced, the special interests behind the deal will continue to push for its successful conclusion. Even if Britain does in fact leave the EU as the people voted for, and if a deal is reached on TTIP at some point in the future; the elite in London will still try to sign Britain onto TTIP at a later date. TTIP is close to crumbling – for the future of a free Western world, the people of the West need to make sure that it does.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In an interview with Muslimpress.com, Tim Anderson, the author of The Dirty War on Syria emphasizes on US policies to create a “New Middle East”. Here’s the full text of the interview: 

Syria is demanding the UN take action after it says French war planes killed more than 120 civilians during airstrikes on Tuesday near the Turkish-Syrian border. The deaths came just a day after US air assaults killed a further 20 people in Manbij.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry sent letters to the UN secretary general and to the president of the UN Security Council, which at present is Japan.

Damascus wants the organization to look into atrocities committed by France, which is a member of the US-led international coalition, after it targeted the village of Toukhan Al-Kubra, located near the Turkish-Syrian border and the city of Manbij.

“The French unjust aggression claimed the lives of more than 120 civilians, most of them are children, women and elderly, in addition to tens of wounded citizens, the majority of them are also children and women as reports say that the fate of scores of other civilians who still under debris are unknown too,”the Syrian Foreign Ministry wrote, as cited by the Syrian Arab News Agency.

The mass death toll in Toukhan Al-Kubra came just a day after US war planes killed around 20 people, mainly women and children, while many more were injured in and around the city of Manbij, the Foreign Ministry states.

“The government of the Syrian Arab Republic condemns, with the strongest terms, the two bloody massacres perpetrated by the French and US warplanes and those affiliated to the so-called international coalition which send their missiles and bombs to the civilians instead of directing them to the terrorist gangs… Syria also affirms that those who want to combat terrorism seriously should coordinate with the Syrian government and army,” the ministry added.

MANBIJ: 20 JUL 2016. 0130 UTC. Heavy airstrikes continue. Nat’l Hospital taken. Fighting in W urban areas.  #Manbijpic.twitter.com/gtHkaVLTj5

— Chuck Pfarrer (@ChuckPfarrer) July 20, 2016

Footage from earlier this month US bombing #Manbij#Syria. Yesterday bombs like this killed 100+ civilians Manbij…https://t.co/7AaVNSljiT

— DOAM (@doammuslims) July 20, 2016

Western leaders support terror groups in Syria, get extremism at home – Assad

https://t.co/3rla6XuLxbpic.twitter.com/INykh9Iy7k

— RT (@RT_com) July 11, 2016

“It’s about being serious, having the will. The United States doesn’t have the will to defeat the terrorists. It had the will to control them and to use them as a card, like they did in Afghanistan. That will reflect on the military aspect of the issue,”Assad said.

Voices from Gaza

The 1.8 million Palestinians who live in Gaza are losing hope. This coastal strip that they call home has been under siege for the last ten years – a decade of Israel controlling everything that comes in and out, stopping people and supplies moving freely, a decade of military incursions with Palestinians having nowhere to run.

The last major assault by Israeli forces was in 2014, when 51 days of Israeli bombardment killed more than 2,200 Palestinians. Since then, almost nothing has been reconstructed, most of the 100,000 people made homeless in the assault still displaced. Israel simply will not allow in the materials people need to re-build their homes.

#GazaLives tells the stories of Palestinians from Gaza, in their own words. Throughout the summer, we will be releasing these testimonies to mark the 2nd anniversary of this last military bombardment to remind us all that the suffering in Gaza has not ended.

The first four below are about Shuja’iyya, the district in Gaza that suffered the worst massacre of the assault. More stories will be released throughout July and August.

Gaza Lives: Abdelrahman’s story

Marking two years since the brutal Israeli assault that killed more than 2,200 Palestinians, #GazaLives tells the stories of Palestinians living there, in their own words.

On 20th July 2014, as many as 150 Palestinians were killed in Shuja’iyya after Israeli forces devastated the area.

My name is Abdelrahman.

On the 22nd night of Ramadan this year, I was sitting in a Gaza neighborhood that was completely in the dark because of power shortages.

As I listened to music on my phone, I recalled the years gone by, one after the other.  I remembered what happened in Ramadan in each one of those years.

Those memories added a touch of beauty to the past and hope for the future.

That was until I got to that Ramadan of bitter memories, the toughest Ramadan of all, Ramadan of 2014. That was a sad month when the Musaher (the man who wakes people up to take their pre-dawn fasting meal) was silenced as the minarets bowed in mourning.

There was no electricity at all. The scene was only noises of bombs and missiles with blood flooding on the lands of the Gaza Strip.

I remembered the hardest day in our life, the 22nd day of Ramadan, 20th July 2014.

It was one of the worst days of the war on the Gaza Strip; it was this assault during which the Israeli occupation committed a ferocious massacre against unarmed civilians in Shuja’iyya neigborhood.

In this single night, at least 74 people were killed, 250 were injured.

It was one of those violent nights in the Gaza Strip with arbitrary shelling targeting children and seniors, killing entire families, wiped out without a trace.

I sat remembering the massacres committed against Palestinian families.

As that sad memory filled the room, I became overcome and left, to wander around Shuja’iyya neighborhood, to see what, if anything had been reconstructed since Israel’s assault.

Very soon, I saw the wreckage of the house of Skafi family.

Israeli forces committed a massacre against this family that broke my heart and caused an outpouring of tears of grief.

I continued my walk until I was 100m from the demolished house, where I saw some of the survivors of the family sitting to commemorate the death of their relatives.

They accepted condolences from the people gathered there and with great sadness, sang to honour the dead. I wanted to find out the rest of the story.

I met Omar Skafi, who told me what had happened. I was lost in imagining the scene of this massacre, shifting between my own memories and Omar’s description of this crime.

Omar Skafi began his story by describing his family: his father, mother and twelve other male and female members. Then he began to talk about the massacre.

He said, at that time, the shelling was arbitrary and overwhelming. It comprised all military means and weapons, with artillery, planes and internationally-banned bombs.

Omar explained, “We fled to a nearby house. In that house gathered 150 members of the family. There were women, children, men and young people. We don’t know exactly what caused the explosion. It was followed by the shattering of stones, glass, doors, and windows and accompanied with thick black smoke. We didn’t recover until a few minutes had passed”.

Omar, who had narrowly escaped death himself, added, “After the smoke and dust faded, we found huge holes in the walls of the house. A few minutes after we left the house, we realized the massacre committed against our family.”

“The situation,” he said, “was devastating. We could not control it. We stood for minutes looking at each other in this painful horrendous scene. Then, we found the martyrs under the rubble. We looked for the twins, Anas and Saad, but could not find them for three days. When we eventually found them their bodies had begun to decay.”

With heavy sadness, he recited the names of the nine people lost to this butchery.

His father, Akram Skafi, was 63 years old. Omar’s brothers, Abderrahman Skafi, 22, and the twins, Anas and Saad, 18. His cousins, Mohammad and Ali Skafi and their cousins, Musaab Skafi, Isam Skafi and Marwan Skafi.

This is my story, this is our story, the story of the devastation we face, the story we cannot forget.

If I can ask for something, I will ask for one thing, a homeland where peace prevails.

A homeland where we can live like the other people of this world.

This is my question. When will I have my answer?

James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence for three decades, long ago explained to me that intelligence services create stories inside stories, each with its carefully constructed trail of evidence, in order to create false trails as diversions.

Such painstaking work can serve a variety of purposes. It can be used to embarrass or discredit an innocent person or organization that has an unhelpful position on an important issue and is in the way of an agenda. It can be used as a red herring to draw attention away from a failing explanation of an event by producing an alternative false explanation.

I forget what Angleton called them, but the strategy is to have within a false story other stories that are there but withheld because of “national security” or “politically sensitive issues” or some such. Then if the official story gets into trouble, the backup story can be released in order to deflect attention into a new false story or to support the original story. Angleton said that intelligence services protect their necessary misdeeds by burying the misdeed in competing explanations.

Watching the expert craftsmanship of the “Saudis did 9/11” story, I have been wondering if the Saudi story is what Angleton described as a “story within a story”.

The official 9/11 story has taken too many hits to remain standing. The collapse of Building 7, which, if memory serves, was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report, has been proven to have been a controlled demolition. Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration, which can only be achieved with controlled demolition.

Over 100 firemen, policemen, and building maintenance personnel who were inside the two towers prior to their collapse report hearing and experiencing multiple explosions. According to William Rodriguez, a maintenance employee in the north tower, there were explosions in the sub-basements of the tower prior to the time airplanes are said to have hit the towers.

An international team of scientists found in the dust of the towers both reacted and unreacted residues of explosives and substances capable of instantly producing the extreme temperatures that cut steel.

A large number of pilots, both commercial and military, have questioned the ability of alleged hijackers with substandard flight skills to conduct the maneuvers required by the flight paths.

2,500 architects and engineers have called for an independent investigation of the failure of the towers that were certified to be capable of withstanding a hit by airplanes.

The revelation that the 9/11 attack was financed by the Saudi government has the effect of bolstering the sagging official story while simultaneously satisfying the growing recognition that something is wrong with the official story.

Commentators and media are treating the story of Saudi financing of 9/11 as a major revelation that damns the Bush regime, but the revelation not only leaves in place but also strengthens the official story that Osama bin Laden carried out the attack with precisely the hijackers identified in the original story. The Bush regime is damned merely for protecting its Saudi friends and withholding evidence of Saudi financing.

The evidence of Saudi financing is what restores the credibility of the original story. Nothing changes in the story of the collapse of the three WTC buildings, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania. American anger is now directed at the Saudis for financing the successful attacks.

To hype the Saudi story is to support the official story. A number of commentators who are usually suspicious of government are practically jumping up and down for joy that now they have something to pin on Bush. They haven’t noticed that what they are pinning on him supports the official 9/11 story.

Moreover, they have not explained why the Saudi government would finance an attack on the country that protects it. Saudi Arabia is a long-time partner. They accept pieces of paper for their oil and then use the paper to finance the US Treasury’s debt and to purchase US weapons systems, purchases that lead to larger weapons sales, thus spreading R&D costs over larger volume.

What do the Saudis have to gain from embarrassing the US by demonstrating the total failure of US national security? Really, if a few hijackers can outfox the NSA, the CIA, and the national security state, we clearly aren’t getting out money’s worth and are giving up our civil liberties for nothing.

Saudi financing does not explain who had access to wire the buildings for demolition, or to schedule on 9/11 a simulated attack that the actual attack modeled, thus causing confusion among some authorities about what was real and what was not.

Saudi financing does not explain the dancing Israelis who were apprehended filming the attacks on the towers and who later said on Israeli TV that they were sent to New York to film the attack. How did the Israelis know? Did Prince Bandar tell them? Bush didn’t tell us about the Saudis, and the Israelis didn’t tell us about the attack. Which is worse?

This Saudi revelation is too convenient for the official story. How do we know that it was not devised as a story inside the story to be used when the story got into trouble? The Saudis would be a logical choice to be put in such a position as the original neoconservative plan for overthrowing Middle Eastern governments included overthrowing Saudi Arabia. Now we have an excuse.

I have doubts that the alleged hijackers played any role other than cover for bringing down buildings by controlled demolition. Possibly the hijackers and the Saudis who financed them, if the evidence is real and not concocted, were not aware of their role and thought they were participating in a different deception.

Are we being deceived again with a story inside a story? Will it succeed along the lines that Angleton explained? Or will it possibly backfire? If the US government will hide some of the truth from us for 13 years, why not all of the truth? What else in the official story is false?

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.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s trip to Vietnam and lifting of the arms embargo will no doubt boost bilateral relations. But for Hanoi it is still a rebalance, not a pivot, as Vietnam still has a strong reliance on Russian military exports.

Earlier this week, in a farewell trip to Asia, U.S. President Barack Obama concluded a visit to Vietnam. It was literally a roaring success. The people in the streets of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City greeted the President with flags and welcoming posters and the audience in the National Convention Center burst into applause at every strong statement, hearty reference or joke that Obama uttered during his address.

The kicker of the trip was, of course, the lifting of the U.S. arms embargo on Vietnam, perhaps the strongest reminder of the Vietnam War, which still haunts bilateral relations in the form of Agent Orange contamination and unexploded ordnance in Vietnam and a large anti-Communist Vietnamese diaspora in the U.S. By fully removing the arms trade ban, the U.S. Administration has helped the two countries to turn the page and finally speak of properly normalized relations.

But it is more than that. Obama is busy with his legacy-building, and it could not be a better way to round up his Asia-Pacific “rebalance” than with a trip to the number one “new” partner in Asia (Vietnam) as well as the number one “old” partner in Asia (Japan). Coincidentally – or perhaps not – both of them are active members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), widely seen as the economic fulcrum of Obama’s “rebalance” project.

Vietnam’s global thinking

From Vietnam’s perspective, the burgeoning relations with the U.S. are even a bigger deal. Having suffered from bloc politics dearly, the Vietnamese have developed a certain kind of political thinking, where independence is top priority and can only be achieved by balancing partnerships with global and regional powers. Pitching the country’s stable political system, strong military, strategic position, and a vibrant and promising economy to various global and regional players, the Vietnamese leadership is aiming to diversify its foreign policy.

South Korea brings Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Japan brings Official Development Assistance (ODA). The EU brings technology. Russia brings military equipment, and energy technology, including nuclear, oil and gas projects. The U.S. brings its huge market for textiles and agriculture, as well as geopolitical support. China brings an ideological alliance and trade.

China is a special case, of course. The kind of love-hate relationship Vietnam has with China goes way back in history. Geographically, there is no alternative to China as the closest strategic partner. The relationship between the two Communist parties is very strong and Vietnam’s policies are often based on lessons from the China relationship. China is Vietnam’s largest trade partner and the two countries share a strong connection with traditional Confucian political culture.

At the same time, the Vietnamese live in constant concern over perceived sovereignty threats, especially in the South China Sea. Moreover, Vietnam is experiencing a huge and further growing trade deficit with China, which threatens to make the former dependent on the latter.

As Vietnam has been gaining momentum of economic growth, lifting itself out of poverty and straight into the league of developing powerhouses, the country’s elite is trying to balance out China. There is no getting away from the big northern neighbor, but the Vietnamese could certainly use a better hand when dealing with the Chinese and make this relationship more beneficial if they have stronger partnerships with the U.S., Japan, ASEAN countries and Russia.

The future of Russia’s relationship with Vietnam

Russia, in turn, is an important factor in Vietnam’s external ties. The ongoing sales of Russian frigates, submarines, missiles, and air defense systems are precisely what gives Vietnam the ability to leave China with a proverbial bloody nose in case there is an actual military clash in the South China Sea. Moreover, the high status of the Russia-Vietnam political relationship is also supposed to hold China back, leaving Beijing reluctant to threaten its ties with Moscow.

At least this was true when the U.S. arms embargo was in place. So will this change? Not immediately, that is for sure. Arms procurement strategies do not change overnight, and with Russia’s dominant position on the Vietnamese arms market, it is likely to remain the leader over the coming decade. The U.S. may occupy certain niches, especially high-tech, like maritime surveillance, or perhaps coast guard ships and transport airplanes. But Russia will remain the key seller of all the hard-hitting weaponry.

What are the implications for Russia then? U.S.-Vietnam relations are developing at a very fast pace. In 2015 Barack Obama received the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyen Phu Trong, at the White House, essentially acknowledging that socialist rule is not an impediment to bilateral ties. This time, Obama chose not to tie the arms embargo to Vietnam’s progress on human rights, once again signaling that U.S. geopolitical and economic interests in Vietnam are more important than promotion of liberal democracy there. This trend will no doubt continue if tensions rise in the Asia-Pacific region.

This is why Russia’s role in Vietnamese foreign policy will likely face a relative decline, at least if current trends prevail. The strong military connection dates back to a time when Russia was the only strong partner for Vietnam. Now things are different – when China, the U.S., Japan, India, South Korea and the EU are all making plays for Vietnam, it is illogical to assume that Russia’s posture could continue to be as strong as it is currently.

Fundamental changes in the way how Russia and Vietnam cooperate have to happen to change the nature of their relations. So, Russia has to keep in mind that gaining momentum is the only way not to fall behind.

Anton Tsvetov is the Media and Government Relations Manager at the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), a Moscow-based foreign policy think-tank. He also has a blog at Russia Beyond the Headlines.

A negotiated settlement between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines over the Sino-Filipino territorial dispute(s) over ownership of the Spratly Islands (known as Nansha Islands in China) appears possible with the change of government in Manila. The term of the cabinet of Filipino President Benigno Aquino III and Filipino Secretary of Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario, who both rejected bilateral talks with Beijing, ended on June 30, 2016. They have been respectively replaced by Rodrigo Duterte in the Malacañan Palace and Perfecto Yasay Jr. in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The new Filipino government in Manila has made several overtures about holding bilateral talks with Beijing and Foreign Secretary Yasay has announced that a special envoy will be appointed for negotiations with China.

Relations between the Philippines and China became strained under the Aquino III Administration. It rehabilitated the territorial dispute with China and eagerly began welcoming the revitalization of the US military presence in Southeast Asia. In 2011, a political decision was made under Benigno Aquino to refer to the South China Sea as the West Philippine Sea as a means of emphasizing the claim of the Philippines. The Aquino III Administration would even mandate the renaming of the South China Sea into law by an administrative order in 2012. Agitating relations further, the Aquino III Administration initiated legal action over the territorial dispute against China through the Dutch-based Permanent Court of Arbitration on October 29, 2015.

On July 5, 2016 – just one week before the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on July 12, 2016 – President Duterte offered to hold talks with China. While he will surely use the Permanent Court of Arbitration as leverage in Sino-Filipino bilateral talks, Duterte appears to be keen on a settlement with China. These offers are part of a buildup from the 2016 election period in the Philippines.

While campaigning for the presidency of the Philippines, Duterte’s discourse on China was one that sent mixed signals. It shifted between antagonistic and conciliatory language. Undoubtedly, this was politicking and political catering by President Duterte. His altering discourse on China was a political tactic to domestically gain both the support of Filipinos with nationalist attitudes about the Spratly Islands and those Filipinos, including the influential ethnic Chinese Filipino business class, that want peace, economic cooperation, and trade with a vibrant China.

At the international level, Duterte may have been sending mixed signals as part of a tactic to satisfy both the United States and China. His antagonistic remarks pleased Washington while his consolatory remarks were aimed at not alienating Beijing and to signal that he was willing to hold talks. Despite his criticism of Beijing, he always made signals that he wanted to establish dialogue with China. Interestingly, Duterte was even the only key politician in the 2016 Philippine general-elections who publicly admitted that he went to talk about the Spratly Islands with the US Embassy in Manila.

On the campaign trail Duterte commented that he would seek Chinese help to build a trans-Philippines rail network connecting the islands of Luzon and Mindanao and that if China accepted the mammoth transportation project that he was willing to end his public criticism about Manila’s territorial dispute with Beijing. In other words, Duterte was saying that a future Filipino government under him would negotiate with China in exchange for economic concessions or assistance from Beijing.

After Duterte won the presidential elections, his tone towards China altered. He became much more tempered and be very cordial to China. Before Duterte even officially became president, he held meetings with Zhao Jianhua, the Chinese ambassador to the Philippines, on May 16, 2016. The meeting was symbolic, because Ambassador Zhao was only one of three ambassadors – the other two being the diplomatic representatives of Israel and Japan – that Duterte met with as the presumptive-president of the Philippines. Since that time Rodrigo Duterte would meet with Ambassador Zhao three more times, including several days before the ruling Permanent Court of Arbitration on July 7, 2016.

Beijing’s Claim to the South China Sea

Beijing claims that China has had sovereignty over the area for thousands of years. The Chinese Empire under the Ming Dynasty even possessed the western shores adjacent to the area. This was when Vietnam was a part of China. Vietnam also lays claims to the Spratly Islands (known as the Quan đao Truong Sa by the Vietnamese) and the Paracel Islands (known as Xisha by the Chinese and as Hoàng Sa by the Vietnamese).

Supporting the Chinese claim are the facts that Japan annexed the area in 1938 as part of its takeover of Taiwan from China and that Kuomintang-ruled mainland China claimed the area in 1947 under an «eleven dash line» demarcation while Malaysia and Brunei were still British colonies and Vietnam was still a French colony. Only the Philippines had officially become independent from the US one year before the Kuomintang claim, in 1946.

There are important historical and legal facts that should be taken into consideration. Before the US went to war with the Japanese, it never challenged the Japanese annexation of the area as a takeover of the territory of the Philippines as a possession of the US. Nor were the islands in the South China Sea included as part of the Philippine territory handed over from Spain to the US in 1898. It was only with US backing in the 1970s that the Philippines started making international claims to the area.

Washington: The Meddling Third Party

China is interested in establishing what Xi Jinping calls a «community of destiny.» Beijing wants cooperation and trade, not war or conflict with the Philippines or any of the other member states of the Association of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its major aim is to expand the Silk Road, both on land and at sea, and to buttress regional integration and economic prosperity. In this regard, it has even given favourable treatment and offered advantageous trade conditions to the member states of the ASEAN on multiple occasions.

Like President Duterte, the Chinese government has signaled that it is ready to hold direct negotiations over the territorial dispute in the South China Sea. China has even declared that it is willing to share the area’s wealth and resources in joint development projects. This is what Beijing has described as a «sustainable approach.» In return Beijing has asked that Manila rejects the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling, which will also affect the cross-cutting territorial claims of Brunei, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

In a scenario where the Philippines gains control of the disputed territory in the South China Sea, Manila would turn to the US and US allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia for the development of the region. The Philippines cannot develop or extract the energy resources of the area by itself. Foreign energy companies from the US and states allied to the US would get preferential treatment and profit off the oil and gas. In return the Philippines would get undersized economic returns.

Even under the framework of the above scenario, if it is not the biggest consumer, China would still be one of the major consumers of any energy reserves extracted from the South China Sea. China could also even be asked by the Philippines to develop the region’s energy reserves. Since Beijing will be the main customer, there are those in the Philippines that realize that it would actually be more lucrative for the Philippines to work with China to jointly develop the regions energy reserve. This is why there are those in the Philippines who prefer bilateral talks. The main hurdle to talks between Beijing and Manila, however, is the United States.

What is at stake in the disputed zone are not only large amounts of hydrocarbon reserves in what some in China have called a «second Persian Gulf» of energy, fishing, and one of the most important maritime corridors and trade routes in the world. Chinese national security interests are also heavily tied to the area. Chinese trade and energy supplies would be disrupted if maritime movement were halted in the South China Sea, which is why the US military is heavily focused on having a presence in the area. In part, this is what Washington’s «Pivot to Asia» is all about.

Washington, which (unlike Beijing) itself has refused to even sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is using the Philippines as a pretext for playing a dirty game against China merely because it views Beijing as its strategic rival. The US is intentionally ratcheting tensions up in the South China Sea to justify both the US naval presence adjacent to the Chinese coast and the creation of a network of military alliances to encircle and pressure Beijing. Using coercive diplomacy, economic warfare, a strategy of tension, and a two-pronged approach of confrontation and cooperation, the US is trying to consign China to the position of a junior partner. The US is also doing its best to create a wedge in Eurasia between China and the Russian Federation.

Ironically, while it is demonizing China as a regional threat, Washington is sending contradictory messages to its regional allies. The US has been vilifying Beijing while it simultaneously orders the US military to hold multilateral or bilateral military exercises with the Chinese military, such as the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Exercise (June-July 2016), China-US Joint Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Tabletop Exercise (November 2012), and the China-US Anti-piracy Exercise in the Gulf of Aden (September 2012).

Regional leaders should take note of the US modus operandi. US leaders are not willing to directly confront China. Instead they are using countries like the Philippines as pawns, leverage, and negotiating chips to either bargain with or obstruct an increasingly assertive and economically prosperous China.

This article was originally published by the Strategic Culture Foundation on July 11, 2016.

The presidential administration of former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was marked by corruption, fraud, misuse of public funds, and utter disregard for constitutionalism and the rule of law. She has been widely accused of murder, kidnapping, plundering, and cheating. The US Embassy in Manila was even informed in 2005 by corporate accounting firm SGV founder Washington Sycip that her husband, José Miguel Arroyo, was one  of the most corrupt figures in the Philippines, according to US diplomat cables that were leaked in 2011. The Arroyo Administration also arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested her political opponents while it used national security measures and the language of law and order as pretexts to suppress her opponents and Filipinos and Filipinas seeking justice.

The Hello Garci scandal that emerged in 2005 merely served to prove that the 2004 Philippine general-election’s were rigged by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her political associates. After the scandal, Arroyo would admit that the audio evidence produced about her election rigging was authentic, but nothing happened to her. Her government argued on the basis of procedural law that since the key evidence against Arroyo was a phone conversation that was recorded without her consent that it could not be used while her political party and coalition prevented her impeachment and justice from ever taking place through legislative means by blocking any action against her by using their majority vote in the Congress of the Philippines.

Although former president Arroyo escaped legal prosecution over electoral fraud, her feuds with other elites or oligarchs eventually materialized in a criminal case against her being opened over the plundering of 366 million Philippine pesos from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) intelligence funds from 2008 to 2010.  There are, however,  two sets of justice in the Philippines: one for the rich and powerful elites and another for the general population.

Arroyo was given special treatment and put under hospital arrest at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City where she enjoyed and was afforded extraordinary rights for about four years. She was allowed to go on special holiday breaks and to spend the December holiday season with her family in their luxurious La Vista residence. Her trial was even suspended twice for a one-month period staring  on 20 October 2015 and then again for a three-month period starting on 24 November 2015.

After Rodrigo Duterte was elected as the president of the Philippines he said that he was ready to grant former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo a pardon. Being influenced by the political change in Manila and new atmosphere in the Philippines, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which itself is a corrupt institution that caters to interest groups, finally  acquitted Arroyo. No longer arguing that she needed to be in the hospital, Arroyo would leave the the Veterans Memorial Medical Center. She escaped justice once again and it is unlikely that anything besides token action will be taken against her for her past crimes as the president of the Philippines.

Without expressing doubt about the legitimacy of the legal process or analyzing the political nature of the Supreme Court acquittal, the following is a report of the acquittal of Arroyo that looks at the appointment origins of all the judges involved. It is worth noting that almost all of the judges in the Supreme Court were appointed by Arroyo herself. 

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Asia-Pacific Research Editor, 21 July 2016.

Former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during hospital arrest.

Former former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo leaving the hospital after she is acquitted.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo with her lawyer Raul Lambino taking a picture right after her acquittal.

MANILA, Philippines – After nearly 4 years of hospital arrest, former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will soon be free.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, July 19, acquitted Mrs Arroyo of plunder as it granted her plea to drop the case against her. This sets in motion her release from the Veterans Memorial Medical Center, where she has been detained since October 2012.

SC Spokesman Theodore Te told a press conference Tuesday afternoon that the Court annulled the criminal case for “insufficiency of evidence” and ordered her “immediate release.”

Te said the vote was 11-4 in favor of Arroyo’s petition to junk a Sandiganbayan ruling that gave the go-signal for her plunder trial in connection with charges that she misused funds of the state-run Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).

Covered by the case aside from Arroyo is former PCSO budget officer Benigno Aguas, who is detained at Camp Crame. He was also ordered released.

Quoting from the decision, Te said: “Wherefore, the Court grants the petitions for certiorari; annuls and sets aside the resolutions issued in Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 by the Sandiganbayan on April 6, 2015 and September 10, 2015; grants the petitioners’ respective demurrers to evidence; dismisses Criminal Case No. SB-12-CRM-0174 as to the petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno Aguas for insufficiency of evidence; ORDERS the immediate release from detention of said petitioners; and makes no pronouncements on costs of suit.”

The justices who dissented or voted against Arroyo are Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Benjamin Caguioa. Of the 4, only Carpio is an appointee of Mrs Arroyo; the rest were appointed by former president Benigno Aquino III.

The 11 justices who ruled in favor of the former president are:

• Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr
• Justice Teresita de Castro
• Justice Arturo Brion
• Justice Diosdado Peralta
• Justice Lucas Bersamin
• Justice Mariano del Castillo
• Justice Jose Perez
• Justice Jose Mendoza
• Justice Bienvenido Reyes
• Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe
• Justice Francis Jardeleza

Of the 11, eight are Arroyo appointees and 3 were appointed by Aquino: Bernabe, Reyes and Jardeleza.

‘Final bastion of justice’

One of Arroyo’s lawyers, Raul Lambino, was with her Tuesday at the Veterans hospital.

He told radio station dzMM: “Kasama ko nga po si Pangulong Arroyo rito at lubos po yung ating kagalakan ngayon dito sa naging botohan o info na dumating sa amin. Naiyak po siya siyempre lahat ng mga kasama namin rito sa magandang balitang dumating sa atin.” (I am with President Arroyo, and we’re grateful for the decision or the information that reached us. We are all in tears.)

“Para sa akin, malaya na ang dating Pangulo,” he added. (As far as I am concerned, our president is free.)

Lambino said the Philippine National Police would process Arroyo’s release after the SC releases its verdict.

Arroyo’s other lawyer, Ferdinand Topacio, said in a statement: “The Supreme Court has once again proven itself to be the final bastion of justice and the rule of law. Its ruling today has validated what we have been saying for six years now: that the charges against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are nothing more than disingenuous attempts at political persecution by a corrupt and inept Aquino administration intent on covering up its gross lack of accomplishments by harassing its political opponents.”

The Court found the evidence against her weak, the same sources said. Prior to this, the Supreme Court already stopped her trial at the Sandiganbayan.

The 69-year-old Arroyo, who is currently Pampanga representative, is the second Philippine president to be detained for plunder.

In April 2001, ousted president Joseph Estrada was jailed for plunder over charges of unexplained wealth. The Sandiganbayan convicted and sentenced him to life in jail in September 2007. But only 6 weeks after, in October 2007, his successor Arroyo pardoned him.

Landmark ruling

Tuesday’s landmark ruling on Mrs Arroyo came barely a month after Aquino stepped down from office and less than a week before President Rodrigo Duterte, who favors her release, delivers his first State of the Nation Address (SONA.).

It was Aquino who jailed Arroyo and subsequently led the impeachment charge against her appointed chief justice, the late Renato Corona.

Through veteran lawyer Estelito Mendoza, Arroyo had petitioned the Supreme Court to approve her “demurrer to evidence,” a plea to dismiss a case on the basis of weak evidence. She went to the High Tribunal for relief after the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan dismissed the demurrer.

Arroyo filed the “demurrer to evidence” in 2014 before the Sandiganbayan. The anti-graft court dismissed this in April 2015, paving the way for her trial for plunder over the alleged misuse of PCSO funds.

Arroyo then challenged the Sandiganbayan ruling before the Supreme Court in a 100-page petition filed by Mendoza.

PCSO plunder

The Court’s approval of the Arroyo petition in effect acquits her of the P366-million plunder suit filed by the Ombudsman in July 2012 against her and 9 other former goverment officials.

The Ombudsman’s suit, filed a week before then President Aquino was to deliver his 3rd SONA, alleged that Mrs Arroyo approved the alleged diversion of PCSO’s intelligence funds for purposes not related to the core work of the agency, which is to help indigents and sectors working with them.

On top of this, Arroyo had also asked the Supreme Court to in the meantime stop her trial at the Sandiganbayan. The SC granted this motion last year and extended the trial suspension to this year.

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan – Belarus is ready for strengthening relations with China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said as he met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Tashkent on 24 June, BelTA has learned.

“I would like to thank you for Belarus, the only European state, getting the observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It would be impossible without China’s support. We are really grateful to you,” Alexander Lukashenko said addressing Xi Jinping.

The Belarusian head of state emphasized that both China and the SCO can rely on Belarus’ support in any issues. “We are ready to become ‘a western gate’ for this organization,” the Belarusian leader said. Alexander Lukashenko cited the Chinese-Belarusian Industrial Park Great Stone project as an example of how Belarus is consistent in fulfilling its obligations. “You have called the project a pearl of the Great Silk Road. We will do our best and are doing the utmost to fill the project with concrete economic content,” said the President of Belarus.

For his part, Xi Jinping congratulated Alexander Lukashenko on the successful 5th Belarusian People’s Congress which discussed the five-year plan of country’s social and economic development. “I am sure that under your leadership Belarus will make new progress,” said the Chinese President.

He has noted that the Belarusian-Chinese relations have been rapidly developing, with the two countries supporting each other in all the matters. Mentioning the ongoing parliamentary election campaign in Belarus, Xi Jinping supported the efforts aimed at creating calm atmosphere for the elections.

Xi Jinping invited Alexander Lukashenko to pay a state visit to China and expressed readiness for further strengthening of all-round cooperation.

A raíz de la adopción de una legislación para proteger al fumador contra los efectos del tabaco en el 2008, la empresa multinacional Philip Morris entabló una demanda contra Uruguay ante el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Disputas entre Inversionista Extranjero y Estado (CIADI, más conocido por sus siglas en inglés ICSID) en el 2010. Se trata de un mecanismo arbitral instituido en 1965 en el marco del Banco Mundial, que ha sido objeto de numerosas críticas en años recientes, en particular a partir de la experiencia de América Latina (Nota 1).

Una verdadera “première” uruguaya

Para Uruguay, la demanda de Philip Morris es la primera demanda en su historia. Según registros oficiales del CIADI, se trata de un Estado que ha sido demandado en tan solo dos ocasiones, la otra demanda se encuentra pendiente de resolución (ver datos oficiales sobre ambas demandas). Cabe recordar que hace más de 20 años, en 1995, la primera demanda interpuesta contra un Estado de América Latina ante el CIADI fue contra Costa Rica (caso de la Hacienda Santa Elena, resuelto mediante laudo del CIADI en el 2000), después de sufrir Costa Rica presiones externas de Estados Unidos para que ratificara la Convención de 1965, acto que realizó en 1993 (Nota 2): recordemos (en particular para el lector más joven) que, gracias a esta ratificación “forzada”, una propiedad adquirida en 1970 por un precio de 395.000 US$, fue objeto de un demanda internacional contra Costa Rica interpuesta en mayo de 1995 por 41 millones de US$ ante el CIADI, el cual decidió en su laudo del 17 de febrero del 2000 ordenar un pago indemnizatorio a Costa Rica por 16 millones de US$.

Más recientemente, en abril del 2016, un Estado con mayor experiencia en el CIADI que la de Costa Rica o de Uruguay, Venezuela, fue condenado por el CIADI a pagar la suma de 1.386 millones de US$ a una empresa minera canadiense  (ver  nota ). En el 2012, Ecuador fue condenado a pagar a un consorcio norteamericano de empresas petroleras Occidental Petroleum la suma de 1.770 millones de US$, un monto jamás ordenado por un tribunal del CIADI (ver  texto integral  del laudo arbitral, adoptado por 2 votos a favor y uno en contra).

Como tuvimos la oportunidad de precisarlo con relación al último tratado bilateral de inversiones (más conocido como TBI) ratificado por Costa Rica en el 2016, los TBI y las cláusulas CIADI que contienen encuentran su origen en un discurso muy en boga en los años 90: “Un dogma (que a la fecha se ha mantenido incólume en muchos sectores) consistió en considerar en aquellos años que la inversión extranjera era garantía de crecimiento económico y de desarrollo: los indicadores sociales en buena parte de América Latina 15 años después evidencian que algunos bemoles se debieron de imponer. /…/  Un dogma asociado al anterior (y que se mantiene también muy presente en algunos sectores) es que sin TBI no hay inversión extranjera: este dogma hace a un lado algunas realidades difíciles de obviar, como por ejemplo el hecho que Brasil, 5ª economía mundial, no ha ratificado ninguno de estos tratados” (ver nuestra  nota  sobre el acuerdo bilateral de inversiones China-Costa Rica publicada en el Observatorio de la Política de China, p. 2)

Brasil, primer receptor de inversión extranjera en América Latina, no es parte a la Convención de Washington de 1965, (al igual que México, Cuba, o República Dominicana y la misma Canadá hasta el 2013) ni ha ratificado un solo de los TBI que ha suscrito. Por su parte, Bolivia, Ecuador y Venezuela han denunciado la Convención de 1965 (en el 2007, 2010 y 2012 respectivamente); al igual que la India, Indonesia o Sudáfrica, estos Estados de América Latina han procedido a renegociar o a suspender varios de sus TBI en aras de limitar de manera sustancial el alcance de las cláusulas CIADI insertas en algunos de ellos.

La demanda de Philip Morris contra Uruguay se basó en el TBI vigente entre Uruguay y Suiza: un  tratado bilateral redactado de tal manera por los negociadores suizos, que también ha dado pié para una demanda contra Costa Rica interpuesta por un grupo de accionistas suizos dueños… de una empresa de gas mejicana que opera en Costa Rica (Nota 3).

La decisión del CIADI

En su laudo arbitral dado a conocer el pasado 8 de julio del 2016 (ver texto completo ), el CIADI rechaza los cargos presentados por la empresa tabacalera, y falla a favor de Uruguay, condenando a la empresa a pagar 7 millones de US$ a Uruguay así como a asumir los gastos de funcionamiento del CIADI (que ascienden a unos 1,5 millones de US$). Se lee en este  artículo  de prensa que: “Uruguay sostuvo que las medidas que adoptó fueron en su rol legítimo de regulador y en pos de velar por la salud de la población; que se tomaron en cumplimiento del Convenio Marco del Control del Tabaco (CMCT), y que fueron efectivas para descender el porcentaje de fumadores en el país. Solicitó, por tanto, que se desestimara el reclamo de Philip Morris y se compensara a Uruguay por todos los gastos en los que incurrió en el proceso judicial“.

En una etapa preliminar, Uruguay había cuestionado la competencia del CIADI, basándose en el hecho que su sistema judicial (tribunal contencioso administrativo y juez constitucional) había conocido de acciones legales contra esta legislación entre el 2008 y el 2009, y que el juez uruguayo había confirmado su plena validez dentro del ordenamiento jurídico uruguayo (ver detalle de las acciones legales en los párrafos 153-167 del laudo de pasado 8 de julio del 2016). El 2 de julio del 2013, el tribunal arbitral del CIADI se había declarado competente, rechazando los alegatos presentados por Uruguay (ver  texto completo  de su decisión sobre su competencia).

Un detalle de interés para juristas

En su decisión sobre la pretendida denegación de justicia a la empresa tabacalera, los miembros del tribunal precisan que: “The relationship between the parallel administrative and constitutional systems is critical in determining whether justice was denied. That system was in place before the Claimants invested in Uruguay. The Claimants’ knowledge of this relationship is evidenced by Abal’s procedural stance in challenging the 80/80 Regulation. The Respondent further rejects the Claimants’ contention that the alleged contradictory character of the two decisions, means, ultimately, that the Claimants were deprived of a decision on the legality of Decree 287. On the contrary, there was a clear legal decision on the constitutionality of Law 18,256 and the validity of its implementing Decree, respectively. Each decision was “reasonably substantiated.” Both courts received vigorous argument from both sides (Abal/MPH), and subsequently reviewed, analyzed, adjudicated upon the claims and dismissed them” (párrafos 513-514). Con relación a la constitucionalidad de un texto, a distinguir de la legalidad del mismo (que una empresa minera canadiense recientemente consideró oportuno incluir en su demanda contra Costa Rica alegando también “contradicciones” del sistema judicial costarricense), el tribunal del CIADI indica que: “According to the Tribunal, the simple fact is that the Supreme Court and the TCA are co-equal under the Uruguay constitutional system. Both have original and exclusive jurisdiction: the SCJ to determine the constitutionality of a law; the TCA to declare the validity or illegality of an administrative act adopted pursuant to a law determined to be constitutional, examining whether the administrative act is “contrary to a rule of law or under a distortion of authority” (párrafo 522).  En sus apreciaciones finales sobre el sistema juidicial uruguayo, los tres árbitros del CIADI  aclaran no obstante que: “In the Tribunal’s view, it is unusual that the Uruguayan judicial system separates out the mechanisms of review in this way, without any system for resolving conflicts of reasoning. The Tribunal believes, however, that it would not be appropriate to find a denial of justice because of this discrepancy. The Claimants were able to have their day (or days) in court, and there was an available judicial body with jurisdiction to hear their challenge to the 80/80 Regulation and which gave a properly reasoned decision. The fact that there is no further recourse from the TCA decision, which did not follow the reasoning of the SCJ, seems to be a quirk of the judicial system” (párrafo 527).

Posiblemente poco familiarizados con las peculiaridades del sistema constitucional vigente en Uruguay (como es lo usual cuando se revisa la trayectoria y hoja de vida de quiénes son llamados a ser árbitros en el CIADI), los integrantes del tribunal señalan también que: “In other words, the failure of the TCA to follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Articles 9 and 24 of Law 18,256 may appear unusual, even surprising, but it is not shocking and it is not serious enough in itself to constitute a denial of justice. Outright conflicts within national legal systems may be regrettable but they are not unheard of” (párrafo 529).

El peso de un “amicus curiae”

Ante los alegatos de la empresa tabacalera multinacional con relación al carácter supuestamente “arbitrario” de las medidas tomadas para proteger la salud de los uruguayos, los árbitros del CIADI parecen haber tomado en consideración, además de los argumentos de Uruguay, el “amicus curiae” sometido al tribunal arbitral por parte de un tercero: en este caso, la Organización Mundial para la Salud (OMS, más conocida por sus siglas en ingles WHO) y de su homóloga panamericana (OPS o PAHO en inglés). La lectura del fallo no permite saber hasta qué punto la iniciativa de estas dos organizaciones internacionales pudo influenciar a los árbitros, pero el hecho merece ser señalado: es posiblemente la primera vez en la historia del CIADI que sus árbitros reciben un “amicus curiae” proveniente de dos órganos internacionales en materia de salud (uno de carácter universal, parte del sistema de Naciones Unidas, otro de carácter regional, perteneciente al sistema interamericano).

En el párrafo 391 del laudo arbitral, leemos que: “Both measures have been implemented by the State for the purpose of protecting public health. The connection between the objective pursued by the State and the utility of the two measures is recognized by the WHO and the PAHO Amicus Briefs, which contain a thorough analysis of the history of tobacco control and the measures adopted to that effect. The WHO submission concludes that “the Uruguayan measures in question are effective means of protecting public health”. The PAHO submission holds that “Uruguay’s tobacco control measures are a reasonable and responsible response to the deceptive advertising, marketing and promotion strategies employed by the tobacco industry, they are evidence based, and they have proven effective in reducing tobacco consumption“.

Los gastos en honorarios de abogados

Notemos que en el párrafo 583 de la decisión arbitral dada recientemente a conocer, se lee que Uruguay debió sufragar gastos para su defensa que ascienden a más de 10 millones de US$ (el monto exacto dado a conocer es de: 10.319.833.57), mientras que la empresa reconoció haber gastado casi 17 millones de US$ (16.906.045.46). Estos datos confirman nuevamente el alto costo que significa para el erario público de un Estado el enfrentar demandas de este tipo. Actualmente, en la región centroamericana, El Salvador espera una decisión del CIADI con relación a una demanda interpuesta en el 2009 por una empresa minera por no haber renovado una concesión minera (caso  Pacific Rim Cayman LLC, por 300 millones de US$): una nota reciente indica que El Salvador ya ha destinado 13 millones de US$ en gastos relacionados con su defensa (ver  nota  de prensa). Por su parte, Costa Rica fue demandada en el 2014 por la empresa minera canadiense Infinito Gold al ver su proyecto suspendido por decisión de la justicia costarricense en el 2010, confirmada en el 2011 (caso  Infinito Gold Ltd, por 94 millones de US$) (Nota 4).  Recientemente, Panamá fue demandado de igual forma por una empresa minera norteamericana por 268 millones de US$ (Nota 5).

Colombia se estrenará en el CIADI con la demanda planteada en marzo del 2016 por la corporación suiza Glencore con base en… el TBI Colombia-Suiza  (ver ficha técnica): en un  artículo  sobre la anatomía de un escándalo se leyó (en febrero del 2016) en Colombia que: ” los señores de Glencore están conminando a la Contraloría General a que se arrodille, a que se arrodille el Estado colombiano y a que, en una diligencia de conciliación, le pidamos perdón y le devolvamos 62.000 millones de pesos”. Esta primera demanda que enfrenta Colombia en el CIADI, y que desde el 2011 la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Bogotá preveía (Nota 6), bien podría ser seguida de otras anunciadas por empresas mineras: varios consorcios de empresas mineras han anunciado su intención de demandar a Colombia por unos 16.500 millones de US$ (ver  nota ), a raíz de un fallo de la Corte de Constitucionalidad de Colombia de febrero del 2016 que prohíbe la minería en los páramos colombianos (ver  nota  de El Espectador).

Notemos que América Latina es una región objeto de una sostenida actividad del CIADI: de los 212 casos actualmente pendientes de resolución ante el CIADI al momento de redactar estas breves líneas, 58 conciernen a  Estados de América Latina. Según los datos proporcionados en el sitio oficial del CIADI, Argentina acumula un total de 53 casos (de los cuales 17 pendientes de resolución) y Venezuela, 40 casos (de los cuales 24 en espera de resolución). Aparecen luego México (suscriptor de un gran cantidad de TBI y tratados de libre comercio) que totaliza  17 demandas (de las cuales dos pendientes de resolución), Perú con 15 casos (de los cuales tres pendientes), Ecuador 14 (dos en proceso) y a Costa Rica con 10 casos acumulados, de los cuales 5 actualmente en proceso de resolución.

En el párrafo 590 conclusivo del laudo del tribunal del CIADI a favor de Uruguay, se lee que: “For the reasons set forth above, the Tribunal decides as follows: (1) The Claimants’ claims are dismissed; and (2) The Claimants shall pay to the Respondent an amount of US$7 million on account of its own costs, and shall be responsible for all the fees and expenses of the Tribunal and ICSID’s administrative fees and expenses, reimbursing to the Respondent all the amounts paid by it to the Centre on that account“.

Breves valoraciones conclusivas

Pese a una gran cantidad de titulares de prensa refiriendo a la “victoria” uruguaya y a la “derrota” de la tabacalera, esta nueva decisión del CIADI viene a evidenciar nuevamente los efectos negativos del sistema de arbitraje de inversión para las economías de los Estados de América Latina. Estos van más allá de los únicos honorarios que las finanzas públicas deben sufragar ante cada una de las demandas planteadas en su contra. En muchos casos, se trata de demandas abusivas que buscan forzar a un Estado a frenar sus políticas públicas en materia de salud, de ambiente, de protección del recurso hídrico, en materia de protección de poblaciones indígenas, entre otros ámbitos;  o bien en materia de recortes presupuestarios, lo cual explica la inédita situación actual de España, con 27 demandas pendientes de resolución ante el CIADI (Nota 7).

Estas demandas también pueden buscar producir un efecto disuasivo en otros Estados, en los que temblorosos decisores políticos se pueden de pronto ver inclinados por la mayor prudencia y cautela al ver a un Estado demandado cuando adopta algún tipo de legislación o regulación específica.

Decisiones ya no políticas, sino de la misma justicia nacional, y que resulten ser negativas para el inversionista extranjero, también están llevando a sus abogados a recurrir ante el CIADI: intentar obtener ante el CIADI lo que (como en el caso de Uruguay) la justicia nacional había declarado legal o (como en el caso de Infinito Gold en Costa Rica, totalmente ilegal) pareciera entonces constituirse en una muy cuestionable tendencia a la que se está prestando el CIADI.

 Nicolás Boeglin

Notas:

Nota 1: Sobre los efectos negativos para la economía de los Estados de América Latina del sistema instituido por el CIADI en 1965 y consolidado con la red de TBI adoptados de manera profusa en los años 90, remitimos al muy completo artículo de ZABALO P., “América Latina ante las demandas inveror-Estado”, Revista de Economía Mundial, Núm. 31 (Mayo-Agosto, 2012), pp. 261-296. Texto disponible  aquí. Sobre las diversas estrategias de los Estados de la región latinoamericana para limitar el alcance de ciertos tratados con cláusulas muy favorables para el inversionista extranjero, véase el análisis detallado de la profesora Katia Fach Gomez: FACH GOMEZ K., “Proponiendo un decálogo conciliador para Latinoamérica y CIADI”, Revista Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas (Medellín, Colombia), Vol. 40 (Dic. 2010), No. 113, pp. 439-454, disponible aquí. Más modesta, remitimos al lector a nuestra breve nota  publicada en diciembre del 2013 en inglés: BOEGLIN N., “ICSID and Latin America Criticism, withdrawal and the search for alternatives”, Bretton Woods Project, December 3, 2013, texto disponible aquí. 

Nota 2: El caso de la adhesión de Costa Rica a la Convención CIADI es bastante ilustrativo en América Latina. Costa Rica firmó la Convención de Washington que establece el CIADI en 1981, pero la ratificó tan solo 12 años después, en 1993.  Este plazo se debe a la renuencia de Costa Rica a ratificarla mientras no se resolviera el caso de Santa Elena ante sus tribunales nacionales. El caso Santa Elena refiere a una expropiación realizada con motivo de la creación del Parque Nacional Santa Rosa en 1978, la cual dio lugar a un reclamo por parte de la Compañia de Desarrollos de Santa Elena SA, controlada por ciudadanos norteamericanos, por 6,400.000 US$: el Estado ofrecía un monto de 1,900.000 US$, considerando que la propiedad había sido adquirida en 1970 por dicha sociedad a un precio de 395.000 US$. Ante la falta de acuerdo, y posterior a la ratificación de Costa Rica en 1993 de la Convención CIADI, la compañía reclamó el 31 de mayo de 1995 a Costa Rica el pago de 41 millones de US$, y el CIADI decidió en su laudo del 17 de febrero del 2000 ordenar un pago indemnizatorio de 16 millones de US$. Se lee en  un  memorandum  de la GCAB (Global Committee of Argentina Bondholders) sobre la situación en Argentina que esta decisión de Costa Rica resultó de presiones directas de Estados Unidos en relación al caso Santa Elena: ” En los años 90, después de un reclamo por una supuesta expropriación de un inversionista norteamericano, Costa Rica se rehusó a someter la controversia a un arbitraje del CIADI. El inversionista norteamericano  invocó la enmienda Helms y se suspendió un préstamo de 175 milliones de US$ del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo a Costa Rica. Costa Rica consintió someterse al procedimiento del CIADI, y el inversionista norteamericano recuperó 16 millones US$” (Tradución libre del autor). En una nota de La Nación de 1997 (ver  nota ) sobre acciones indebidas de parte del senado Helms por problemas de ciudadanos norteamericanos, se lee que: ”La conducta de este senador compagina con su pretensión, en 1993, de bloquear los préstamos para Costa Rica del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) para que se pagara la expropiación de la hacienda Santa Elena, propiedad de Joseph Hamilton”.

Nota 3: El tratado bilateral de inversiones de Costa Rica con Suiza (firmado en agosto del 2000 y aprobado el 12 de febrero del año 2002 – ver  texto  de la ley 8218) ha dado lugar a una demanda contra Costa Rica en el 2013 ante el CIADI de un grupo de accionistas suizos denominado Cervin Investment S.A. que controla mayoritariamente a la empresa mexicana Gaz Z por 30 millones de US$ (ver  ficha técnica  de la demanda, caso ARB 13/2): este caso, que se origina en intentos en Costa Rica para regular la distribución del gas, se encuentra pendiente de resolución, con audiencias realizadas el pasado 11 de julio del 2016, según indica la ficha sobre detalles procesales disponible aquí.

Nota 4: Sobre este caso contra Costa Rica, que, al parecer no ha despertado mayor interés en la literatura especializada, pese a tratarse de un proyecto minero altamente cuestionado, objeto de una serie de escándalos en Costa Rica a partir del 2008, remitimos al lector a nuestra breve nota: BOEGLIN N.,  “La solicitud de Costa Rica de poner término a la demanda de Infinito Gold ante el CIADI: breves reflexiones”, OPALC, Sciences-Po Paris,  15 de agosto del 2015. Texto disponible aquí.

Nota 5: Sobre esta última demanda contra Panamá, remitimos al lector a nuestra nota: BOEGLIN N., “A propósito de la reciente demanda contra Panamá ante el CIADI: breves apuntes”, OPALC, Sciences Po, Paris, mayo 2016, disponible aquí.

Nota 6: En una nota preparada por la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Bogotá de mayo del 2011 (y destinada a las empresas norteamericanas interesadas en invertir en Colombia) se reconocía la dificultad que presentaba para el inversionista extranjero la legislación colombiana (al restringir la posibilidad de acudir a un arbitraje internacional), pero informaba que la suscripción de numerosos Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión (TBI) por parte de Colombia podría cambiar la situación: se lee textualmente en esta nota que: “Since Colombia has become party to FTAs and multilateral and bilateral investment treaties, the number of international investment arbitration cases between investors and State entities will increase. These arbitration processes may help to change Colombian case law because FTAs, BITs and multilateral investment treaties empower arbitration tribunals to decide cases related to breach of treaty standards of investment protection”.

Nota 7: A raíz de un recorte en las subvenciones estatales para proyectos de producción de energía eólica y solar, España se ha visto inundada de demandas que la colocan  por encima de Venezuela y de Argentina en el CIADI. En estos momentos, de los 212 casos pendientes registrados en el CIADI, España acumula 27 demandas (según las cifras oficiales del CIADI a la hora de redactar esta nota), seguida por Venezuela (24) y Argentina (17). En América Latina, luego de Venezuela y Argentina, aparecen con mayor número de demandas registradas en el CIADI Costa Rica (con cinco demandas), Perú (con tres demandas), Ecuador, México y Panamá (con dos cada uno), así como Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, con una demanda pendiente de resolución.

Nicolás Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR). 

Terrorism and “False Flags”. “Dead Men Don’t Talk”…

By Peter Koenig, July 20 2016

Another false flag in Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany. A young man attacks four passengers in a train and later a passerby in the street. The scenes repeat themselves now in rapid cadence. Paris, Brussels, Nice, Bangladesh… Same patterns, same motives –and same group of terrorists claiming credit. The lies and propaganda are becoming more flagrant, and, We, the People, just swallow it.

Who is Behind Turkey’s Failed Coup? Erdogan Inside Job, US-Gulen Op., or Joint US-Turkey False Flag?

By Joachim Hagopian, July 20 2016

The latest mystery puzzle on the geopolitical chessboard is who was really behind that failed military coup to overthrow Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan over the weekend? Erdogan immediately blamed his former ally and now exiled enemy in Pennsylvania – the75-year old Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen. The Turkish labor minister went so far as to charge the United States with inciting the quickly quelled “uprising” as described by both Erdogan and Western media.

Nice Terror Attack, A Harvest of Horror. French Government Support of Terrorism

By Tony Cartalucci, July 20 2016

While the Western media poses as perplexed over the recent string of horrific attacks across Europe and particularly in France, the latest of which unfolded this week in the seaside city of Nice leaving over 80 dead and many more injured, it is clear that France itself has cultivated the soil within which terrorism and violence has taken root.

Syria War Report: US-Backed “Moderate Rebels” Behead 11 Year Old Palestinian Kid. “U.S. May Reconsider Assistance to the Group”

By South Front, July 20 2016

The US-backed ‘moderate rebels’ from the Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki captured a Palestinian kid, accused him of being a “spy” of Palestinian pro-government militia, Liwa al-Quds, and beheaded him for this. The event was in the militant-controlled refugee camp “Handarat Camp” in northern Aleppo.

Milestone: We’ve Just Dropped Our 50,000th Bomb on ISIS

By Daniel McAdams, July 20 2016

In August, 2014, the US-led “coalition” began bombing Iraq and Syria to, in the words of President Obama, “degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIS.” For nearly two years — despite President Obama announcing last November that ISIS was “contained” — the bombing has continued unabated.

Russian President Vladimir Putin did on Sunday what no major western leader from the NATO member countries cared to do when he telephoned his Turkish counterpart Recep Erdogan to convey his sympathy, goodwill and best wishes for the latter’s success in restoring constitutional order and stability as soon as possible after the attempted coup Friday night.

The US Secretary of State John Kerry instead made an overnight air dash to Brussels to have a breakfast meeting on Monday with the EU foreign ministers to discuss a unified stance on the crisis in Turkey. The French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault was in an angry mood ahead of the breakfast, saying “questions” have arisen as to whether Turkey is any longer a “viable” ally. He voiced “suspicions” over Turkey’s intentions and insisted that European backing for Erdogan against the coup was not a “blank cheque” for him to suppress his opponents.

The US has expressed displeasure regarding the Turkish allegations of an American hand in the failed coup. Indeed, Turkish allegation has no precedent in NATO’s 67-year old history – of one member plotting regime change in another member country through violent means. Clearly, US and Turkey are on a collision course over the extradition of the Islamist preacher Fethullah Gulen living in exile in Pennsylvania whom the Turkish government has named as the key plotter behind the coup. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim has warned that Ankara will regard the US as an “enemy” if it harbored Gulen. The dramatic developments expose the cracks appearing in the western alliance system. (See the commentary in the Russian news agency Sputnik entitled NATO R.I.P (1949-2016): Will Turkey-US Rift Over Gulen Destroy Alliance?)

Interestingly, the senior Turkish army officials detained so far include the following:

• Commander of the Incirlik air base (and 10 of his subordinates) where NATO forces are located and 90 percent of the US’ tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are stored;
• Army Commander in charge of the border with Syria and Iraq;
• Corps Commander who commands the NATO contingency force based in Istanbul; and,
• Former military attaches in Israel and Kuwait.

Most certainly, the needle of suspicion points toward the Americans having had some knowledge of the coup beforehand. Two F-16 aircraft and two ‘tankers’ to provide mid-air refuelling for them and used in the coup attempt actually took off from Incirlik.

Of course, Ankara has been wary of the US and France establishing military bases in northern Syria with the support of local Kurdish tribes, which it suspected would be a stepping stone leading to the creation of a ‘Kurdistan’. (The advisor on foreign affairs to Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Akbar Velayati, who is an influential figure in Tehran alleged on Sunday that the US is attempting to create a Kurdistan state carved out of neighboring countries with Kurdish population, which will be a “second Israel” in the Middle East to serve Washington’s regional interests.)

Today, the famous Saudi whistleblower known as ‘Mujtahid’ has come out with a sensational disclosure that the UAE played a role in the coup and had kept Saudi Arabia in the loop. Also, the deposed ruler of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani (who is a close friend of Erdogan) has alleged that the US, another Western country (presumably France) had staged the coup and that Saudi Arabia was involved in it. (here and here) Meanwhile, word has leaked to the media that in a closed-door briefing to the Iranian parliament on Sunday, Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif hinted at Saudi and Qatari involvement in the coup.

Putin’s phone call to Erdogan suggests the possibility that Russian and Turkish intelligence are keeping in touch. The two leaders have agreed to meet shortly.

The timing of the coup attempt – following the failure of the US push to establish a NATO presence in the Black Sea and in the wake of the Russian-Turkish rapprochement – becomes significant. Equally, the signs of shift in Turkey’s interventionist policies in Syria would have unnerved the US and its regional allies.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a great deal to lose if Turkey establishes ties with Syria, which is on the cards. Thus, stopping Erdogan on his tracks has become an urgent imperative for these countries. The spectre of the Syrian government regaining control over the country’s territory haunts Israel, which has been hoping that a weakened and fragmented Syria would work to its advantage to permanently annex the occupied territories in the Golan Heights. Again, Turkey’s abandonment of the ‘regime change’ agenda in Syria means a geopolitical victory for Iran. On the contrary, a triumphant and battle-hardened Hezbollah next door means that its vast superiority in conventional military strength will be rendered even more irrelevant in countering the resistance movement. Significantly, Israel is keeping stony silence.

Will the US and its regional allies simply throw in the towel or will bide their time to make a renewed bid to depose Erdogan? That is the big question. Erdogan’s popularity is soaring sky-high today within Turkey. He can be trusted to complete the ‘vetting’ process to purge the Gulenists ensconced in the state apparatus and the armed forces. The meeting of the High Military Council due in August to decide on the retirement, promotions and transfers of the military top brass gives Erdogan the free hand to remove the Gulenists.

M. K. Bhadrakumar is the former career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service.

The U.S. “regime change” operation in Syria recently tallied up some major successes.

The Syrian Democratic Force, a U.S. sponsored group of mostly Syrian Kurds, is besieging the Islamic State held eastern city of Manbij. According to the UN’s Human Rights commissioner 70,000 civilians in Manbij are cut off from all supplies. We have yet to hear calls for an immediate breaking of the siege or for enforced air drops of supplies to these people. Where are all the R2P fans in the Obama administration and all the well paid Syrian opposition propaganda groups on this? That the U.S. has managed to avoid any questions about this siege is surely a success.

Instead of delivering food the U.S. did some different air drops on Marjib:

At least 56 civilians were killed on Tuesday in air strikes north of the besieged Islamic State-held city of Manbij in northern Syria, and residents said they believed the attack was carried out by U.S.-led warplanes, a monitoring group said.The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the dead included 11 children, and that dozens more people were wounded.

The CIA finances a long list of proxies in Syria to fight the Syrian government and the millions of people its protects. It has delivered high powered TOW anti-tank weapons to many of thesegroups:

The groups that the CIA currently allows munitions to be shared with are: … Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement, (Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki)…

According to the BBC Foreign News producer Riam Dalati it is a group of these Nour al-Din al-Zenki “moderate rebels” who yesterday captured a Palestinian boy of some 8. 10, maybe 12 years, taunted him and accused him of fighting on the Syrian government’s side. The boy had no uniform on and had medical infusion tubes in his right arm.

The CIA supported “moderate rebels” then behead the boy with a knife right on the back of that red pickup truck. There are photos and videos of the child alive as well as video of the beheading. The Zinki group, like its CIA supporters, was already known for torturing people.

This shows again that the Obama administration has “done nothing”, or at least not enough, to help these democratic forces in Syria. If these moderate people would have received more weapons, they could have used something better than a rusty knife to slaughter the boy. Indeed the group blames the “international community” for such behavior of its members.

The Obama administration has done its best to shield not only the above “moderates but also al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al Nusra, from attacks by the Syrian and Russian forces. U.S. supported “moderate rebels”, like the friendly folks above, mixed with al-Qaeda fighters and the U.S. insisted that thereby both are under its ceasefire agreement with Russian forces. Obviously the U.S. has long considered al-Qaeda in Syria to be some local problem that could be used to further “regime change” but would never become a danger for the U.S. itself or its interests. The Russians insist that the group is a legitimate target and rejected new disguised U.S. attempts to shield it.

Something happened though that suddenly let the Obama administration -here Secretary of State Kerry- change tact:

The fact is that Nusrah is plotting against countries in the world. What happened in Nice last night could just as well have come from Nusrah or wherever it came from as any other entity, because that’s what they do.

The fact that the Nice attack followed a script published in an al-Qaeda pamphlet might have helped to finally stop the nefarious schemes of those administration circles who nurtured the group. But again this only happened after some messy incident. Not once has the administration refrained from supporting the most brutal radicals, in Afghanistan, in Libya ,in Syria and elsewhere, until these came back to bite. It seems to have taken a “success” of 80+ killed people in Nice to move the U.S. away from supporting al-Qaeda.

Without al-Qaeda’s ruthless fighters the CIA supported  “moderate rebels” have no chance to win the war against the Syrian government. The U.S. is starting to follow the Russian script and will attack al-Qaeda and other like groups in Syria. The “regime change by force” project is thereby, for now, practically dead. Turkey is moving away from its nefarious role in Syria and is making friends again with the Syrian allies Russia and Iran. This will give additional impetus to the administration’s silent retreat from its “regime change” project.

The latest mystery puzzle on the geopolitical chessboard is who was really behind that failed military coup to overthrow Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan over the weekend? Erdogan immediately blamed his former ally and now exiled enemy in Pennsylvania – the 75-year old Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen. The Turkish labor minister went so far as to charge the United States with inciting the quickly quelled “uprising” as described by both Erdogan and Western media.

A rebel Turkish military faction seized two airports closing a third as well as closing both bridges over the Bosphorus Strait separating Asian Turkey from European Turkey, and launching air attacks on Istanbul and Ankara with helicopter gunships and F-16 jets as well as tanks rocking Ankara’s parliamentary building and Turkish intelligence headquarters, totaling 294 deaths from last Friday evening through the morning hours on Saturday. The Erdogan government immediately honed in to arrest senior military officers in command at Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey, which closed temporarily the crucial launch pad facility used by US Empire for airstrike dominance over Syria and Iraq ostensibly to target ISIS terrorists, the same proxy war terrorist allies that both the US and Turkey for the last four years have been deploying in their still ongoing regime change war against Assad’s Syria. Turkish police are now searching the air base after Incirlik’s commander’s was arrested for his and others’ involvement over the weekend allowing the base to be used for refueling planes deployed during the foiled coup attempt. Incirlik also happens to store the largest NATO nuclear arsenal.

In the weekend’s aftermath, a number of analysts, pundits and political armchair quarterbacks are all abuzz, speculating that the sultan madman Erdogan, known for executing false flags against his own citizens, may well have staged yet another clumsily faked operation this weekend. Already by Monday the sultan arrested over 6,000 of his enemies in the Turkish military and Turkish legal system in a nationwide purge. By Tuesday that number extended deep into security police and teachers alike, skyrocketing to 20,000 arrested or suspended, eliminating in one fell swoop any and all serious threats from anti-Erdogan opposition camps. Perhaps for that very reason alone, in rare form even every rival political party in the Ankara Parliament unanimously condemned the coup from the get-go, knowing if they didn’t, the resurging dictator-in-charge would include them in his lethal kill roundup too. European Union leaders are expressing concern that the dictator has abandoned all rule of law arresting thousands from his alleged preplanned lists of potential enemies.

On the other hand, The Guardian’s former chief foreign leader writer David Hurst, now editor of Middle East Eye, is enamored by Erdogan’s sudden newfound strength and power, gleefully pointing out in his latest piece how Western mainstream media outlets were all too quick to miscall the coup as already successful:

BBC Arabic, Sky News Arabic, El Arabiya TV, the ITN diplomatic editor, the US networks were all running commentaries saying Erdogan was finished, or had fled to Germany.

Hurst accurately reports that Western leaders like Obama and Kerry silently waited for hours in hopes that Erdogan would be dethroned before finally conceding, issuing public statements backing the Erdogan government, seemingly only after they had no other choice. The Ankara shill David Hurst paints a heroic Erdogan bravely inspiring his nation onto “democratic” victory:

“The turning point in last night’s morality play in Turkey came when images of Erdogan speaking into his iPhone were broadcast and spread virally over social media,” calling his citizens into harm’s way to hit the streets in every Turkish city to both ensure the coup would be unsuccessful while proudly celebrating the historic moment together as one unified people and nation in an Erdogan-esque kumbaya moment.

Using his own people as crisis actors, Hollywood or for that matter Washington could never have dramatically scripted or staged a better soap opera production where every Turk was reminded just how proud they are to be Turkish. Recently resigned Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu summarized Turkey’s patriotic reaction to the attempted overthrow still in process:

It’s time to have solidarity with the Turkish people… At this moment people in different cities are in the streets, the squares [protesting] against this coup d’état attempt.

Typically what do political leaders do when they’re struggling to stay in power? They launch a fake coup or war, sabre rattling against internal or external threats to rally a jingoistic nationalism amongst its malleable, flag-waving citizenry.

Barely two weeks went by since Erdogan was forced to grovel at Putin’s feet, with an  apology letter for last November’s shoot down of the Russian jet, including full financial compensation to the pilot’s bereaved family. Since ascending in 2003 to Turkey’s PM job and presidency in 2014, a few days ago Erdogan was floundering at his weakest low point, his political life barely hanging by a thread, on the outs with both US and prominent EU powers like Germany, brushed aside and scorned with louder threats of NATO dis-membership and EU barring, dreams of his Ottoman Empire shattered with his ISIS buddies’ defeat in Syria and Iraq, increasing acts of deadly terrorism at home that has virtually shut down his nation’s critically vital tourism industry, his recession-racked economy frozen in stagnation, and Kurdish opposition groups and political enemies galore growing by the minute.

What a difference a few days can make with what increasingly appears to be a staged coup. Now Erdogan’s back in the driver’s seat with carte blanch authority to bring back the death penalty (only abolished when he’d hoped back in 2004 for EU membership) and permanently remove every real and imagined opponent he’s ever had using as his scapegoat blaming an exile protected by the US government as the coup mastermind. Of course the accused cleric Gulen insists that Erdogan “staged” his own failed coup. Erdogan himself on Saturday described the weekend’s unfolding events as “a gift from God,” a brilliant stroke of luck, lending yet more credence to growing legions adhering to the false flag theory.

Another highly suspicious loose end that the Erdogan regime propped up to announce to the world allegedly occurred during Erdogan’s flight back from his seaside holiday resort town Marmaris. Two F-16’s piloted by rebel flyers could have easily shot Erdogan’s plane out of the sky but for some mysterious, unexplained reason failed to snuff the leader when they had their best chance with his plane locked in their sights. If that’s true, and a renegade military faction was actually serious about deposing the president, Erdogan would never have made it to Ankara. Erdogan further boasted how minutes after he’d leave a location in Marmaris, bombs were suddenly exploding right behind just missing him by minutes. His megalomaniac bravado always seems to destroy his already near nonexistent credibility.

This “inside job” theory is but one highly plausible choice, that Erdogan did arrange his own failed coup to reinvent himself overnight as the popular “hero” of his nation’s 80 million strong population. Another equally probable explanation could be that Erdogan might actually be telling the truth for a change, that the US Empire and Gulen did actually orchestrate the attempt to remove him from power. Proponents of this conclusion cite the fact that a sizeable portion of the imam’s loyal diehard following happened to be in high places in both Turkey’s military officer command as well as standing high court judges. Reports are circulating that they’d been alerted that they were already on a purge list for impending arrest roundups and hence they rushed to cheat their own fate by pulling off a last minute, slipshod effort to take down the sultan before the sultan took them down. The surfacing of preplanned purge lists can also be used to promote the contention that the coup effort was real.

The controversial religious leader Gulen had a falling out with his ex-buddy Erdogan over a corruption scandal back in 2011. Prior to then, for years the two had been self-serving, mutually allied supporters of both each other and Islamic jihadism. Also for decades Gulen has been steeped deep in US deep state ties – namely the CIA and Department of Education. The multibillionaire Gulen worth $25 billion owns the largest network of charter schools throughout America and hundreds more throughout the world, and since 1998 lives comfortably on a large remote compound near small town Pennsylvania. Through three prominently known CIA officials, Gulen was able to receive permanent US residence status and his green card to evade prosecution for treason in his own country.

Gulen schools worldwide teach Islamic extremism and funnel graduating students into the CIA-terrorist pipeline. Gulen and his Islamic movement along with the Turkish government both have actively worked with CIA’s covert global operations to create insurgent terrorist forces from Chechnya to the South Caucasus, especially throughout Central Asia all the way to western China’s Xinjiang Province, stirring up anti-Moscow and anti-Beijing Islamic terrorism by exploiting various native Muslim populations through Gulen’s jihadist school indoctrination from the Tatars to the Uyghurs. Gulen has long played a central role in the US foreign policy to transform virtually all of both Russia and China’s border neighbors into hostile enemies in order to isolate and weaken the two powers that most threaten US Empire’s unipolar sole superpower hegemonic status.

Virtually from the Turkish coup’s onset, Erdogan began demanding that Washington arrest and extradite Gulen back to Turkey. After calling Turkish accusations that the US played any role in the attempted power grab “utterly false and harmful,” fork-tongued John Kerry stated that if Ankara hands its evidence over to US authorities that prove the imam is in fact responsible for the coup, then the US government will send Gulen back to face trial, but not until then. But because Gulen has been such an integral influential presence and asset in both America’s foreign policy as well as worldwide propagandizing as a school of terrorism machine, the odds are extremely nil that the exiled leader would ever be forced to return to Turkey to face sure death.

Meanwhile over the last year on a different but related matter, the Obama administration has chosen to militarily support the Syrian Kurds in which Turkey has long targeted the Kurds as its eternal ethnic enemy, with many Kurds inhabiting southeastern Turkey fighting for independence as Erdogan orders brutal assaults to ethnically cleanse Kurds from the entire region, continuing his Turkish airstrikes against Kurds living in northern Iraq fighting ISIS, and sending ISIS militants across the Turkish border to kill Syrian Kurds and Assad forces.

The Turkmen brethren the Azeris’ April fool’s invasion of the ancient Armenian homeland Nagorno-Karabakh aroused Erdogan’s promise of continued support “to the end” against another sworn enemy – the genocided Christian Armenians – illustrating over a century long history of Turkey’s lustful binges of ethnic purging. As another slap in the face last month, Germany formally recognized the Armenian genocide. With the Greater Israel Project dictating US Empire’s vision to balkanize Syria, Iraq, Libya and potentially Turkey, Kurdish autonomy fits right in synch with their imperialistic Great Game plan.

In response to Erdogan’s reckless behavior in recent months, both Europe and Washington have at least publicly given the erratic despot their cold shoulder, secretly preferring to see Erdogan ousted. Hence, the apparent overt support for last weekend’s coup against him. Thus shunned by the West, Friday night into Saturday’s skullduggery could well be direct payback against Erdogan for his recent shift toward détente with Russia. Journalist Andrew Korybko suggests Russian intelligence could have even tipped Erdogan off of the coming coup attempt.

Also if Turkey really believes that the US Empire was behind an actual conspiracy carried out to destroy Erdogan, why after only a day or so would Erdogan allow the US to resume using its Incirlik Air Base again? After all, such a covert criminal offense would be considered an act of war. Why wouldn’t all diplomatic relations be immediately cut off and all American Embassy personnel sent home? In all likelihood, the entire weekend’s events was a joint false flag operation by both Turkey and the United States. The US continues to protect Gulen and his global methods of preaching jihadism worldwide while a fake spat erupts temporarily between Empire and its longtime crucial NATO puppet ally Turkey. This is perhaps the most viable explanation and how clandestine backroom deals are typically forged under false pretenses on the geopolitics chessboard. Potential blackmail maintains the lie that keeps all the criminal players in check. And increased authoritarian control in one country is good for increasing authoritarian control in all countries according to New World Order’s code of psychopathic conduct.

At the end of the day, or more aptly at the end of the weekend, the bottom line is, Erdogan has morphed from just days earlier as a NATO liability and political pariah to the most dangerous despot currently holding more power than he’s ever had in his life. And whether he alone staged the false flag or US-Gulen forces staged a botched coup, or all parties are guilty to one extent or another by either complicit or actively plotted and executed design, Erdogan still holds another three million more Syrian refugees he can unleash at any time to Europe as punishment should he be exposed and held accountable. In effect, Erdogan holds the cards to further extort more concessions over and above the $6 billion the EU’s already agreed to cough up to make him stop flooding yet more refugees onto the European continent that’s already teetering on the brink of total self-destruction.

It’s the grossest form of perverse injustice when the likes of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have collectively created the terrorists and caused the wars driving the mass migration crisis, with Israel and Saudi Arabia flatly refusing to accept refugees, and Turkey holding power to extort a weakened, compromised Europe into accepting Turkey’s heavy-handed coercion into EU membership while further charging extortion fees, then threatening to create a far worst crisis if additional demands aren’t met. On top of that, the barbaric conditions and criminal abuses perpetrated especially inside the Turkish refugee camps have resulted in yet another appalling humanitarian crisis. When a handful of evil, mentally ill psychopaths rule the world as they do, this is what we get – a world out of control and ready to terminally explode.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

Contemporary global capitalism is characterized by extreme wealth concentration and a rapidly expanding and largely impoverished global labour force. Mainstream institutions such as the World Bank and International Labour Organization encourage integration into global value chains as a development strategy that, they claim, will reduce poverty. In reality, employment within these chains generates new forms of worker poverty and contributes to global wealth concentration. That is why they should be labelled global poverty chains.

Global inequality has never been greater. For example, the wealth of the world’s richest 62 people, who between them have more wealth than half of the world’s population, rose by 44 per cent between 2010 and 2015. Over the same period the wealth of the bottom 50 per cent of humanity fell by approximately 38 per cent.

Very large numbers, perhaps the majority, of the world’s labour force is poor. In 2010 there were approximately 942 million working poor (almost 1 in 3 workers globally living on under $2 [U.S.] a day). However, these figures are a significant underestimate.

Measuring Poverty

The International Labour Organization calculates poverty using the World Bank’s ‘purchasing power parity (PPP)’ international poverty lines of $1 and $2 [U.S.] a day – where $1 a day represents ‘extreme poverty’ and $2 a day simply ‘poverty’.

People who live above these poverty lines are held to be not poor. These poverty lines reflect the international equivalent of what $1 or $2 could have purchased in 1985 in the United States. Whilst the poverty lines have been updated since then, their purchasing powers hover around these symbolic figures. A moment’s reflection suggests that $1 or $2 a day in the U.S. in 1985 could buy hardly anything. Quite obviously higher poverty lines are necessary. The problem for the World Bank is that depending on where they are set, they would show that much greater numbers of the world’s population live in poverty. And that reality contradicts the neoliberal celebration of global capitalism.

The World Bank’s poverty lines are uni-dimensional: they are only concerned with the costs of consumption (the meaning of purchasing power parity). They take no account of other, multidimensional, forms of poverty, such as back-breaking labour and unsafe living conditions. While hundreds of millions of workers across the global south earn more than $1, $2 or $5 PPP a day, these wages do not cover their subsistence costs. In order to survive they have to work many additional hours, with negative consequences for their health. But according to the World Bank these workers are not poor.

So where do global value chains, or what more accurately should be called global poverty chains, enter this equation?

North-South Logic

Since the 1980s, increasing numbers of corporations have trans-nationalized – by operating across borders. They are often headquartered in the global north while components are produced, assembled and sourced from across the global south. Northern corporations preside over systems of production and exchange based upon increasingly intense intra-supplier competition. In this way labour costs are reduced in at least three ways: 1) through outsourcing production from relatively expensive northern labour markets to relatively cheap southern labour markets, 2) by exerting downward cost pressures throughout the chain – where supplier firms are pushed to undercut each other in order to receive or keep their contracts, and 3) by using these pressures to intimidate northern workers to accept pay cuts, or lose their jobs off-shore. Supplier firms respond to these overbearing pressures rationally – by slashing wage costs.

Under these conditions of intense intra-supplier competition and worker exploitation, trans-national corporations are able to capture the lion’s share of the value created within these chains It is not surprising, then, that employment for supplier firms in global supply chains is often predicated upon, and contributes to, the reproduction of mass poverty.

A well-known example of this dynamic – of corporate value-capture and worker impoverishment – is Apple’s supply chain. Its profit for the iPhone in 2010 constituted over 58 per cent of the device’s final sale price, while Chinese worker’s share was only 1.8 per cent. In 2010, Foxconn, one of Apple’s principal Asian suppliers, employed around 500,000 workers in its factories in Shenzhen and Chengdu. It rose to infamy that year following reports of 18 attempted suicides by workers, 14 of which were fatal. Foxconn employs a military-style labour-regime. At the start of the day managers ask workers “How are you?” and staff must reply “Good! Very good! Very, very good!” After that they must work in silence, monitored by managers and with strict limits on toilet breaks. Pay is very low, and overtime is often the only way that workers can earn enough to live on.

A similar dynamic operates in the global garment industry where approximately 30 million workers are employed. There are regular media reports about abusive working conditions in these industries, ranging from extremely low pay, to child labour and forced labour. Most horrifically, in Bangladesh in April 2013 1,113 garment workers were killed and 2,500 injured following the collapse of Rana Plaza, an 8 story building in which textile factories operated. In his overview of the apparel sector across 17 countries John Pickles documents how, from the mid-2000s onwards, “wage levels were driven below subsistence costs.” In India, Bangladesh and Cambodia, for example, basic wages as a percentage of living wages are 26%, 19% and 21% respectively.

In Cambodia’s garment industry conditions are so harsh that workers regularly faint at work as a consequence of the intensity of the labour required of them. Overtime is a necessity as regular wages are insufficient to meet their daily needs. While the government limits overtime to 2 hours per day, this is not legally enforced and the economic pressures upon workers to exceed these hours are intense. Most workers in the large Cambodian textile factories work between 3 and 5 hours overtime a day.

The ‘choice’ facing workers in many of these burgeoning industries is to engage in very high volumes of health-damaging work in order to earn a subsistence, or live in very deep poverty.

Lead firm’s capture the lion’s share of value generated within global poverty chains because workers in these chains are ruthlessly exploited. Wealth concentration and mass poverty are two sides of the same coin of global capitalist development. A more equitable share of the value generated throughout these chains could contribute significantly to the genuine amelioration of these workers conditions and a reduction in the number of the world’s working poor. But it would also threaten, and potentially undermine lead firm power and reduce profits. This is the trade-off that global policymakers and business must address if we are to rethink the global labour market and new ways of sharing prosperity more equitably are to be found. •

Benjamin Selwyn is Director of the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex, UK. His publications include The Global Development Crisis (2014), and “Global Value Chains or Global Poverty Chains: A New Research Agenda” (2016, CGPE Working Paper, no. 10, University of Sussex). This article first published by Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI).

Engaged in his dirty spate of housecleaning under the auspices of protecting the constitution and the Turkish state, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan continues to insist on one vital scalp in his enterprise.

Thus far, the cleric Fethullah Gülen has eluded Ankara from his abode in Pennsylvania. From his base, something of a global network has been constructed, one discernable through foundations and an assortment of endeavours pursued under the guise of a faith movement. These do not attest to the spirit of a pacifist warrior, averse to revolution. They suggest influence, and the markings of power.

For the cleric’s enemies, there is much to be said that he has profited from the land of the free, seething about an individual he once desired to share power with.  Notions of democracy are distant here; more significant is a distinct appraisal of power padded by such notions as “liberal” and “moderate”. These are the necessary marketing tools for a political figure in exile.

The cleric’s movement, Hizmet, prides itself on sponsoring education and running programs heavy with the anti-radicalization agenda. His opponents, such as attorney Robert Amsterdam, retained by Ankara to investigate alleged financial misconduct in the United States, suggest that the movement’s leader “is a money-laundering criminal” (Foreign Policy, Jul 18).

Politics can be a dirty thing indeed, and in the case of Hizmet, education via some hundreds of charter schools in the United States has become an enterprise of channelling and re-directing to the Gülenistas.

This also has a further benefit: lobbying various levels of government within the United States, and funding trips to Turkey for no less than 200 congressmen, a clear violation of House of Representative rules.[1] Influence, in short, is being assiduously cultivated.

An individual such as Erdoğan is bound to be suspicious of mass education endeavours that favour a particular slant for the obvious reason that he has one himself. Hardly in the mould of a free-thinker, he is bound to see rival ideas as guns and bullets.

The failure of the coup has given the president a strong hand to press Washington on Gülen, who has come out of traditional obscurity to suggest how rich it was to be accused of leading a coup from abroad, “As someone who suffered under multiple military coups during the last five decades”.  Sadly, those who suffer instability are not necessarily going to prevent it from recurring.

The attempt to drum up the case to the Obama administration is another feature of Turkey’s recent foreign policy: play the card of the stabilising power, be it in terms of quelling flows of refugees into the European Union, or stemming the forces of fundamentalism. This, despite a distinct ambivalence, if not actual tactical corporation at points with Islamic state officials. Fundamentalism does come in different shades.

As for what Ankara is seeking to adduce to prove the link to Gülen, the bar of evidence can be rather low.  To justify the value of a fight, the enemy must always be inflated, credited with more influence and power than he necessarily has.  Nothing is worse in revolutions and wars than the notion that one’s opponent was mediocre and incapable. The look in that mirror can prove most unenviable.

This strategy of inflation entails a ballooning approach on the part of the victor, one that has seen 20,000 government employees detained across various fields of employment.  These include 185 admirals and colonels, and 1,500 finance ministry officials.  Not even the prime minister’s office has been spared: 257 personnel have been let go. The smell of treason is wafting.

The coup plotters may certainly have drawn inspiration from Gülen in some form, alongside those traditional Kemalists who treat the Turkish constitution as the ultimate State fetish. The cleric’s Hizmet movement in Turkey is not to be taken lightly, and has been accused of winning supporters in the country’s judicial and military circles.

This has spilled over into a personalised flexing of muscle.  In 2013, Erdoğan took note of the efforts on the part of judicial officers in their efforts to bring corruption charges against officials within his inner circle, including son Bilal. By way of retaliation, Hizmet was confronted, its followers ostensibly removed from schools, and the officer corps and the police forces purged.

What we do have to go on in place of solid evidence on external plotting is a diet of overcooked rhetoric.  Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim has gone to the press to say that Washington has been supplied with details of the cleric’s “involvement” further adding on Saturday that any country standing by the exile “is no friend of Turkey [and] is engaged in a serious war with Turkey.”[2] On Tuesday, the White House spokesman Josh Earnest revealed that Ankara had supplied the State Department with relevant material.

Much of Ankara’s policy towards its allies is ceremonial rather than substantive, but the point being made is important enough.  Washington does not want a querulous NATO ally, one whose relationship will jeopardise the use of, for instance, bases in operations against Islamic State forces and the like.

On the other side of the ledger, assumptions that Gülen is encased in some moral white knight armour would also be misplaced.  Political systems are mothers of necessity, breeding allies who may well in time become outcasts. Today’s outcasts can, in turn, become tomorrow’s autocrats.

History’s examples of moderate exiles, harboured in more tolerant waters, are few and far between.  Had the coup succeeded, irrespective of whether Gülen’s hand was heavy or otherwise, the cauldron of Turkish politics may well have done something else. We may never know, though the hand of tyranny is rarely out of a job.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/29/turkish-faith-movement-secretly-funded-200-trips-lawmakers-and-staff/74535104/

[2] http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/18/the-public-trial-of-fethullah-gulen/

Another false flag in Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany. A young man attacks four passengers in a train and later a passerby in the street. The scenes repeat themselves now in rapid cadence. Paris, Brussels, Nice, Bangladesh… Same patterns, same motives – and same group of terrorists claiming credit. The lies and propaganda are becoming more flagrant, and, We, the People, just swallow it. No questions asked. For how long? Until it is too late – when we are all militarized and can’t make a move without being watched – or killed for disobedience?

How much longer!

Tell me friends, world compatriots – how much longer are we just looking on and accepting what authorities want us to believe for the purposes of serving the elite that directs and pays them? A corporate and financial elite that needs a militarized society to drive the final nail into the coffin of democracy? Of sovereignty? Of individual freedom?

How much longer?

As reported by the Swiss and various German media, on 18 July, in a train near Wuerzburg, Bavaria, allegedly a young, 17-year old Afghan citizen, who arrived a year ago in Germany as a refugee, attacked a traveling Hong Kong family and a passerby with an axe and knife, injuring all five people of whom at least two seriously. His alleged motive was revenge on infidels – those who do not believe in the Quran. The msm say that during the attack, according to witnesses – who are these witnesses? – he yelled repeatedly “Allahu akbar” (“God is Great”).

When the train came to a screeching emergency halt, the alleged perpetrator eventually jumped to escape. While running, he allegedly attacked a passerby. A special police commando, coincidentally (term used by the msm) in the area pursued the young man and killed him in, what they call, ‘self-defense’! – Wonderful! – An armed to the teeth German police commando killed a 17-year old boy, armed merely with an axe and knife – in self-defense!

Voilà. Again dead men don’t talk.

And Würzburg’s Ober-Prosecutor can now freely invent whatever suits the purpose, i.e. that a few hours after the attack, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and that there was an apparent video from the alleged terrorist in which he was announcing ‘revenge’, that in his rented room the police found a hand-painted IS-flag and a letter that looked like a good-by letter to his father. The name of the young man — ehhh ‘terrorist’ was as of this writing not revealed.

This morning, the ISIS-Daesh propaganda website, called Amaq – does anybody ever check who is truly behind this internet site? – published a video showing a young ISIS soldier, proclaiming, ’I am a soldier of the Islamic State and am about to start a sacred operation in Germany’. And the young man is wielding a knife which the German investigators are still trying to figure out whether it’s the same one the Würzburg ‘terrorist’ has used in his train assault.

I’m not kidding. This is what the German and European media are trying to have the public at large swallow. Getting more and more flagrant in their lies, is of no concern to the criminal authorities, the real perpetrators of the crimes committed, the murdered people left behind by these false flags, in Paris, San Bernardino, Orlando, Brussels, Nice, Bangladesh —- and the list goes on and is growing.

This is the new CIA-led ‘Gladio’, as well depicted by Paul Craig Roberts  – destroying any free ideas, spreading fear, making citizens compliant. ‘Gladio’ was the code name for the operation designed and led by CIA after WWII to destroy the Communist parties in France and foremost in Italy. With a series of false flags which were years later officially revealed by an investigating judge – too late for people to still relate to the events – the plan was successful; the left was divided, decimated people put under fear – supporting the fake Cold War against the ‘horrendous’ danger called Soviet Union. – Cui Bono? Naturally the military industrial complex, the predators of humanity, the ever smaller elite behind Washington, NATO and the European vassal states – then, in the 1960’s / 1970’s – as well as today.

People out of fear will ask for more police and military protection. It will be a piece of cake for European puppet politicians to glide through their respective parliaments laws and even constitutional amendments allowing a permanent state of war, Martial Law, to be enshrined in the countries’ legislation. France, after the false flag Nice Bastille Day massacre will most likely be the first one to enter a permanent state of emergency, effectively Martial Law.

Europe must be militarized to oppress any peoples’ protests that may arise with future barbarities the ‘establishment’ will impose upon its citizens, like the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), currently being ‘negotiated’ in secret and behind closed doors by a small unelected group of people in Brussels – the TTIP, which, if signed and ratified by the EU member countries, would super-impose corporate private courts over countries sovereign courts and legal systems, leaving behind a trail of misery, of outright slavehood for European citizens.

Militarization also means deviating people’s minds from the imminent NATO threat, allowing NATO to further advance and encroach Russia, further provoking Russia into a WWIII- to be played out in Europe, naturally, not in the sacred US of A. Of course not. That would be the third time in a century that Europe would be destroyed by a Washington instigated war; most likely humanity would be wiped out. Or, there may be just enough serfs left to slave for the elite which has been hiding in bunkers during their imposed world holocaust. When the dust settles, they may have what they always wanted – the remaining natural resources of planet earth all for themselves, not having to protect and share them with 7.3 billion co-inhabitants.

Let’s remind ourselves, the final objective of this evil group is Full Spectrum Dominance over the world’s energy, people and finances. This plan is not new. It was coined in the seventies by Henry Kissinger, a backbone of the nefarious Bilderberg Society, when he said, ‘who controls energy controls whole continents, who controls food, controls people, and who controls money can control the entire world’.

We are soon there, but can still stop it. It’s not yet too late. One of the most direct ways is by dismantling the European Union, the Euro and eliminate NATO from Europe. BREXIT gives us hope. It is already inspiring other nations to exit this atrocious fiefdom in Brussels. None of these three yokes – EU, Euro, NATO – oppressing Europeans was a European idea in the first place. They were the concepts for future dominance emerging during or shortly after WWII of the Machiavellian secretive and invisible elite behind the United States of America who carried out – and still carries out – their wishes. Stooges directing vassals to oppress people.

How many massacres will it take until we see the light?

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.

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Washington.

President Obama met with NATO leaders in Warsaw last weekend to what seemed like a restatement of vows to protect Europe. Let’s take a listen to what the president had to say.

BARACK OBAMA: In this challenging moment, I want to take this opportunity to state clearly what will never change. And that is the unwavering commitment of the United States to the security and defense of Europe, to our transatlantic relationship, to our commitment to our common defense. Throughout my time in office, one of my top foreign policy priorities has been to strengthen our alliances, especially with NATO. And as I reflect on the past eight years, both the progress and the challenges, I can say with confidence that we’ve delivered on that promise. The United States has increased our presence here in Europe. NATO is as strong, as nimble, and as ready as ever.

DESVARIEUX: So ready that the president will be sending 1,000 troops to Poland as one of four battalions that are being sent to countries bordering Russia. But what is really at the heart of this matter? Are these just tactics by the U.S. leading to an escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Russia? And what role should NATO be playing in maintaining a balanced Europe?

Now joining us to help us answer these questions is our guest, Michael Hudson. Michael is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He’s also the author of many books, including his latest, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Thank you so much for joining us, Michael.

MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s good to be here.

DESVARIEUX: So, Michael, we just heard President Obama pledging his allegiance to protecting Europe. Does Europe really need protecting, though?

HUDSON: Well, as soon as Obama made those words, there was a fury of European statements saying that Obama and NATO was making Europe less secure. The French prime minister, Francois Hollande, says that we don’t need NATO. NATO has no role to play in our Russian relations. That leaders of the two major German parties, both the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats, said that NATO was warmongering. Gorbachev came out and said the world has never been closer to nuclear war than it is at present. William Perry, the former head of the Pentagon in the mid-90s, said that NATO was threatening and trying to provoke atomic war in Europe.

And one of Russia’s leading military strategists said here’s what the problem is: NATO wants to move bombers and atomic weapons right up to the border of Russia. That means that if they launch over us, we have only a few seconds to retaliate. President Putin a little while ago had given a speech saying that Russia doesn’t really have a land army. In fact, today, no country in the world, in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, has a land army that can invade anywhere. Try to imagine America being invaded by Canada, or by Mexico on its borders. You can’t imagine it. Impossible. No democracy can afford a land army anymore because the costs are so high that the costs of mounting a land war will just impoverish the economy.

As a matter of fact, what NATO is trying to do is to goad Russia into building up an army so it can undercut its economy by diverting more and more resources away from the economy towards the military. Russia’s not falling for it. Putin said that Russia has no intention of mounting a land army. It is unthinkable that it could even want to invade the Baltics or Poland. But Putin did say we have one means of retaliation, and that’s atomic bombs. Atomic weapons are basically defensive. They’re saying, we don’t need an army anymore. Nor does any country need an army if they have an atomic weapon, because if you attack us we’ll wipe you out. And we’ll be wiped out, too, but you’re never going to be able to conquer us. And no country, really, can conquer any other country. Russia can’t conquer Europe.

So the effect, Putin and the Russian leaders have said, look, if they suppose that an American plane goes a little bit off, like, you know, the ships try to provoke things, we don’t know whether it’s an atomic attack at all. We can’t take a risk. If there’s a little bit of a movement against us, we’re going to launch the hydrogen bombs, and there goes Berlin, Frankfurt, London, Manchester, Brussels. That’s why you’re having all of these warnings. And Europe is absolutely terrified that Obama is going to destabilize. And even more terrified of Hillary getting in, who’s indicated she’s going to appoint a superhawk, the Cheney protege Flournoy, as Secretary of Defense, and appoint Nuland, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.

And all throughout Europe–I’ve been in Germany twice in the last two months, and they’re really worried that somehow America is telling Europe, let’s you and Russia fight. And basically it’s a crisis.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. Michael, I want to get back to your point about how we’re seeing this narrative develop about a potential nuclear war on the horizon. And it seems like it’s quite real. This is not just conjecture, here. We have U.S. and Russia’s military forces warning that a nuclear war is nearer than ever before.

So let’s talk about interests, here. On either side, let’s be as specific as possible, and call a spade a spade. In whose interest is it to keep up this narrative? Because I’m sure there are people not just in the United States that profit from this, but also in Russia. Can you speak to that?

HUDSON: Well, one of the points made at the NATO meetings was NATO urged countries not to rely on Russian weaponry. There was an insistence by Obama that the NATO countries spend 2 percent of their GDP on NATO, on arms, mainly by buying arms from American military manufacturers, Raytheon, Boeing and the others.

Now, look at what’s happening in Europe. It’s not even growing 2 percent because of the austerity that’s being imposed on it. So 2 percent is the entire annual economic growth in Europe. This large amount has to be spent on American arms. So it turns out that this sabre-rattling to Russia merely means, is a means of obliging the European countries to pay the United States arms manufacturers for goods, and to basically hold you up, Europe up for ransom, saying if you don’t be a part of this, we’re not going to defend you, and Europe is saying, well you know, we really don’t need defense. We’d rather have an economic relationship with Russia. Especially the Germans say, we don’t want the sanctions. The Italians say, we don’t want the sanctions. We don’t want you to make money off Russia. Buy from us, not from Russia. Buy your agricultural goods and your other goods from us, from countries in the dollar orbit, not from the Russian orbit.

And that, essentially, is what Obama meant by the reset. It meant a new Cold War, but the essence of the Cold War is to fight in the new way, which is a financial war, with the military only being a kind of catalyst for the financial warfare between the United States on the one hand. And it’s now–the first effect of the reset–was to drive Russia into an alliance with China. And now, NATO may be overplaying this right-wing hand so much that it’s driving Germany and Italy and France out of NATO. That is the effect this is–what it’s doing is rather effective.

DESVARIEUX: Michael, what about on the Russian side? There are interests that are encouraging this reset?

HUDSON: They had hoped that the reset would mean a winding down of military. Russia would like to use, every country would like to use more of its resources for the domestic economy, not for the military overhead. And in a way, America is trying to force Russia to spend more on overhead as part of its economic warfare with Russia.

This is Brzezinski’s plan in Afghanistan, you know, way under the Carter administration. If you can force Russia to pay more for its military to defend Afghanistan, then its economy would buckle and you’ll have discontent there. And then the Americans can come in and promote nationalist and other localist breakups, and try to break up Russia just as America is trying to push a breakup of China as a long-term strategy. And this is going–there’s no way that this cannot backfire on the United States.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. Let’s talk about what everyday people could do to move away from accepting this narrative, or move away from this potential reset that President Obama is proposing? What policy decisions could be made to de-escalate this tension?

HUDSON: Essentially to dissolve NATO, which France has been pushing now for many years. There’s no need for NATO now that there’s no threat of any military invasion anymore. Remember after World War II, NATO was put up when there was a thought that, well, the first idea is European countries should never go to war with each other again. There will never be war between France, Germany, Italy. That’s been solved. There’s no way in which European countries would go to war.

The second thing was, well, what if Russia would re-invade like it did when it fought against Hitler? Well, there’s no danger of Russia invading anymore. In fact, in 1990, when the Soviet Union broke up, the Ukraine passed a resolution that it wanted to remain neutral and benefit from its sort of neutral pivot between Russia and Europe. And the United States put $5 billion into Ukraine, and spurred a lot of nationalist revolution. And so it took the United States 20 years to turn that around and to somehow break up this neutrality.

So the U.S. strategy is to prevent neutrality. Europe’s economic interest is to achieve neutrality with Russia, and have economic unity so that there’s little chance of any confrontation with Russia as there is among the European countries themselves.

DESVARIEUX: All right. Michael Hudson, always a pleasure having you on the program. Thank you so much for being with us.

HUDSON: Good to be here.

DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.

In August, 2014, the US-led “coalition” began bombing Iraq and Syria to, in the words of President Obama, “degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIS.” For nearly two years — despite President Obama announcing last November that ISIS was “contained” — the bombing has continued unabated.

A milestone was reached this month, however, as the US coalition dropped its 50,000th bomb against Iraq and Syria. With each bomb costing on average somewhere around $50,000, those bombs have cost US (for the most part) taxpayers at least two and a half billion dollars. Factor in the cost of keeping the bombers in the air, the cost of training the pilots, maintenance, etc. and the cost skyrockets upward from there.

In fact, as of February of this year, the US “war on ISIS” has cost more than $6 billion, to the boundless delight of the Beltway defense contractors.

There will be plenty of money for the other contractors if the bombing finally ceases and the US reaches its real goal of overthrowing Syrian president Assad: Imagine how much damage to infrastructure, environment, etc. will have been done by 50,000 bombs. The US taxpayers will pay once to blow the place up and then pay again to build it back up. Except like in Afghanistan, nothing will actually be rebuilt. The money will just disappear.

War really is a racket.

While the Western media poses as perplexed over the recent string of horrific attacks across Europe and particularly in France, the latest of which unfolded this week in the seaside city of Nice leaving over 80 dead and many more injured, it is clear that France itself has cultivated the soil within which terrorism and violence has taken root.

Through France’s own domestic and foreign policy, it has created the perfect storm to continue “watering” terrorism at home and abroad, while its political leaders carefully cultivate the predictable division, fear, hysteria, and violence that is now unfolding. Between attacks in 2015 and 2016, over 200 people have now died in France as a result of violent domestic attacks.

French Foreign Support of Terrorism 

Since 2011, France has played a key role in destabilizing North Africa and the Middle East. In 2011, it participated in the US-led NATO assault on Libya, as well as sending troops to other African nations including the Ivory Coast and Mali. France also currently maintains troops in Sahara, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Central African Republic, and Sahel in Africa, as well as troops still participating in the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan.

While France has portrayed these operations as essential for maintaining global stability and security, it has done anything but. In addition to creating chaos from which torrents of refugees are now fleeing – all the way to Europe – it should be noted that a component of French involvement abroad is also the arming and funding of militant groups. This was especially so in Libya, where France helped install into power terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda.

The London Telegraph’s 2011 article, “France supplying weapons to Libyan rebels,” would report that:

France has begun supplying weapons to the Libyan rebels despite the UN arms embargo, confirming on Wednesday it had dropped assault rifles into the Nafusa Mountains south-west of Tripoli.

It would also report that:

The air drop would appear to be in violation of the arms embargo against Libya instituted by the United Nations. But Nato officials believe that the UN security council resolution 1973 which authorised the bombing campaign allows for a wide range of actions in furtherance of the mission to “protect civilians”.

It retrospect, it was clear that France’s actions had little to do with an interest in “protecting civilians” and instead led directly to the overthrow of the Libyan government. The militant forces, armed, backed, and even provided air cover by NATO would be later revealed to be extremists directly affiliated with Al Qaeda and would later transform into the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) in Libya.

Horrifying scenes of the beheading of a very young Palestinian boy by the US and UK backed terrorist faction in Syria, Nour-Al-Din Al-Zenki, flooded social media feeds yesterday. 

The US is scrambling to both disassociate themselves and their proxy murderers from this abhorrent crime. 21WIRE will not post the videos in the report below as they may be too distressing, but they are available in the link to the article.  We stress that this footage is graphic and horrific.

The Daily Mail report indicates that the child had quite possibly been tortured prior to his crude beheading at the hands of one of the thugs bullying and beating him on film.

“Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki is an Islamist rebel group in Syria formed in late 2011 during the Syrian Civil War.

“The child, who is ostensibly under the age of 12, was arrested by Islamist militants fighting for the Turkish-backed Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement for allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade). Liwaa Al Quds is a pro-government Palestinian paramilitary faction made up of the Palestinians who have been driven out of their homes in the Handarat Camp once Islamist militants took over the neighborhood. Today, the group is fighting alongside the Syrian Army to retake the Camp.” ~ Al Masdar News.

This entire incident demonstrates that these US backed “moderate rebels” are nothing more than drug fuelled monsters creating a hell on earth in Syria in the image of their donor’s vision for the region. We cannot disassociate the US coalition from these heinous crimes, they have facilitated and supported them.  These terrorist gangs are nothing more than a variation on the CIA outreach organisations, the same function as Blackwater/Academi and DynCorp mercenaries, only transposed onto new legions of Islamo-fascist brutal thugs and killers.

The US is deploying the “distance from accountability” stratagem but its not working, their connections and links are no longer obscured and many are waking up to the fact that the crimes carried out by these multi-branded psychopaths are an extension of the pure evil that resides in the White House overworld and CIA underworld.

The following report is from Yalla La Barra:

“On the morning of July 19, members of the Free Syrian Army faction Nour el-Din Al-Zinki captured a 12 year old boy in Handarat claiming that he was a member of the Palestinian Quds brigade and that he was fighting for Assad. Soon after, two videos appeared online.

The first showed them taunting the boy, who seemed injured, in the back of a pick up truck.

Toner: proof that Zinki committed beheading would give US “pause about any further assistance to them” #Syriahttps://t.co/icfHaxaGxQ

— Walid (@walid970721) July 19, 2016

On July 18th, Rob Nichols, the President of the American Bankers’ Association, which is controlled by the mega-banks, struck back against Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Nichols criticized Trump’s insistence to restore the Democratic U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s top reform of the U.S. economy, the Glass-Steagall Act, which prevented another taxpayer bailout of Wall Street firms for their gambling losses — it was the law President Bill Clinton with overwhelming Republican support in 1999 repealed. Trump is committing himself against that Clinton-Republican repeal of FDR’s law. Trump insists it be restored so that there won’t be a repeat of the Bush-Obama Wall Street bailout.

ABA chief Nichols told Morning Consult, “America’s banking industry is well poised to fuel economic growth and job creation,” and so they should continue to be supported by the government. He called Trump’s stand to restore Glass-Steagall “a return to Depression-era regulation that would restrain banks’ ability to drive our economy forward. All of our bank regulatory agencies have agreed that Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the crisis or the housing market collapse.”

Many economists disagree with the ABA on that, and have called for restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act.

The major newsmedia and politicians refer to Glass-Steagall for its supposedly capping bank-size, but it never actually did any such thing: it instead separated commercial banks (lenders to consumers and businesses) from investment banks (stockbrokers and other market-makers for the sale of financial gambles) and from insurers (which take on the risks that other financial firms avoid). It never established any cap on bank-size.

What produced the 2008 crash was the Clinton-Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, named after the three conservative Republicans (Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Tom Bliley) who wrote it. Sanford Weill, then merely the head of Travelers Insurance, was a financial empire-builder who wanted his firm to buy Citibank, so as to produce the first financial conglomerate, Citigroup — a merger which the Glass-Steagall Act would have blocked from happening. Weill’s Clinton-Administration friends Robert J. Rubin and Lawrence Summers had no trouble convincing their boss to say yes to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, though this would toss out the core of Democrat FDR’s lasting heritage and restore the cause of the Great Depression: Wall Street’s gambling with depositors’ savings — gambling with assets that are so crucial the government would be politically compelled to backstop to prevent bankrupting tens of millions of people, savers who had made no error. It’s a Hobson’s choice of either revolution or else Wall Street bailouts; that Hobson’s choice is what Glass-Steagall ended.

The great journalist who goes by the pseudonym “Tyler Durden” headlined on 25 July 2012, “In Defining Hypocrisy, Weill, Who Led Repeal Of Glass Steagall, Now Says Big Banks Should Be Broken Up” and he quoted Weill’s recent statement, “I am suggesting that [big banks] be broken up so that the taxpayer will never be at risk, the depositors won’t be at risk, the leverage of the banks will be something reasonable.” Weill gave as his excuse for his 180-degree turnabout, “The world we live in now is different from the world we lived in ten years ago,” but, in regard to the issue at hand, he was lying: his argument there was equally applicable today as it was in 2000 when he induced Clinton-Republicans to repeal it, and as it was in 1933 when FDR signed Glass-Steagall into law. Weill, after all, was saying this after the 2008 crash, which produced a huge taxpayer bailout of his own and the other Wall Street firms.

On 8 August 2012, Pam Martens — the best of all reporters about Wall Street — bannered “The Untold Story of the Bailout of Citigroup” and she recounted the relevant history:

“The Citigroup merger occurred in 1998. Glass-Steagall was repealed on November 12, 1999 with the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was just nine years later that Citigroup was teetering on the brink of collapse after holding $1.3 trillion off its balance sheet, gorging on toxic assets, and failing to disclose an extra $39 billion in subprime mortgage exposure. (As we discussed yesterday in Part One, we still don’t know just how bad Citigroup’s accounting was because the SEC has redacted much of that information from public records on its web site.)”

A financial-industry arbitrator headlined in American Banker magazine (which represents only medium-and-small-sized banks), on 11 December 2015, “A New Glass-Steagall Would Be Too Good for Banks to Pass Up”, and he noted that the megabanks’ allegtions that Glass-Steagall is incompatible with modern finance is phony. Akshat Tewary wrote: “The proposed 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act — sponsored by Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. John McCain — mirrors many of the features of the original law, while also accounting for more recent innovations in banking and finance.”

Only by deception can the megabanks oppose Glass-Steagall; but it’s a multibillion-dollar deception which benefits the top financial executives, and so it is backed up by an enormous lobbying operation, and any Presidential candidate who fails to go along with that is going far out on a limb.

The issue here was never really about bank size, however; it was always an issue of risk-transference, from Wall Street to Main Street (like: from the American Bankers’ Association, to American Banker magazine) — to transfer the megabanks’ gambling risks to the public while the rewards remain privatized to the megabank executives via their pay and bonuses. That’s what they want. In other words: it’s a scam, and part of the money from it ends up advertising politicians and fooling voters.

And for Rob Nichols and Wall Street to criticize “a return to Depression-era regulation” is for them to be seeking to go back to what had preceded the 1929 Crash. That’s what we have now, but in the form of the Clinton-Republicanism (‘bipartisanship’) that produced the 2008 crash, and that then was cumbersomely dealt with in the Dodd-Frank Act, which was co-written by Wall Street and Democrats, and which has, after 2008, produced a weak economic recovery, which goes almost only to the wealthiest 1%. That’s the Obama version of the Clinton plan. But it’s not only excruciatingly cumbersome; it is a cumbersome band-aid covering a gaping bleeding wound: the post-2008 economy.

Glass-Steagall wasn’t any such cumbersome law as Obama passed; it was, instead, the “Depression-era regulation” that very simply separated, from one-another: commercial banking, from investment banking, from insurance. It said: you can do any one of those, but not more than one.

Perhaps Donald Trump has found some way to run a Presidential campaign that doesn’t depend upon the good will, and megabuck donations, from Wall Street, because it now seems extremely likely that he’s not going to be getting much in the way of donations from them. He hasn’t in the past, and he now seems even less likely to in the future.

Nichols presented his criticism in a ‘bipartisan’ way, but it wasn’t even really bipartisan: the situation is actually very different when a Bernie Sanders, who won’t be the President, coerces Hillary Clinton, who might, to accept in ‘her’ Party platform a demand for restoring Glass-Steagall; it is entirely different when a Donald Trump, who actually might become President, demands that it be in his Party’s platform.

The best way for Trump to try to squeeze some lemonade out of this otherwise sour (for a Presidential nominee) political lemon that he’s now pushing, would be for him to make one of his major campaign themes against Hillary Clinton: “If I become President, then Elizabeth Warren’s 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will become the law of this land.” How could Hillary trump that? For her even to challenge it (which would require her to repudiate her entire record) would cause people to distrust her even more than they already do. Maybe this would even be Trump’s call of “Checkmate!” against her.

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 anyone but the most incapable of reading between the mainstream media lines it’s been obvious that there has been a vicious propaganda war going on against Jeremy Corbyn ever since he became the star of the show during the 2015 Labour leadership election. Now there is some serious academic research to back it up too.

The London School of Economics has produced a report called “Journalistic Representation of Jeremy Corbyn in the British press” that demonstrates the existence of an extreme systemic bias against Jeremy Corbyn in the corporate mainstream media.

The report analysed hundreds of articles about Jeremy Corbyn in the mainstream newspapers and identified three main delegitimisation propaganda tactics used to attack Jeremy Corbyn.

• Ignoring Jeremy Corbyn’s words/policies, or actively misrepresenting them

• Using Scorn, ridicule and personal attacks

• Smear by association tactics

These are some of the specific findings in the report:

• Almost three quarters of all stories failed to accurately report Jeremy Corbyn’s actual views on subjects.

The US-backed ‘moderate rebels’ from the Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki captured a Palestinian kid, accused him of being a “spy” of Palestinian pro-government militia, Liwa al-Quds, and beheaded him for this. The event was in the militant-controlled refugee camp “Handarat Camp” in northern Aleppo. Nour al-Din al-Zenki operates in the area of Aleppo city and receives financial aid from the United States, in a CIA run program to support the so-called “moderate rebel groups.”

Nour al-Din al-Zenki is affiliated to the Supreme Military Command (SMC) of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and as major part of FSA units collaborates with various Jihadist groups, including the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Al Nusra.

Deputy Spokesperson for the State Department, Mark Toner, told reporters at a daily briefing Tuesday that the US may reconsider assistance to the group if reports of beheaded boy are confirmed. Toner refused to provide any information about the expected US reaction.

Meanwhile, US-led coalition air strikes have allegedly killed about 60 civilians in the village of Tokhar near Syria’s Manbij. Various reports suggest numbers from 56 to 120 dead civilians, including kids, as result of the US air strikes. On Monday, 21 civilian were killed in U.S.-led coalition air strikes on Manbij’s northern Hazawneh quarter. The coalition, that has been providing air support for the Kurdish-led military operation in Manbij, has not provided comments, yet. However, if they even comment, it’s clear that they will call these facts a common mistake and forget as they did with the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.

Member of the Iraqi parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee Abdol Razzaq Heidari told FNA on Wednesday that some political figures in certain countries should be blamed for dispatching terrorists to Iraq and Syria and for supplying them with weapons and equipment.

Some people under the auspicies and supervision of certain Islamic countries, specially some political figures, who have Takfiri or Wahhabi thoughts are sent to ideological and training centers in Syria and Iraq to fight for the terrorist groups, he said.

Also, another Iraqi legislator, Alia Nassif, told FNA today that “the Iraqi government should identify all Arab and non-Arab terrorists and file a lawsuit against the governments of the countries of their origin at the international courts like the Hague”.

Their remarks came a week after activists gathered outside Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washington, D.C., to denounce Riyadh’s support of terrorism in the Middle East and around the world.

Hundreds of Americans of various Middle Eastern descent attended the protest on to slam Saudi Arabia’s funding of the ISIL terrorist group.

The protesters then marched to the White House to denounce the regime’s intervention in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and Iraq.

“Saudi, ISIL are the same; the only difference is the name” and “people yes, Saudi no, the royal family’s got to go”, were among the many slogans chanted during the demonstration.

The protesters called on US officials to sever ties with Riyadh, describing the regime as the root of all evil in the Middle East.

“We know that Saudi Arabia is involved in spreading extremism, the Wahhabi ideology, first around the Middle East and South Asia and now it’s really all over the world,” said protest attendee Medea Benjamin, a member of the Code Pink, a peace and social justice movement working to end US-funded wars and occupations.

“For the past 25 years, the center-left has told the bottom 60% of the income distribution in their countries the following story: “Globalization is good for you.

It’s awesome. It’s really great. We’re going to sign these trade agreements. Don’t worry, there will be compensation. You’ll be fine. You’ll all end up as computer programmers. It’ll be fantastic. And, by the way, we don’t really care because we’re all going to move to the middle because that’s where the voters are, and they’re the ones with the money, and they’re the only ones we really care about…and you basically take the bottom 30% of the income distribution and you say, “We don’t care what happens to you. You’re now something to be policed. You’re now something that has to have its behavior changed. We’re going to nudge you into better parts…

It’s a very paternal, patronizing relationship. This is no longer the warm embrace of social democracy, arm in arm in solidarity with the working classes. They are to policed and excluded in their housing estates, so you can feel safe in your neighborhoods and private schools.

So once this has evolved over 20 years, you have this revolt, not just against Brexit. It’s not about the EU. It’s about the elites. It’s about the 1%. It’s about the fact that your parties, have sold you down the river.  (Excerpt from Mark Blyth’s “Brexit” on YouTube)

Liberals and progressives love to point across the aisle and accuse their opponents of racism, misogyny and xenophobia, but that’s not what the Trump campaign is all about. And that’s not what Brexit was about. While it’s true that anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise in Europe and the US, the hostility has less to do with race than it does jobs and wages. In other words, Brexit is a revolt against a free trade regime in which all the benefits have accrued to the uber-rich while everyone else has seen their incomes slide, their future’s dim and their standard of living plunge. As Vincent Bevins of the Los Angeles Times said:

Both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for thirty years …since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.

Fake liberals like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have been big proponents of free trade and thus contributed greatly to this groundswell revolution against condescending elites and technocrats whose ultimate goal is to level the playing field so that workers in the developed countries compete nose to nose with underpaid wage slaves in China, Vietnam and across Asia. As Blyth says in the YouTube piece:

Because the long run effect of the euro is going to be to drive western European wages down to eastern European levels.

Bingo. More and more people know that this this is the real objective of free trade, to lower wages and crush organized labor in order to boost profits. And this is why the media has been unable to undermine public support from Brexit or Trump, because the issues impact working people and their standard of living DIRECTLY. The majority of voters now believe that these elite-backed policies are destructive to their interests and a threat to their survival. That’s why they remain indifferent to the media’s charges of racism.

Elites understand what’s going on. They know they got too greedy and went overboard. They also know the public is mad as hell and want blood which is why the markets have gone crazy. Investors have driven “safe haven” bonds into record territory which signals the big money guys are terrified of the changes that the election could bring. What does that tell you? Check this out from Fortune magazine:

Wealthy US investors are hoarding record cash balances out of fear that US presidential election will wreak havoc on their retirement accounts a senior USB Group AG executive said … Although the US stock market hit a new high this week, many clients would rather sit on the sidelines than risk the kind of losses they faced in 2008, he said…

A UBS survey of 2,200 high net worth investors found that 84% of them think the election will have a significant impact on their financial health, McCann said, citing a report to be released later in July.” (“Wealthy are hoarding cash out of fear of what the election will bring”, Fortune)

So moneybags investors think that there’s going to be a day of reckoning and that all the anti-free trade, protectionist rhetoric emerging from the various campaigns is going to weigh on the markets?

It sure looks that way, and some would say that that day has already arrived. This is from the World Socialist Web Site:

A report issued by the GTA on Wednesday said the term “slowdown” created the impression that, while it is losing momentum, world trade is still growing and one country’s exports do not come at the expense of others. These “rosy impressions” should be set aside because its analysis revealed that world export volume reached a plateau at the beginning of 2015. World trade was not only slowing down, but not growing at all….

The report warned that a “negative feedback loop” could develop where zero trade growth fuelled the resort to ever-more protectionist measures, leading to a further decline in trade. While the report did not draw out the implications of its warning, they are clear. It was such a feedback loop that developed in the 1930s, intensifying the Great Depression and ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939.
(“Global trade stagnates amid wave of protectionism”, Nick Beams, World Socialist Web Site)

Global trade has already been hammered by misguided central bank policies that merely try to steal export-share by weakening the currency. (The race to the bottom) But now we are embarking a period of strong economic nationalism which threatens to break up the Eurozone, intensify the call for protective tariffs on foreign-manufactured goods, and launch a full-blown trade war on China. And it’s all a reaction to the way that free trade was rigged to benefit the 1 percent alone. Elites can only blame themselves. Here’s how Glenn Greenwald summed it up in a recent article at The Intercept:

Brexit….could have been a positive development. But that would require that elites…react to the shock of this repudiation by spending some time reflecting on their own flaws, analyzing what they have done to contribute to such mass outrage and deprivation, in order to engage in course correction…

Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, they are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to de-legitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures that there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.
(“Brexit is only the latest proof of the insularity and failure of western establishment institutions”, Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept)

Western elites were shocked by Brexit, shocked that all their fear mongering and finger-wagging amounted to nothing. The same is true in the US, where the media’s daily attacks on Trump have failed to erode his base of support at all, in fact, they may have added to it.

Why is that? Why has the media’s repudiation of Trump only increased his popularity and strengthened the resolve of his supporters? Has the media lost its power to influence or is something else going on?

The media hasn’t lost its power, it’s just that personal experience is more powerful than propaganda.

What personal experience are we talking about?

Economic insecurity. Brexit was about economic insecurity. The Trump phenom is about economic insecurity. The rise of left and right-wing groups across Europe and the US is about economic insecurity. This isn’t about ideology, it’s about reality; the reality of not knowing if you’re ever going to be able to retire or put your kids through school or make your house payment or scrape by until payday. The reality of muddling by in an economy where the prospects for survival look worse with every passing day. That’s the reality that made Trump possible, and that’s what this election is about, economic insecurity.

Video: The European Union: Part of America’s Imperial Project

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett, July 18 2016

The EU is a Cold War Construct, a US imperial project formulated by the Washington Consensus. The growing movement against EU domination is an anti-imperial initiative of Worldwide significance.

Turkey Between Two Fascisms

By Jooneed Khan, July 19 2016

In Turkey, where the attempted coup failed and arms went silent after 24 hours of clashes and killings, civilian fascism has won over military fascism – even as both competed to project each camp as “the better protector of Democracy”!

In the Shadow of Monsanto: GMO Regulation and “The Right to Know”

By Colin Todhunter, July 19 2016

The GMO agritech sector and food companies have spent tens of millions of dollars in the US to prevent the labelling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The public have genuine concerns about GM but are being denied the right to know if GMOs are in the food they eat. And the concerns they have are valid.

Washington Is Politicizing The Olympics: Ongoing Attempts to Ban Russia. Geopolitical Implications

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 19 2016

Washington and its Canadian vassal are trying to use a Western media-created Russian athletic doping scandal to ban Russian participation in the Olympic games in Brazil. Washington and Canada are pressuring other countries to get on board with Washington’s vendetta against Russia. The vendetta is conducted under the cover of “protecting clean athletics.”

African Union Summit Issues E-Passport amid Discussions on Peace and Unity

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 19 2016

African Union appeals for readmission while organization takes on efforts to resolve conflict in South Sudan African Union (AU) member-states held their 27th Ordinary Assembly of Heads-of-State in Kigali, Rwanda on July 17-18 where historic decisions on the launching of a continental passport and trade zone took center stage marking a stark contrast to recent developments in Europe.

NATO, Germany and “The Dirty War on Syria”

By Prof. Tim Anderson, July 19 2016

Widespread alarm has been expressed across Germany at the announcement of NATO exercises along Russia’s borders, in Poland and the Baltic states. The development came on the anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, and as the conflicts in Ukraine and the NATO-driven war on Syria continue.

Widespread alarm has been expressed across Germany at the announcement of NATO exercises along Russia’s borders, in Poland and the Baltic states. The development came on the anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, and as the conflicts in Ukraine and the NATO-driven war on Syria continue.

There is deep unease in Germany over the expansion of NATO operations, in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

A recent poll showed that only 9% of German people backed NATO’s latest sabre rattling against Russia. Most feel less secure. Demonstrations persist against US bases in Germany which are used for drone warfare.

The German people are very aware that their army invaded the Soviet Union, just three generations ago, with disastrous consequences for both sides. Even Germany foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier criticised the US-led adventures, saying in June that NATO “war-mongering” near Russia’s borders adds fuel to an “old confrontation.” According to RT, two-thirds of Germans agreed with their foreign minister that NATO should abandon its “sabre-rattling”.

Professor Tim Anderson presented the German version of his book  The Dirty War on Syria (Der schmutzige krieg gegen syrien) at the Democracy and Human Rights Centre in Berlin.

https://www.amazon.de/Schmutzige-Krieg-gegen-Syrien-Washington/dp/3981270398

A conference in Germany in October will incorporate the war on Syria into discussions of a renewed threat of war in Europe.

http://www.eventrakete.de/bad-sooden-allendorf/kongress-brandherd-syrien-akteure-strategien-hintergruende/

The English edition of The Dirty War on Syria, published by Global Research is available here: 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Author: Tim Anderson

Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click image to order

Also available in PDF format here

It is too early to know if the shooting of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge are the beginnings of acts of retribution against police for their wanton murders of citizens. The saying is that “what goes around, comes around.” If police murders of citizens have provoked retribution, police and those who train them need to be honest and recognize that they have brought it upon themselves.

Killings by police have gone on too long. The killings are too gratuitous, and the police have largely escaped accountability for actions that, if committed by private citizens, would result in life imprisonment or the death penalty.

There has been no accountability, because the police unions and the white community rush to the defense of the police. In rare instances when prosecutors bring charges, as in the case of Freddie Gray, the police are not convicted.

Presstitutes treat killings by police as acts of racism, and that is the way the public sees them. This infuriates black communities even more as the indifference of whites to the murders is regarded as racist acceptance of the murder of black people.

In actual fact, police kill more whites than blacks, and often black police are involved in the killings of blacks. For example, of the six police responsible for Freddie Gray’s death, three are black.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/brian-rice-freddie-gray-verdict/index.html

The different attitude between whites and blacks to killings by police is explained by the fact that whites assume that police seldom, if ever, behave inappropriately, whereas blacks have witnessed many killings by police and subsequent lack of concern by white communities other than concern that blacks will riot in protest. To blacks it looks like racism. To whites it looks like justice.

As I reported, killings and violent abuse of the public by the police can be explained by the change in their training. The police or many of them are being trained to react as a military occupying a hostile population. An occupying force is taught to protect itself, not the public.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/07/11/police-murder-because-they-are-trained-to-murder-paul-craig-roberts/

This training works for the Israeli army occupying Palestine, but it does not work on the streets and in the homes of the United States. The Israeli methods have clearly failed for the American public and, if Dallas and Baton Rouge are the beginning stages of retribution, also for the police.

“Em face dos desafios sem precedentes provenientes do Leste e do Sul, chegou a hora de dar um novo alento e uma nova substância à parceria estratégica Otan-UE”: começa assim a Declaração conjunta assinada na última sexta-feira (8) na Cúpula da Otan de Varsóvia, pelo secretário-geral da Otan, Jens Stoltenberg, o presidente do Conselho Europeu, Donald Tusk, e o presidente da Comissão Europeia, Jean-Claude Junker.

Um cheque em branco para a guerra, que os representantes da União Europeia deram aos Estados Unidos. Efetivamente, são os Estados Unidos que detêm o comando da Otan – da qual fazem parte 22 dos 28 países da União Europeia (21 entre 27 quando o Reino Unido sair da UE) – e imprimem sua estratégia. Enunciado plenamente no comunicado aprovado em 9 de julho pela Cúpula : um documento de 139 pontos – elaborado por Washington quase exclusivamente com Berlim, Paris e Londres – que os demais chefes de Estado e de governo, inclusive o primeiro-ministro italiano Renzi, subscreveram de olhos fechados.

Após estender-se agressivamente para o Leste no interior da ex-URSS e ter organizado o golpe neonazista da Praça Maïdan para reabrir a frente oriental contra a Rússia, a Otan acusa a Rússia de “ações agressivas, desestabilização da Ucrânia, violação dos direitos humanos na Crimeia, atividades militares provocadoras nas fronteiras da Otan no Báltico e no Mar Negro e no Mediterrâneo oriental em apoio ao regime sírio, vontade demonstrada de obter objetivos políticos pela ameaça e pela utilização da força, e uma retórica nuclear agressiva”.

Em face de tudo isso, a Otan “responde” reforçando a “dissuasão” (ou seja, suas forças nucleares na Europa) e sua “presença avançada na parte oriental da Aliança” (ou seja, o deslocamento militar para a fronteira com a Rússia). Trata-se de uma verdadeira declaração de guerra (mesmo se a Otan assegura que “não busca a confrontação com a Rússia”), o que pode fazer saltar pelos ares de um momento a outro não importa que acordo econômico dos países europeus com a Rússia.

Na frente meridional, depois de ter demolido a Líbia por uma ação combinada do interior e do exterior e de ter testado a mesma operação na Síria, (fracassada graças à intervenção russa); após ter armado e treinado grupos terroristas e ter favorecido a formação do chamado Estado Islâmico e sua ofensiva na Síria e Iraque, empurrando ondas de refugiados para a Europa, a Otan se declara “preocupada” pela crise que ameaça a estabilidade regional e a segurança de suas fronteiras meridionais, pela tragédia humanitária dos refugiados; ela “condena” as violências do chamado Estado Islâmico contra os civis e, em termos mais fortes, “o regime sírio e seus apoiadores pela violação do cessar-fogo”. Para “responder a essas ameaças, inclusive as que vêm do sul”, a Otan potencializa suas forças com alta capacidade e poder de deslocamento. Isto requer “investimentos apropriados”, ou seja, uma despesa militar adaptada que os aliados se comprometeram a aumentar.

Dados oficiais publicados pela Otan durante a Cúpula mostram que a despesa militar da Itália em 2015 foi de 17 bilhões e 642 milhões de euros e que a de 2016 está estimada em 19 bilhões e 980 milhões de euros, ou seja, um aumento de 2,3 bilhões de euros. Se temos em conta as despesas militares fora do orçamento da Defesa (missões internacionais, navios de guerra e outros), a despesa é na realidade muito mais elevada. Se nos atemos apenas aos dados da Otan, a Itália em 2016 dispendeu para o setor militar em média 55 milhões de euros por dia.

Enquanto o primeiro-ministro italiano Renzi se pavoneava entre os “grandes” na Cúpula de Varsóvia, e o parlamento (inclusive a oposição) se volta para o outro lado, a Otan e a UE decidem nosso caminho.

Manlio Dinucci

Fonte : Il Manifesto

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é jornalista e geógrafo italiano

The term “mandate” has been sluicing through the Australian electoral system in its predictable wash-up. In that particular country, it never matters whether one wins by one vote or a hundred thousand: everyone has a “clear mandate” to do what they damn well wish they think they were encouraged to do.

It is worth remembering that the Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, took his government, and the country, to an election, and tediously long eight-week campaign, after seeking a double dissolution (that is, of both chambers of Parliament).

That effort was meant to improve his numbers and obtain the proverbial mandate against those in the Senate considered all too obstructionist for his governing – democracy, in other words, is not a matter of all parties but only the majority.

What happened on election night was considerable bloodletting, a brutal display of voter vengeance that could only have been taken one way. It might have been deemed a massacre, and others with a mild acquaintance of their ancient history would have used the term Pyrrhic victory.

In 279 BC, the battle of Asculum in Apulia got that fateful tag with the help of King Pyrrhus of Epicurus.  The Empiriotic forces did endeavour to win the day, but at considerable cost at the hands of the Roman forces commanded by Consul Publius Decius Mus.

As Plutarch noted in Pyrrhus (75 AD), “he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward.”  Far from actually being given any sort of mandate, the election result for the prime minister was a hectoring punishment, a deliverance of sheer disgust.

The government came within a whisker of terribly calculated defeat.  It staved off swings in several crucial seats, and even now, the final seat of Herbert is being mulled over with an eight vote margin. (Labor having won the seat, but pending a recount.)

Even then, Turnbull could say that the Coalition was heading to what might be termed a “solid” majority of a flimsy 77 seats. (Not so, if Herbert is lost.)  “We’ve won the election, that’s the mandate.  All of our policies that we took to the election we will deliver.”

The assessment coming from the machine men – party director Tony Nutt and pollster Mark Textor, both of whom sound like the sorts of implements you would find in an obsolete writing bureau – could only speak in the dry terms of electoral concerns about the economy, and the fact that they should have been more “attack” advertisements.

The point with Nutt is significant. Here he was, the strategist of the Liberal Party, running what was termed an eight-week “dictatorship” of micromanaging constipation.  Liberal party state branches across the country were studiously ignored, while ammunition against the Labor opposition remained unused, if, indeed, it was ever stored up.

An unnamed (of course) source from the Liberal party claimed that Nutt’s time as chief of staff for former Victorian premier Ted Baillieu entailed “doing nothing more than complaining if his tea didn’t come in a cup and saucer and making orders for the stationary cupboard.  He can hardly use an email.”[1]

The result should not have necessarily emboldened the opposition Labor Party either.  Its leaders had already set the tribal trend in motion with the respective acts of internal political assassinations, first against Kevin Rudd, then against Julia Gillard.  Labor deserved to win seats, but not government.

Turnbull has done his cosmetic best with the thinned team he has to work with.  With fewer sitting members, his decision has been to overcompensate: inflate the ministry, bulk it and bulge it in the hope that no one will notice the fewer chairs and voices.

Australia’s government now has the largest cabinet since 1975, with an assortment of positions split like a meal amongst a parsimonious family. Victorian Kelly O’Dwyer found her position on small business removed, with assistant treasurer responsibilities renamed.

The defence portfolio was split, with Christopher Pyne essentially taking over the meaty aspects of shipbuilding and the defence industry more broadly, while the erstwhile Defence Minister Marise Payne finds that a somewhat lesser portion of the pie left. With Pyne busying himself, she won’t have much to play with.

The division is significant in pushing the Turnbull government into a more military frame of mind.  Think defence, think business. This is hardly endearing in a peaceful context, but it certainly will tickle parts of the electorate intoxicated by the link between armaments and money.  Pyne certainly thinks so, seen defence as “an economic and innovation driver as we shift from the post mining construction boom period into a new age of innovation.”[2]

The gesture of creating a grander front bench was not fooling certain Coalition government members.  The faces were bright enough for the swearing in ceremony, but the ceremony could only go so far.  The ever dyed-in-the-wool conservative Eric Abetz noted that the lack of any frontbencher from Tasmania. The opposition leader noted the prevailing issues of female representation and the lack of a tourism portfolio.  Turnbull remains one tainted by the sweet smell of failing success

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

Notes

[1] http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/liberals-line-up-to-attack-coalition-campaign-head-accused-of-running-dictatorship/news-story/c652cbc53304a308c5ee3c61b0e95e46

[2] https://theconversation.com/turnbulls-reshuffle-pyne-nationals-winners-conservatives-get-little-62628

African Union appeals for readmission while organization takes on efforts to resolve conflict in South Sudan

African Union (AU) member-states held their 27th Ordinary Assembly of Heads-of-State in Kigali, Rwanda on July 17-18 where historic decisions on the launching of a continental passport and trade zone took center stage marking a stark contrast to recent developments in Europe.

The gathering was characterized by optimism in regard to the future of the African continent with a special emphasis on unity, self-sufficiency and conflict resolution.

Newly-elected AU leader Chadian President H.E. Idriss Deby, Chairperson of the African Union, addressed the body expressing his appreciation to the Government of Rwanda for hosting the Summit, saying “Our Union is facing emergency issues on a daily basis, these issues require instant and effective mechanisms to address them.”

African Union 27 Session Participates, July 17-18, 2016

Deby emphasized that the AU Summit was held under the theme “African Year on Human Rights with a particular focus on the Rights of Women”. He said the Summit dealt with important issues with the foresight to exchange views and perspectives on adopting viable solutions for the continent.

Host President Paul Kgame of Rwanda spoke to the need for African unity and the role of a united continent in world affairs. He pointed out that a cohesive African policy would enhance the standing of the AU within the international community.

Kagame said “Then unity of our continent with an emphasis on integration among other things should never be a subject to preconditions or exceptions because lasting solutions always involve everyone. We meet here as the African Union to discuss serious business; beginning with a focus on the rights of Africa’s women and this matter is on the agenda for good reason. If men and women do not stand in solidarity, then we are going to come up short across the board.”

The president then went on emphasizing “We will also address urgent threats to peace and security and elect new leadership for our organization. Good ideas were discussed on financing the African Union. We should be the ones to pay for activities in which everyone has a stake. This puts responsibility and ownership in our hands and we are capable of it and we were shown how to do so and I urge us to move forward with the required political will without delay. We need to start doing things differently and better. If Africa’s challenges are treated as routine it means we have accepted to be held back by them forever. We must all reject that future. An important change in the decision to organize the summit in a way that allows Africa to concentrate on its priorities with fewer distractions in the corridors and lobby’s leads us to thank the chairperson of the AU-Summit, President Idriss Deby and the chairperson of the Commission Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma for the business-like manner in with which they have managed this process from the beginning,” Kagame added.

Women’s Rights and Continental Unity

In her opening address, H.E. Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, the African Union Commission Chairperson, expressed gratitude to the government and people of Rwanda for their outstanding organization of the gathering and its hospitality. Dlamini-Zuma commended President Paul Kagame for leading by example in the field of gender equality and political empowerment in recognizing women as the center of national development inside the Central and East African country.

Dlamini-Zuma said of Rwanda that “We used to hear the people saying that behind any successful man, there is a woman. But in Rwanda we can now say women and men stand side by side to achieve success.”

Rwanda leads the African continent and other areas of the world with the majority of its legislature (64 percent) consisting of women parliamentarians.

On a broader continental level the AUC Chairperson reviewed the programs implemented by the Commission over the last four years under her leadership which included the adoption of Agenda 2063. This plan grew out of the commemoration on May 25, 2013 of the 50th anniversary of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the AU. The thrust of the report was designed to establish a policy framework leading to the achievement of a continent that is structurally integrated, politically peaceful and economically prosperous– guided by its own citizens determined to play a dynamic role in world affairs.

Dlamini-Zuma reported that Africa is full of promise, potentialities and positivity as it relates to contemporary times and the future. Nonetheless, the current situation is also full of anguish in many areas, where African people are in desperate need of peace and stability in order to rebuild communities and societies.

The AUC Chairperson said “We are encouraged that after the recent problems in South Sudan, the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) met yesterday (July 16), and we are sure that their decisions will give hope to the people and especially the civilians of South Sudan.”

Fighting erupted once again earlier in July between two rival factions of the government in Juba which has created concern over the reconciliation process between Republic of South Sudan President Salva Kiir and Vice-President Reik Machar. South Sudan is the world’s youngest nation having gained its independence in 2011 in the aftermath of the partitioning of the Africa’s largest nation-state of Sudan. Now the Republic of Sudan in the North and the Republic of South Sudan in Juba are ruled as separate states.

Dlamini Zuma also said that the Commission stands prepared to hand over the leadership due to an optimistic view for the continent. She noted the satisfaction felt towards the missions achieved during her tenure.

She stressed that “In our years of service to the AU member-states and to the Peoples of Africa, we build on the foundations of those that went before us, to build a Union of the People by engaging with civil society and citizens. We worked tirelessly to ensure that we leave institutions more effective than what we found. This work is not yet complete, and in our handover to the incoming Commission once elected, we shall highlight both achievements and the challenges still remaining.”

Although Dlamini-Zuma was scheduled to handover the AUC to another chairperson, the Summit failed to achieve consensus on a new leader and she will remain in this position until the next meeting scheduled for early 2017. ‘‘The Heads of State have asked us to carry on our duties till the next elections in Jan 2017. We’ll just do that,” Dlamini-Zuma confirmed during remarks at the closing ceremony.

According to Africanews.com, “There were three candidates vying for the post: Uganda’s former vice president Specioza Wandira Kazibwe, Bostwana’s Foreign Minister Pelonomi Venson Moitoi and Agapito Mba Mokuy, Equatorial Guinea’s Foreign Minister. Even though the Botswana candidate got 16 votes to top the poll, it fell short of the two-thirds majority required to emerge winner. The next summit is slated for early next year when the AU will hold new elections to replace Dlamini-Zuma. (July 18)

Morocco to Return to the African Union

Another major development during the course of the 27th Ordinary Session was the appeal by the Kingdom of Morocco to rejoin the AU. The northwest African state left the organization in 1984 when it was still known as the OAU over the recognition by the continental body of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) headed by the Polisario Front (PF), the liberation movement demanding full independence for the former colony of the so-called Spanish Sahara.

Morocco has claimed sovereignty over the area rich in phosphates. An armed struggle by the PF was waged for many years. The United Nations has mandated that internationally-supervised elections by held to determine the future of the Western Sahara. Yet Morocco has refused to abide by the UN resolutions which are supported by the AU.

Being the only African country not a member of the continental body, Moroccan King Mohammed VI made the appeal for readmission through a message to the summit in Rwanda this year saying it was time for Morocco to rejoin its family. The Western Sahara is claimed by Morocco as its “southern province” despite the years-long struggle for national independence supported by progressive forces throughout the world.

In the statement sent to the 27th Ordinary Session by the Kingdom, it says “Today, Morocco wishes resolutely and unequivocally to regain its place within its institutional family and to continue to live up to its responsibilities, with even more resolve and enthusiasm. Morocco firmly believes in the wisdom of the AU and its ability to restore legality and correct mistakes along the way. Our friends have long been asking us to return among them so that Morocco may take its natural place within its institutional family. That time has now come … the time for ideology is over. Our peoples need concrete, tangible action.”

Nonetheless, the AU said it will continue advocating for the full rights of the people in Western Sahara with the objective of holding a referendum on the self-determination and independence of the territory.

“They create a desert, and they call it peace.” Tacitus

Dear Margot Wallström,

I am writing this letter to bring to your attention and that of the Swedish government the seriousness of the situation in the Iraqi city of Fallujah and to express views about Swedish action in this conflict. I feel deeply concerned about the terrible situation in Iraq. I am writing to you and the government because I am very worried about Sweden´s Iraq policy. The views I am expressing are my own, but also those of the Iraq Solidarity Association.

“Fallujah cannot become a new Ramadi”, writes the International Red Cross in a statement about the growing humanitarian crisis. A sack of flour costs 850 US dollars, small children are starving and people are eating grass in the encircled city.

Ramadi “was liberated” by being destroyed. The civilian population of the city are internal refugees. The bombs of the US-Coalition contributed to death and destruction.

Fallujah was seized by IS roughly two years ago and has since then been bombed by the government. The US-Coalition has also bombed the city for 22 months. Almost 4000 dead civilians have during this period been brought to the Fallujah General Hospital, now the only hospital in Fallujah. Many of the staff have fled and the lack of medicines is great. The hospital is partially destroyed by the government´s attacks. For months the city has been encircled by US-trained government forces with military advisors from both the US and Iran and of feared pro-Iranian, uncontrolled para-military forces. These are committing crimes against international law of the same sort as IS: imprisonment, murder, torture and ethnic cleansing.

The severe war crimes and crimes against human rights being committed by IS, both in areas they control and against innocent civilians in many Iraqi cities, must not hide or diminish the crimes of the US-Coalition, the government or the militia.

A real victory over IS requires even the participation of the Sunni population. Without them Iraq cannot be unified and achieve national reconciliation.

The people who are trying to flee from Fallujah are being shot at by IS and wind up in the hands of the sectarian militias, who separate boys and men from their families and take them away. The presence of the militias hinders the participation of the Sunni population in the fight against IS.

Terrifying stories of murder and torture are retold by refugees -and other organisations that take care of traumatised refugees- frightened to death of both IS and sectarian militias. These include the infamous Badr militia that with the good memory of the US spread death and destruction among Sunni Muslims and other opposition during the occupation years. They now control Iraq´s Ministry of the Interior.

On the 6th of June the UN High Commissioner warned about the illegal attacks on those fleeing and demanded that the perpetrators be held accountable.

Even the population of Mosul fears the coming attempt to take the city. It has been terror bombed for a long time by the US-Coalition and the government. Infrastructures, such as electricity plants and water facilities, essential for the civilian population, have been destroyed.

On the 19th of March this year the US-Coalition bombed the University of Mosul and killed 95 civilians, including many teachers and their families. A hundred people were wounded. Prime Minister Abadi as we as the Chief of the Badr miitia have announced that the militias shall participate in “the liberation” of Mosul.

It is obvious that Iraq, as a consequence of the US invasion and occupation in 2003, is a collapsed state with a dysfunctional regime where no institutions function. Enormous contradictions exist within the ruling political class. The population has had enough and has shown it in massive demonstrations throughout the country since 2011. Now recently the Iraqi parliament was taken over by overwhelmingly Shiite, dissatisfied protesters. Four demonstrators were shot to death. The protesters blame the government for the lack of security: the poor in Sadr City, in Shiite market places and neighbourhoods are exposed to terrifying attacks from i.e. car bombs.

The Assistant UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Kate Gilmore, underlines that “the country is politically paralysed” and warned the international community of being “co-responsible” to the Iraqi government´s disinterest in the suffering of the Iraqi people, of not having a plan for the future and on only focusing on war. In her report after a recent visit to Iraq she stressed that Iraq needs a “competent and committed government for national unity”. Political and diplomatic solutions are needed for all of Iraq´s people, and she regretted the Iraq´s internal refugees are getting too little international assistance.

We in the Iraq Solidarity Association, like you and the government, want to combat the bloodstained discredited IS- warriors. Many well-known Middle East experts reject however mass bombing as a method to destroy IS, while the US stresses that “the war on terror” may continue for decades and escalates its military presence in Iraq. It is primarily the civilian population which is afflicted with death and destruction from the air attacks.

Many we-known commentators have quoted the Roman Senator Tacitus: “They create a desert, and they call it peace.” They believe this is what the US bombing is achieving.

In the government proposal on “The Continued Swedish participation in the military education contribution in northern Iraq” the government provides clear support for the US-Coalition bombings. “They have been a pre-condition for the Iraqi Defence Forces and those armed militia allied with them – the so called Popular Mobilization Units – being successful in liberating parts of Iraq from ISIL”, writes the government which is conscious that parts of the armed forces and the militias commit war crimes against the civilian population.

In the Foreign Policy Committee Proposal (2015/16:UU12) it is stated that the Committee supports “the international Coalition against Daish and welcomes that Sweden is part of the core group of the coalition”.

The Pentagon has recently expressed that it is acceptable with 10 dead civilians. Far more civilians are being killed, but there is total silence in this question and denial on the part of the US. There is also total silence about the enormous destruction of infrastructure.

During the 2003-11 occupation the US committed all kinds of conceivable war crimes. No responsible person has been made to face charges. International law is not applied to the US. It is difficult to believe that the people of Fallujah now welcome these new bombings of their city, which the US to a large extent destroyed in two massive attacks in 2004, when thousands of civilians were killed. Collective punishment is a war crime!

Terror bombing can never contribute to a solution of Iraq´s problems. Is it reasonable to believe that Iraq´s people welcome bombings carried out by the state that enforced devastating sanctions and destroyed the country during the Gulf War and that was in the forefront for the illegal invasion and occupation?

Why does the government express support for the armed militias which commit terrible crimes against parts of the population and which the (Iraqi) government does not control or hold responsible for the war crimes committed?

Swedish military should not intervene in the ongoing war in Iraq. Rather, Sweden should invest even more in humanitarian aid to Iraq´s internally displaced refugees, not least those fleeing from Fallujah.

Sweden should in the UN and other international organisations lead the way for political and diplomatic solutions and make great efforts so that a national non-sectarian Iraqi unity government comes into existence, a government that works for the best of all Iraqi ethnic and religious groups.

Those responsible in the US and in Great Britain must be held responsible for the unlawful attack on Iraq and for the war crimes committed! International law must be defended in Iraq and justice given to Iraq´s people!

Stockholm June 16, 2016

With kind regards,

Sigyn Meder,

Chair of the Iraq Solidarity Association in Sweden

Tradução : José Reinaldo Carvalho  Editor do site Resistência

Erdogan in fuga che vola sull’Europa alla ricerca di un governo che gli conceda l’asilo politico, i golpisti ormai al potere perché occupano la televisione e i ponti sul Bosforo, Washington e le capitali europee, perfino la Nato, colte di sorpresa dal golpe: queste le prime «notizie» dalla Turchia. Una più falsa dell’altra. Emerge anzitutto il fatto che, pur nella sua tragicità (centinaia di morti e migliaia di arresti), quella in Turchia si presenta come la messinscena di un colpo di stato.

I golpisti non cercano di catturare Erdogan, ufficialmente in vacanza sul Mar Egeo, ma gli lasciano tutto il tempo per spostarsi. Occupano simbolicamente la televisione di stato, ma non oscurano le emittenti private filogovernative e Internet, permettendo a Erdogan di usarle per il suo «appello al popolo». Bombardano simbolicamente il parlamento di Ankara, quando è vuoto. Occupano i ponti sul Bosforo non in piena notte, ma in modo plateale la sera quando la città è affollata, mettendosi così in trappola. Non occupano invece le principali arterie, lasciando campo libero alle forze governative.

L’azione, pur destinata al fallimento, ha richiesto la preparazione e mobilitazione di migliaia di uomini, mezzi corazzati e aerei. Impossibile che la Nato fosse all’oscuro di ciò che si stava preparando. In Turchia c’è una rete di importanti basi Nato sotto comando Usa, ciascuna dotata di un proprio apparato di itelligence. Nella gigantesca base di Incirlik, da cui opera l’aviazione statunitense e alleata, sono depositate almeno 50 bombe nucleari Usa B-61, destinate ad essere sostituite dalle nuove B61-12. A Izmir c’è il Comando terrestre alleato (Landcom), ossia il comando addetto alla preparazione e al coordinamento di tutte le forze terrestri della Nato, agli ordini del generale Usa Darryl Williams, già comandante dello U.S. Army Africa a Vicenza. Il quartiere generale di Izmir è stato visitato alla fine di giugno dal nuovo Comandante supremo alleato in Europa, il generale Usa Curtis Scaparrotti.

Oltre ai comandi e alle basi ufficiali, Usa e Nato hanno in Turchia una rete coperta di comandi e basi costituita per la guerra alla Siria e altre operazioni. Come ha documentato anche un’inchiesta del New York Times, nel quadro di una rete internazionale organizzata dalla Cia, dal 2012 è arrivato nella base aerea turca di Esenboga un flusso incessante di armi, acquistate con miliardi di dollari forniti dall’Arabia Saudita e altre monarchie del Golfo, che sono state fornite attraverso il confine turco ai «ribelli» in Siria e anche all’Isis/Daesh,.

Forniti di passaporti falsi (specialità Cia), migliaia di combattenti islamici sono affluiti nelle province turche di Adana e Hatai, confinante con la Siria, dove la Cia ha aperto centri di formazione militare.

È quindi del tutto falsa la «notizia», diffusa in questi giorni, che Washington non gradisce un alleato come Erdogan perché questi sostiene sottobanco l’Isis/Daesh. Ancora non ci sono elementi fondati per capire se c’è, e in quale misura, una incrinatura nei rapporti tra Ankara e Washington e soprattutto quali nei siano i motivi reali. Accusando  Fethullah Gulen, residente negli Usa dal 1999 e alleato di Erdogan fino al 2013, di aver ispirato il golpe, e richiedendone l’estradizione, Erdogan gioca al rialzo, per ottenere dagli Usa e dagli alleati europei maggiori contropartite per il «prezioso ruolo» (come l’ha definito Stoltenberg il 16 luglio) della Turchia nella Nato.

Intanto Erdogan fa piazza pulita degli oppositori, mentre la Mogherini avverte che, se usa la pena di morte, la Turchia non può entrare nella Ue, poiché ha firmato la Convenzione sui diritti umani.

Manlio Dinucci

In Turkey, where the attempted coup failed and arms went silent after 24 hours of clashes and killings, civilian fascism has won over military fascism – even as both competed to project each camp as “the better protector of Democracy”!

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, elected in 2014 and whose AKP party swept back to power with 52% of the votes last November, repeated through the crisis that he and his government represented democratic legitimacy and blamed the putschist “treason” on “a handful of military people” close to his Islamist rival Fethullah Gülen, living in self-exile in the US.

In a country where the military sees itself as the guardian of Kemalist legitimacy and has often seized power by coups d’État in the past, the putsch leaders this time accused Erdogan and his team of violating the constitution, perverting democracy, expanding and deepening corruption, putting “internal and regional peace” at risk, and rushing towards authoritarianism.

Restoring the Death Penalty

Back in power in Ankara yesterday from his base in Istanbul, where he was mayor once and where he stayed throughout the crisis, Erdogan quickly told the coup participants, 2800 of whom were behind bars, that he would “make them pay dearly for their treason” – a threat he has effectively implemented against critical journalists, political rivals and dissenters, and the Kurdish minority fighting for its human and national rights.

He called for the extradition of Gülen from theUSand of eight coup participants fromGreecewhere they landed in a military helicopter. He made of the Gülen issue a test ofUSfriendship – with theUSkeeping a nuclear arsenal atTurkey’s Incirlik Air Base.Turkey’s borders were closed to prevent further escapes. And he pledged to restore the death penalty – abolished in 2002 to prepareTurkey’s entry into the EU. And deep purges are under way in all sectors of public life, army included.

He called the coup attempt “a gift from Heaven”  – a statement which led many to opine Erdogan had staged the coup himself for his own political ends. Gülen quickly told The Guardian at hisPennsylvaniaretreat he too suspected Erdogan to have staged the coup. He said he was opposed to coups, having suffered personally at the hands of the military. “Turkeycannot go back on Democracy”, he added grandly.

Abandonments and Betrayals

Interesting parallel: after Russia intervened decisively to back up the Assad régime against Daesh/ISIS inSyria, Erdogan accused theUSof leavingTurkeyin the lurch – one reason perhaps of his rapprochement with Putin. Similarly, Daesh/ISIS turned againstTurkeyand other NATO countries, includingFrance, for their betrayal of the cause of the “Levant Caliphate” afterRussiastepped in…

The official toll of the coup attempt rose yesterday to 265 killed and 1.400 wounded. Rescued by the courageous mobilization of his supporters, predominantly young males, in the streets ofIstanbulandAnkara, Erdogan is set to re-launch his agendas of president-dictator-sultan on the Saudi model and of neo-ottoman expansionism inCentral Asiaand the Arab countries. He is only 35-40 MPs short of the majority needed to pass his supreme-presidency constitutional reform – but his triumph over the true-false coup gives him a free hand to push for one-man rule, with a cowed and tamed military in tow.

Neo-Con warmongers who run the US/EU/NATO Empire’s military combine, and who are charting a warpath againstRussiafor the post-Obama administration, would have applauded to see the back of Erdogan after he reconciled with Putin and began looking East towardsEurasia. But the coup attempt was too amateurish and improvised to have been a NATO Hawk operation, according to many observers. This does not preclude that NATO political Doves may have colluded in Erdogan’s “coup” mise-en-scène…

Eclipse of the Turkish Left

In all of this brown and grey theatre, the Turkish Left is conspicuously absent. The Left these days is in alliance with the Kurds in the People’s Democracy Party (HDP). But from the June to the November 2015 parliamentary elections, the HDP lost more than half of its MPs (dropping from 80 to 30), while the AKP regained its absolute majority with 325 of the 550 seats in Parliament.

This bad drama of desperation has eclipsed, momentarily one hopes, theTurkeyof writers like Nazim Hikmet, Yasar Kemal, Sabahattin Ali, Elif Shafak, of film-makers like Yilmaz Güney, Semih Kaplanoglu, Nuri Bilgi Ceyhan, Orhan Eskikoy, or even of political leaders like Bulent Ecevit.Turkeyis polarized not just between civilians and the military, but also between secularists and islamists. The 99% versus the 1% polarization seems late in coming. The Turkish Left continues to smoulder under the ashes.

We at the Syrian American Will Association (SAWA) are writing to you, the great American people.  We are a U.S. civic, social, and educational association established by Americans of Syrian origin who are concerned that the American government policy toward Syria is harming the national interest of the United States, and is having a catastrophic impact on the Syrian people.  As set out in our Mission Statement, we are determined to bring to U.S. policymakers, the media, and the general public a better understanding of the true situation in Syria; especially why we oppose U.S. government support to the so-called “Moderate Syrian Opposition” who in reality are overwhelmingly not Syrian but are foreign terrorists and criminals..

The fate of Syria should not matter only to Syrians and Syrian-Americans BUT to ALL AMERICANS regardless of party identification, religion, or national origin.  To put it plainly, the U.S. government policy toward Syria is undermining American interests and threatening the safety of Americans, HERE IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.  Whether direct or indirect, the U.S. government support for Syrian fundamentalist fighters and foreign groups destroying Syria and terrorizing the Syrian people is a terrible mistake, which can only result in a heightened threat to the region, and ultimately the world and to the United States.  We at SAWA are working to help stop this mistake, but we need your help.

No American can forget the terrible day on September 11, 2001, when jihad terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda attacked our country.  Since then al-Qaeda has been held up as the epitome of the terrorist threat to the U.S. Why then is the U.S. government – the Obama Administration and many in Congress in both parties pursuing a policy in Syria that STRENGTHENS THE LOCAL AL-QAEDA AFFILIATED ALONG WITH ALLIED TERRORIST GROUPS?  While THE U.S. government formally claiming only to support “vetted moderate opposition”  IN REALITY Washington, in collaboration with key regional allies is cooperating with and tacitly supporting all terrorists groups

The same groups that are backed by a range of foreign power, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey; who are competing for influence in Syria and to make Syria an Islamic country instead of being a secular one.

Supporting such groups will not be successful in overthrowing the Syrian government.  The majority of the Syrian people know that for them this is a simple matter of survival for themselves, their families, and their country. The large majority of Syrians know they must defeat these foreign terrorists and create the opportunity to work for a peaceful, prosperous, democratic, and secular future but even so by letting countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to keep setting the direction of the U.S. government policy will keep the war in Syria burning and prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.  It will also mean more money and arms going to strengthen the terrorists and incubating a threat to the United States and Americans here at home.  

The best outcome in Syria for U.S. government interests is to stay away and stop supporting the illegal groups fighting the legitimate Syrian government, furthermore, pressure the regional power allies to stop interfering in the Syrian situation.  Syrians can work out their own affairs, and will reject the kind of poison represented by western media coverage that want us to believe this is a religious civil war among the Syrians.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This is a huge propaganda line from outside sponsors of terrorism against Syria who wish to impose and place their narrow sectarian tyranny in place of a secular state supported by the majority of Syrians representing the whole nation.

We at SAWA support a united, sovereign, secular, and democratic Syria free of foreign interference, under the authority of the current constitution of the Syrian Arab Republic and the will of the Syrian people.  We seek a positive and mutually beneficial future relationship between the United States and Syria, as two sovereign countries that together can make an essential contribution to human civilization, and in particular the defense of civilization against terrorist groups.

But that future is hard to see as long as the U.S. policymakers are undermining our own country’s interests by helping anti-Syrian terrorists.  The supply of American taxpayers’ money and U.S. weapons to terrorist groups must be stopped. 

American aid to all armed groups in Syria, whether labeled “vetted moderates” or not, needs to be halted, and Washington needs to pressure our allies to do likewise.  The stated goal of the American government policy of overthrowing the legal elected government of Syria which is the only real force fighting against the terrorists needs to be ended.

We at SAWA ask for your support in getting this message to American policymakers.  Please write to your Senators and Congressmen, to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, and tell them:

I am opposed to American aid to all groups and any group that is fighting the legitimate government of Syria. We the American people need to stop  trying to overthrow the elected Syrian government and instead support a peaceful negotiated solution among the Syrians themselves only.

We welcome your contributions and membership to work together with SAWA to change a policy that it not in America’s interest.

On Monday, 18 July 2016, the British government will seek the approval of parliament for its proposal to renew the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system. This involves the replacement of the four British-built submarines from which US-supplied Trident II missiles carrying nuclear warheads manufactured in Britain can be launched. The first of the replacement submarines is planned to enter service in the early 2030s.

The last Labour government initiated the process of replacement by publishing a White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent, in December 2006. This recommended that the new system should provide “continuous at-sea deterrence” (CASD) as the current one does – in other words, that at least one submarine be on patrol armed with Trident missiles at any time.

The White Paper asserts that the UK needs nuclear weapons:

“to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means” (Paragraph 3-4)

Obviously, this reasoning applies with even greater force to weaker states, like Iran, that are threatened by stronger ones, like the US and Israel. Indeed, on the basis of this reasoning, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that every state should get nuclear weapons, if it can possibly afford them.

The key question for those who assert the UK’s right to possess nuclear weapons is how can they reasonably deny that right to any other state in the world?

The White Paper proposal was approved by the House of Commons in March 2007 by 409 votes to 161, the Labour government enjoying solid support from the Conservative MPs for its proposal. However, around a quarter of Labour MPs defied their government and joined the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru in voting against.

The final decision will be taken on Monday. The outcome is not in doubt: with an overall majority in the House of Commons, the Conservative government can win the vote on its own. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to nuclear weapons but a majority of his MPs will vote in favour. The Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru will again oppose. There is little doubt that the UK will have a submarine-based nuclear weapons system that could remain operational into the 2060s.

The official estimate of the cost of building the replacement submarines is now £31 bn (US$42 bn), up from £25 bn in 2011 (see House of Commons Briefing Paper, Replacing the UK’s ‘Trident’ Nuclear Deterrent, 12 July 2016).  A contingency of £10 bn will also be set aside, giving an upper-end estimate of the submarine acquisition cost of £41 bn.  As for the in-service costs of the nuclear weapons system as a whole, the Commons Briefing Paper suggests that might be as much as £140 bnn over its projected 30-year lifetime.

Deterrent independent?

Conservative and Labour advocates for the retention of the Trident system invariably describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent. For instance, on 9 April 2015, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that, if a Labour government scrapped it, this “would shatter the 60-year consensus that has existed among governments of all colours in favour of an operationally independent nuclear deterrent”. Labour responded by insisting that “Labour is committed to maintaining a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a ‘continuous at-sea deterrent’.” But is Britain’s nuclear deterrent really “independent”?

At least eight (and perhaps nine) states ­in the world now possess functional nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, manufacture and maintain their own nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. All of them, bar one, have complete control over the use of their systems. In other words, all of them, bar one, possess what can reasonably be described as an “independent” nuclear deterrent that doesn’t rely on another state to provide vital parts of it.

The exception is Britain. China has an “independent” nuclear deterrent. So has France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US – and perhaps North Korea. Britain hasn’t.

Unlike other states that have nuclear weapons systems, Britain is dependent on another state to manufacture an essential element of its only nuclear weapons system – the Trident missiles that are supposed to carry Britain’s weapons to target. These are manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the US.

And Britain’s dependence on the US doesn’t end with the purchase of the missiles – Britain depends on the US Navy to service the missiles as well.  A common pool of missiles is maintained at the US Strategic Weapons facility at Kings Bay, Georgia, USA, from which the US itself and Britain draw serviced missiles as required.

There is some doubt about the degree of “operational” independence that Britain enjoys in respect of its nuclear weapons system (of which more later). But there is no doubt that Britain is dependent on the US for the manufacture and maintenance of a key element of the system. So, to call it an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

Independent foreign policy?

The plain truth is that, if Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it – because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles.

So, there is a strong incentive for Britain to follow the US in foreign policy, since independence from the US in foreign policy could lead to its nuclear weapons system becoming non-functional. Sustained opposition to the US in foreign policy certainly would. As long as Britain is tied to the US by a requirement for US-supplied and maintained missiles for its nuclear weapons system, it cannot have a wholly independent foreign policy.

In these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Britain would use its nuclear weapons system to strike a target without the approval of the US, whether or not it is theoretically possible for Britain to do so. So, it is absurd to describe it as an “independent” nuclear deterrent.

The above applies to the UK’s current nuclear weapons system. But it applies equally to the proposed replacement. To ask the British taxpayer to fork out upwards of £200 bn in the pretence that the UK will continue to possess an “independent” nuclear deterrent is fraudulent.

Surprisingly, the December 2006 White Paper conceded that our US-dependent nuclear deterrent will become non-functional if relations sour with the US.  Paragraph 4-7 puts it this way:

“We continue to believe that the costs of developing a nuclear deterrent relying solely on UK sources outweigh the benefits. We do not see a good case for making what would be a substantial additional investment in our nuclear deterrent purely to insure against a, highly unlikely, deep and enduring breakdown in relations with the US. We therefore believe that it makes sense to continue to procure elements of the system from the US.”

Operationally independent?

British governments have always insisted that Britain’s nuclear weapons system is “operationally” independent of the US. The December 2006 White Paper (4-6) states that “the UK’s current nuclear deterrent is fully operationally independent of the US”. Apparently, if a British prime minister decides to press the nuclear button, it is impossible for the US to stop the launch of missiles or prevent them from delivering British nuclear warheads to the selected target. Maybe so.

Is a British prime minister really free to strike any target he/she chooses in this world with nuclear weapons, at a time of his choosing, using US-supplied missiles? I doubt that the US would sell any foreign power – even a close ally – a weapons system with which the foreign power is free to do catastrophic damage to US allies, not to mention the US itself. Surely, the US must have a mechanism, under its explicit control, to prevent the targeting of states that it doesn’t want targeted?

David Morrison is the co-author of  A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran (published by Elliott & Thompson, 2013). Morrison has written many articles on the US-led invasion of Iraq.