Global Research

Since the Islamic Republic replaced US ally Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s despotic rule in 1979, unjustifiable hostility toward Iran persisted.

Last year’s nuclear deal changed nothing. International sanctions ended. US ones largely remain in place, bipartisan congressional hardliners calling for more.

Billions of dollars of Iranian assets remain frozen. Tehran is wrongfully blamed for regional terrorism and elsewhere. Congress earlier passed legislation authorizing Iranian assets be used to compensate victims of Israeli Mossad terrorism – wrongfully blamed on the Islamic Republic.

In April 2016, the Supreme Court shamelessly ruled Tehran must pay families of victims and survivors nearly $2 billion in compensation – including victims of other attacks wrongfully linked to Iran.

High crimes committed by America, NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other regional rogue states go unpunished – Iran targeted to pay compensation to their victims. Injustice persists.

Tehran is blocked from access to America’s international financial clearing system, its banks unable to use US dollars to conduct transactions.

Why continued hostility after nearly 37 years? Sovereign Iranian independence frees it from US control. Washington and Israel want unchallenged regional dominance – pro-Western puppet regimes replacing independent or nonaligned countries.

Imperial wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere aim to achieve this objective. Iran remains largely isolated, unjustly vilified, cited for nonexistent aggression and terrorism, criticized for its legitimate missile program solely for defense.

Tehran hasn’t attacked or threatened another country throughout its entire history. America, NATO, Israel and their rogue allies wage perpetual wars of aggression.

The power of AIPAC and Israeli lobby overall hugely influences US policy on Iran. In his must-read book, titled “The Power of Israel in the United States,” James Petras explains Israel’s longterm regional hegemonic objective.

Its lobby influences US policy at the highest levels of government, the business community, academia, the clergy and mass media – building, maintaining, and assuring uncompromised US support for Israeli interests, even when harmful to America’s.

Willful AIPAC misinformation about Iran being the leading state sponsor of terrorism sticks on Capitol Hill, emphasized by media scoundrels, US policy influenced by Big Lies.

Tehran seeks mutual cooperation among all nations, regional peace and stability, abolition of nuclear weapons, Palestinians freed from repressive Israeli occupation, and normalized ties to the West.

It wants and deserves to be treated like most other countries, a legitimate member of the world community, its sovereign independence respected.

Instead, US/Israeli hostility persists. The latest blow involves Congress aiming to block Boeing’s sale of dozens of commercial aircraft to Iran – approved last week by majority House members, bipartisan Senate hardliners likely to approve undermining the deal.

Measures block licensing Boeing (and pressuring Airbus) from trading freely with Iran – the Export-Import Bank and other international lending agencies prohibited from financing any entity doing business with Tehran.

After implementation of last year’s nuclear deal, Republicans and hawkish Democrats vowed to obstruct normalized relations with Iran, wanting the nuclear deal rescinded, a flagrant violation of international law if approved by Congress and Obama’s successor – Clinton and Trump opposed to normalized US/Iranian relations.

Sovereign independent Iran remains an obstacle to ending decades of US hostility – regime change its longstanding objective by color revolution or war.

Nothing in prospect suggests responsible change.

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

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

Damascus, SANA, President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to NBC News published Thursday, following is the full text:

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you for having us and allowing NBC News to ask you some important questions.

President Assad: You’re most welcome in Damascus.

Question 1: A few weeks ago, you told lawmakers here that you would retake every inch of Syria. The U.S. State Department called that “delusional.” You’re a long way from winning this war, aren’t you? Never mind retaking every inch of Syria.

President Assad: Actually, the Syrian Army has made a lot of advancement recently, and that is the goal of any army or any government. I don’t think the statement for the United States is relevant. It doesn’t reflect any respect to the international law, to the Charter of the United Nations. It doesn’t reflect respect of the sovereignty of a country that it had the right to take control of its full land.

Question 2: But how long do you think this will take you to win this war?

President Assad: You’re talking about something that is related to many factors. The most important factor is how long are the supporters of those terrorists are going to keep supporting them, especially Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the endorsement of some Western countries including the United States. If you don’t have that support, it won’t take more than a few months.

TO VIEW THE FULL NBC TV INTERVIEW CLICK IMAGE BELOW

Question 3: More than a few months. You see, I’ve been here ten times, and I’ve heard your governors say “it will take a month to retake Homs, it will take six months to retake somewhere else.” It always takes longer than that. So, realistically, this will take years, won’t it?

President Assad: That’s why I said that depends on how much support the terrorists are going to have, how much recruitment are you going to have in Turkey with the Saudi money, to have more terrorists coming to Syria. Their aim is to prolong the war, so they can prolong it if they want, and they’ve already succeeded in that. So, that depends on the question. If you’re talking about how much it’s going to take as only a Syrian conflict, an isolated conflict, this is where it won’t take more than a few months. But if it’s not isolated, as is the case today with the interference of many regional and international powers, it will be going to take a long time, and no-one has the answer to the question you have posed. Nobody knows how the war is going to develop.

Question 4: A year ago, the war was going quite differently. You made a speech in which you said you were short of troops, you had to give up some areas reluctantly. What changed after that? Was it that Russia entered the war? That’s the real reason this war is turning, isn’t it? That Russia is on your side.

President Assad: Definitely, the Russian support of the Syrian Army has tipped the scales against the terrorists.

Question 5: It’s the crucial factor?

President Assad: It is, it is, definitely. At the same time, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have sent more troops since that Russian legal intervention started, but in spite of that, it was the crucial factor, as you just mentioned.

Question 6: So, you owe President Putin a lot.

President Assad: Everyone who stood beside us; Russians, Iranians, and even the Chinese stood, but each one in its own way, whether political, military, or economic, because it’s not one factor; you cannot only talk about the firepower or the human resources. It’s a multi-factor issue. All those countries supported Syria, beside other countries who supported to a lesser degree.

Question 7: Has President Putin demanded anything of you? What’s the deal?

President Assad: When he wanted to intervene? He didn’t ask for anything.

Question 8: Nothing?

President Assad: For a simple reason: first of all, their politics are built on values. This is very important. The second thing, their interest is common interest with us now, because they are fighting the same terrorists that they should fight in Russia. We are fighting the terrorists that could be fighting in Europe, in the United States, anywhere else in the world. But the difference between President Putin and the other Western officials is that he could see that clearly while the other officials in Europe or in the West in general couldn’t see that. That’s why his intervention is based on values, and at the same time based on the interest of the Russian people.

Question 9: Do you speak much with him?

President Assad: When there’s something to speak about, of course we speak, or through officials.

Question 10: How often, for example, this year, have you spoken with him?

President Assad: I didn’t count them, but many times. We spoke many times.

Question 11: And how would you describe your relationship with him?

President Assad: Very frank, very honest, mutual respect.

Question 12: But he has demanded nothing of you, is that the case?

President Assad: Nothing at all, nothing at all.

Question 13: Because the suspicion is that Russia may be working in concert with the United States, and Secretary of State Kerry is meeting Vladimir Putin Thursday in Moscow. The suspicion is that they are coming to some sort of deal that might be bad news for you.

President Assad: First of all, regarding the first part, if he wanted to ask for something, he would ask me to fight the terrorists, because this is where his interest as a president and as a country – I mean Russia – lies. Second, regarding that allegation from time to time, that the Russians met with the Americans and they discussed something about the Syrian issue, like, in order to give the impression that they are deciding what is going to happen in Syria. Many times, the Russian officials many times said clearly that the Syrian issue is related to the Syrian people, and yesterday Minister Lavrov said that clearly; said we cannot sit with the Americans to define what the Syrians want to do. This is a Syrian issue, only the Syrian people can define the future of their country and how to solve their problem. The role of Russia and the United States is to offer the international atmosphere, to protect the Syrians from any intervention. The problem in that regard is that the Russians are honest, the Americans didn’t deliver anything in that regard. But, this is not to take the decision about what we have to do as Syrians.

Question 14: So just to be clear: neither Foreign Secretary Lavrov nor President Putin has ever talked to you about political transition, about a day when you would leave power? That’s never come up?

President Assad: Never, because as I said, this is related to the Syrian people. Only the Syrian people define who’s going to be the president, when to come, and when to go. They never said a single word regarding this.

Question 15: And you’re not worried in the least about Secretary Kerry meeting Vladimir Putin and coming to an understanding in which you may have to leave power?

President Assad: No, for one reason: because their politics, I mean the Russian politics, is not based on making deals; it’s based on values. And that’s why you don’t see any achievement between them and the Americans because of different principles. The American politics are based on making deals, regardless of the values, which is not the case for the Russians.

Question 16: But of course it’s not just Russia that’s bombing your enemies; it’s the United States. Do you welcome American airstrikes against ISIS?

President Assad: No, because it’s not legal. First of all, it’s not legal.

Question 17: It’s not legal for Russia to do it, is it?

President Assad: No, they are invited legally and formally by the Syrian government. It’s the right of any government to invite any other country to help in any issue. So, they are legal in Syria, while the Americans are not legal, with their allies, of course all of them are not legal. This is first. Second, since the Russian intervention, terrorism has been, let’s say, regressing, while before that, and during the American illegal intervention with their allies ISIS was expanding and terrorism was expanding and taking over new areas in Syria. They’re not serious. So, I cannot say I welcome the un-seriousness and to be in Syria illegally.

Question 18: Thousands of missions, hundreds of airstrikes… the United States is not being serious in Syria?

President Assad: The question is not how many strikes. What is the achievement? That’s the question. The reality is telling, the reality is telling that since the beginning of the American airstrikes, terrorism has been expanding and prevailing, not vice versa. It only shrank when the Russians intervened. So, this is reality. We have to talk about facts, it’s not only about the pro forma action that they’ve been taking.

Question 19: So, American airstrikes are ineffective and counterproductive?

President Assad: Yes, it is counterproductive somehow. When terrorism is growing, it is counterproductive. That’s correct.

Question 20: Whose fault is that? Is that a military fault, or is President Obama simply not being, let’s say, ruthless enough?

President Assad: No, first of all it’s not about being ruthless; it’s about being genuine. It’s about the real intentions, it’s about being serious, it’s about 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 reflected on the military aspect of the issue. If you want to compare, more than a hundred and twenty or thirty Russian airstrikes in a few areas in Syria, compared to ten or twelve American allies’ airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, it means militarily nothing. But that military ineffectiveness is a reflection of the political will.

Question 21: There was a political will, as you put it, to remove you from power. That was the will of Washington. That seems to have changed. Have you any idea why the United States has changed its mind apparently about your future?

President Assad: No, because the problem with the American officials is that they say something and they mask their intentions, they go in a different way. They say something, they say the opposite. They say something, they do something different. So, you cannot tell what are their real intentions. What I’m sure about is that they don’t have good intentions towards Syria. Maybe they are making tactics, maneuvers, but they haven’t changed their intentions, as I believe.

Question 22: President Obama wanted you out. He’s leaving office soon, and you’re staying. Did you win?

President Assad: No, it’s not between me and him. It’s between me and whoever wants to destroy this country, and mainly the terrorists within Syria now. This is where we can win as Syrians; if we can get rid of those terrorists, if we can restore the stability in Syria, this is where we win. Otherwise, we cannot talk about winning. That’s true, they didn’t succeed, but if they don’t succeed in their plans, if it went into a fiasco, it doesn’t mean we win the war. So I have to be realistic and precise about choosing the terms in that regard.

Question 23: But one of the president’s key aims, which was to remove you from power, has clearly failed, or do you believe it’s failed?

President Assad: Yeah, I said he’s failed, but that doesn’t mean I win, because for him the war is to remove me, for me the war is not to stay in my position; for me the war is to restore Syria. So, you’re talking about two different wars; for me I’m not fighting my war, I’m not fighting the war that the president should stay. My war is to protect Syria. I don’t care about if I stay or not as long as the Syrians don’t want me to be in my position. For me, I don’t care about what the other presidents want; I care about what the Syrians want. If they want me to stay, I’m going to stay, if they want me to leave, I’m going to leave. So, it’s different, a completely different thing.

Question 24: Do you feel the United States has fundamentally misunderstood your war with ISIS, with what you might call a common enemy?

President Assad: Again, it’s not a common enemy, because for us we are genuine in fighting not only ISIS but al-Nusra and every affiliated to Al Qaeda organization within Syria. All of them are terrorists. So, if you want to talk not about ISIS, about the terrorist groups, we wanted to get rid of the terrorists, we wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the United States wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in Syria. So, you cannot talk about common interest unless they really want to fight those terrorists and to defeat them, and they didn’t do that. They’ve been in Iraq in 2006, they didn’t try to defeat them.

Question 25: But America is very genuine about fighting ISIS. ISIS is a threat to the American homeland. How can you say America is not serious about fighting ISIS?

President Assad: Because ISIS has been set up in Iraq in 2006 while the United States was in Iraq, not Syria was in Iraq, so it was growing under the supervision of the American authority in Iraq, and they didn’t do anything to fight ISIS at that time. So why to fight it now? And they don’t fight it now. It’s been expanding under the supervision of the American airplanes, and they could have seen ISIS using the oil fields and exporting oil to Turkey, and they didn’t try to attack any convoy of ISIS. How could they be against ISIS? They cannot see, they don’t see? How the Russians could have seen it from the first day and started attacking those convoys? Actually, the Russian intervention unmasked the American intentions regarding ISIS, and the other terrorist groups, of course.

Question 26: Three years ago, President Obama made a threat against you. He drew a red line, and then withdrew from that and did not attack you. What do you feel about that? Is that the sign of a weak president?

President Assad: That’s the problem with the United States. They’ve been promoting for years now that the only good president is ruthless or tough and who should go to war. This is the definition. Otherwise, he’s going to be a weak president, which is not true. Actually, for the American administrations since the second World War, they have shared in stoking the fire in conflicts in every part of this world. And as the time goes by, those administrations are becoming more and more pyromaniac. The difference now between those administrations is only about the means, not about the goal. One of them sends his own troops, like Bush, the other one is using surrogate mercenaries, the third one using proxies, and so on, but the core is the same, nothing has changed.

Question 27: But to go back to that moment three years ago, was that the sign of a weak United States and a weak president?

President Assad: No, because if you want to talk about the core, which is the war attacking Syria, they’ve been attacking Syria through proxies. They didn’t fight ISIS, they didn’t make any pressure on Turkey or Saudi Arabia in order to tell them “stop sending money and personnel and every logistic support to those terrorists.” They could have done so, they didn’t. So, actually they are waging war, but in a different way. They didn’t send their troops, they didn’t attack with missiles, but they send mercenaries. That’s what I meant. I mean, it’s the same.

Question 28: Did it surprise you that they didn’t attack?

President Assad: No, no. It wasn’t a surprise, but I think what they are doing now had the same effect. So, between mercenaries and between missiles, this one could be more effective for them. So, no, I couldn’t say that I was surprised.

Question 29: You’re a leader. By drawing a red line and not following through, has that damaged America’s credibility, not just in the Middle East, but in the world?

President Assad: But this credibility hasn’t ever existed for us, at least since the early 70s, to be frank with you, since we restored our relations with the United States in 1974 we never saw any administration that has real credibility in every issue we dealt with. They never had it. So, I cannot say that it is harmed. Many of their allies don’t believe them. I think the American credibility, not because of what you mentioned, because of their politics in general, their mainstream politics, are at an all-time low. That’s how we see it.

Question 30: An all-time low in terms of its credibility in the world?

President Assad: Generally, yeah. Regarding the politics in general, not regarding Syria. Yeah.

Question 31: Do you welcome the end of President Obama’s term of office?

President Assad: It means nothing for us, because if you change administration but you don’t change politics, it means nothing. So, it’s about the politics, and in Syria we never bet on any president coming or any president going. We never bet. Because what they say in their campaign is different from what they practice after they are elected.

Question 32: You’ve talked about presidents being the same, never changing their policy, but there will be a new president in the United States next year. Do you hope for a new relationship? Do you believe anything like that is possible?

President Assad: Yeah, of course. We always hope that the next president will be much wiser than the previous one, less pyromaniac as I said, less militaristic, adventurist president. That’s what we hope, but we never saw. I mean the difference is very marginal. So, we keep hoping, but we don’t bet on that hope.

Question 33: So, there will be a new president. There are two main choices: one of them is Donald Trump. What do you know of Mr. Trump?

President Assad: Nothing. Just what I heard in the media, and during the campaign. That’s what I say, we don’t have to waste our time hearing what they say in their campaign; they’re going to change after they are elected, and this is where we have to start evaluating the president, after the campaign, not during the campaign.

Question 34: And you’re here in Damascus, what are you hearing in the media about Mr. Trump?

President Assad: The conflict between the Americans, but we don’t pay much attention to it. I mean, even this rhetoric between the different, let’s say, nominees, is changing during the campaign. So, what you hear today is not relevant tomorrow. So, we cannot build our politics on day-to-day politics.

Question 35: But you’re following this election?

President Assad: Not really, not really. Because as I said, you don’t follow anything that you cannot consider as connected to the reality yet. It’s only connected to the reality when they are in office. So far, it’s only rhetoric. We don’t have to waste our time with rhetoric.

Question 36: Simply rhetoric. So, for example, talking about Mr. Trump; anything Mr. Trump says, you wouldn’t necessarily believe that would be the policy of a President Trump?

President Assad: No, we cannot. Whether Trump or Clinton or anyone. I’m talking in general, it’s not about the names. It’s a principle for every American president in every campaign.

Question 37: He’s made very few comments about Syria or the Middle East, but he’s described you as a “bad guy.” Does that worry you?

President Assad: That’s his opinion. No, it’s a personal opinion. He doesn’t have to see me as a good guy. The question for me: do the Syrians see me as a good guy or a bad guy, not an American person or president or nominee. I don’t care about it. It’s not part of my political map, let’s say.

Question 38: One of the things he’s said and been very clear about is that he would be much tougher on ISIS. You would welcome that, wouldn’t you? Because you just said President Obama isn’t serious.

President Assad: You don’t have to be tougher. This word doesn’t have any meaning in reality, in real life, in this region. You have to fight ISIS in different ways. ISIS is not only fighters you have to attack with the strongest bomb or missile. It’s not like this. The issue of terrorism is very complicated, it’s related to the ideology. How can you be tough against the ideology of ISIS? That’s the question. How can you be tough regarding their economy, how they offer money and donations? How can you deal with that?

Question 39: I think Mr. Trump is talking about military toughness. He wants to-

President Assad: It’s not enough, it’s not enough. You have to be smart. It’s not enough to be tough. First of all, you have to have the will, you have to be genuine, then you have to be smart, then you can be tough, and being tough and being militarily active, this is important, but this is the last option when you fulfill the first criteria.

Question 40: From what you know of Mr. Trump, is he smart enough?

President Assad: I don’t know him. When I sit with him face-to-face, I can judge him, but I only look at the person on the TV, and you know on the TV you can manipulate everything, you can make, how to say, you can rehearse, you can prepare yourself, so that’s not the issue.

Question 41: Do you like what you see on TV of Mr. Trump?

President Assad: I don’t follow the American elections as I said, because we don’t bet on it. We don’t follow it.

Question 42: He seems to respect President Putin. Does that give you hope that maybe he’s a man you could do business with?

President Assad: If he’s genuine, I think he’s saying the right thing, because every person on Earth, whether they agree or disagree with President Putin, should respect him, because he’s respectable. He respects himself, and he respects the other, he respects his values, respects the interests of his own people, and he’s honest and genuine. So, how can’t you respect someone with those descriptions? If he’s genuine, I think he’s correct. That’s what I can say.

Question 43: Mr. Trump has also made comments about Muslims, and not allowing Muslims into the United States. Did that anger you, upset you?

President Assad: Yeah, especially in Syria as a melting pot country made of many, many religions and sects and ethnicities, we think this diversity is richness, not the opposite. It’s the way the government and the way the influential forces in the society that made it a problem or a conflict. If you can have all those people living in one society with real integration, with harmony, this is richness, this is for the interest of any society, including the United States.

Question 44: So, Mr. Trump should not have made those comments about Muslims?

President Assad: Anyone shouldn’t make any discriminative rhetoric in any country. I don’t believe in this kind of rhetoric, of course.

Question 45: Mr. Trump has no experience in foreign policy. Does that worry you?

President Assad: Who had this experience before? Obama or George Bush or Clinton before? No-one of them had any experience. This is the problem with the United States. You have to look for a statesman who has real experience in politics for years, not because of having a position in Congress for a few years or being minister of foreign affairs for example. That doesn’t mean you have the experience. The experience in states should be much much longer. So we don’t think that most of the presidents of the United States were well-versed in politics.

Question 46: So, a man with no experience in foreign policy in the White House is not necessarily dangerous in your view?

President Assad: Anyone who doesn’t have experience in any position, in the White House or in the Presidential Palace in Syria or any other country, is of course dangerous for the country, generally. Of course, the United States as a great power, could have more impacts on the rest of the world. But it’s not only about the experience. At the end, when you have institutions, they can help. It’s about the intention. Is he going to be with good experience but with militaristic intentions? Destructive intentions and so on? So, you have to talk about many factors. It’s not enough to talk only about the experience.

Question 47: Someone with more experience in foreign affairs is Hillary Clinton. She is known to you, in one sense. What would the consequences be if Hillary Clinton wins the election?

President Assad: Again, the same, I have to repeat the same answer. It depends on her politics. What politics is she going to adopt? Is she going to prove that she’s tough and take the United States to another war or to make escalations? This is where it’s going to be bad for everyone, including the United States. If she’s going to go in another direction, that will be good. And again, we focus more about the intentions before talking about the experience. The experience is very important, but the intention is the most crucial thing for any president. So, can you ask them the question: can they tell genuinely the American people and the rest of the world what their real intentions about their politics are? Are they going to make escalation or we’re going to see more entente around the world?

Question 48: Well, one difference between them clearly is that Mrs. Clinton is determined, it seems still, to get rid of you. At least that’s her stated position. Mr. Trump says he’s focusing on ISIS, leave you alone. That’s a clear difference between the two. Hillary Clinton, well, I’ll ask you the question: does Hillary Clinton represent more of a threat to you than Donald Trump?

President Assad: No, because since the beginning of this crisis we heard the same motto “Assad must go” many times from nearly every Western official in different levels, whether leader or foreign official or any other official. We never cared about it. So you cannot talk about this as a threat; this is interfering in our internal issues we’re not going to respond to. As long as I have the support of the Syrian people, I don’t care about whoever talks, including the president of the United States himself. Anyone. So it’s the same for us. That’s why I say Clinton and Trump and what Obama said, for me, nothing. We don’t put it on the political map, we don’t waste our time with those rhetoric, or even demands.

Question 49: But if Hillary Clinton as president establishes a no-fly zone over your territory, over northern Syrian for example, that makes a huge difference.

President Assad: Of course. This is where you can talk about threat, that’s why I said the policy is the crucial thing for us. When they started supporting the terrorists with such projects or plan or step, this is where you can have more chaos in the world. That’s another question: does the United States have an interest in having more chaos around the world, or the United States have more interest in having stability around the world? That’s another question. Of course, the United States can create chaos. They’ve been creating chaos for the last 50-60 years around the world. It’s not something new. Are they going to make it worse, more prevailing? That’s another question. But it’s not about me. It’s not about the president. It’s about the whole situation in the world, because you cannot separate the situation in Syria from the situation in the Middle East, and when the Middle East is not stable, the world cannot be stable.

Question 50: Let me just probe you about how far you might want a new relationship with the United States. ISIS is headquartered in your country in Raqqa. If you knew that ISIS was about to attack the United States, would you warn America?

President Assad: As a principle, yes, because they may attack civilians, and I cannot blame the innocents in the United States for the bad intentions of their officials. This is not correct. And as I said many times, I don’t consider the United States as a direct enemy as they don’t occupy my land. But at the same time, this is, let’s say, not realistic, for one reason; because there’s no relation between us and the United States. This kind of information or cooperation needs security cooperation based on political cooperation. We have neither. So you cannot have it anyway.

Question 51: I’ve spoken to your [Deputy] Foreign Minister Dr. Fayssal Mikdad many times, and he’s described to me the danger of Syria and its crisis exploding, not just across the Middle East, but across the world, and that has clearly happened. Is, as ISIS is driven back or broken, is there a danger that their fighters scatter?
Is there a danger that as you defeat ISIS, the United States becomes more vulnerable to terrorism?

President Assad: No. If we defeat ISIS we are helping the rest of the world, because those terrorists coming from more than a hundred countries around the world, including the Western countries, if they aren’t defeated they will go back with more experience, more fanaticism, and more extremism, and they’re going to attack in those countries. So, if we defeat them here, we are helping every other country, including the United States.

Question 52: But ISIS fighters may leave Raqqa, and as we’ve seen with terrorist attacks in Europe, they come to France, they come to Belgium. They could come to the United States as well and attack. That is a real risk, isn’t it?

President Assad: Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. I said if we defeat them here, if we defeat terrorism in the meaning they cannot go back, we are helping then. If they leave, if they escape, if you keep having this terrorism, this is where you can start exporting those terrorists to Europe, as what happened in France recently. So what you said is correct, that’s what I mean. If we defeat them here, and they cannot go back, this is where we help the others. If they go back, they will be a danger to the rest of the world.

Question 53: Like any war, there are two sides. Your forces have been accused of doing some terrible things. I’ve been here many times and I have seen some of the terrible things as a result of your forces’ airstrikes, bombardments, and so on. Do you believe one day you will face an international court?

President Assad: First of all, you have to do your job as a president. When you are attacked by terrorists, I mean as a country, you have to defend your country, and that is my job according to the constitution. So, I’m doing my job, and I’m going to keep doing it no matter what I’m going to face. Let’s be clear about this. Defending the country cannot be balanced with the personal future of the president, whether he is going to face a criminal court or anything like that, or to face death. It doesn’t matter. If you don’t want to face all these things, leave that position and give it to someone else.

Question 54: But the reason people are saying you should face a war crimes tribunal is that you are clearly using any means whatsoever. I mean, I know you don’t agree that there are such a thing as a barrel bomb. Never mind the metal, the charges that you are using, indiscriminate force, indiscriminate weapons in civilian areas. That’s true, isn’t it?

President Assad: First of all, those people, do they have any criteria that what the means that you should use with the terrorists? They don’t have. So, this is irrelevant. It has no meaning from a legal point of view and from a realistic point of view. Second, if you talk about indiscriminate, no army would use indiscriminate armaments in such a situation where there’s nearly intermingle between the two sides.

Question 55: With respect Mr. President, I have seen a bomb thrown from a helicopter. That was indiscriminate.

President Assad: Let’s say, technically, this is not the issue whether to throw it from a helicopter or from an aircraft. So, this is not the issue. The more important thing, if you want to talk about precise, let’s say we are using precise armaments like the Unites States using the drones and the highest precision missiles in Afghanistan, how many terrorists have they killed so far? They have killed many, many folds of civilians and innocents.

Question 56: Even if that’s true, that doesn’t make anything that you do right.

President Assad: No, no, no. I mean, first of all, the kind of armament that you are using is not related to what you have mentioned. It is not whether you use high precision or less precise armaments. There’s no such criteria. This is only part of the media campaign recently. I’m talking now legally. So, we had the right-

Question 57: With respect, it is not just a media campaign. The United Nations, as you well know, has spoken about this. Human rights groups have spoken about this, not just indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians, but the UN spoke this week about the problems in Aleppo, in Darayya, which is just very close to here, of the use of starvation as a weapon of war, sieges. That’s going on right now close to us, isn’t it?

President Assad: We’re going to talk about the siege. Now, regarding the armaments, the only thing that the government cannot use in any war is the armaments that’s been banned by international law. Any other armaments that you’ve been using against terrorism, it’s your right. So, it’s our right to use any armament to defeat the
terrorists.

Question 58: And you know there’s a charge that you have used chemical weapons, which you deny.

President Assad: We didn’t. So far, it has been three years and no one had offered any evidence regarding this, only allegations.

Question 59: There is plenty of evidence but you reject them.

President Assad: No, no. There is no evidence, actually, only pictures on the Internet and any one can-

Question 60: Photographic, scientific, eyewitness…

President Assad: Nothing. You have a delegation coming from the international organization of chemical weapons. They came to Syria and they didn’t have any evidence. They went and collected everything, samples and everything to offer evidence, but they couldn’t. There is no evidence. So, we didn’t use it, and there is no logic in using it.

Question 61: Let’s talk about the methods your forces are using close to here which is cutting off an area and besieging it, and there are thousands of civilians very close to here, who are starving. Do you recognize that?

President Assad: Let’s presume that what you are saying is correct, let’s presume that. Now, you are talking about encircled or besieged by the army for years now, not for months, for years. They don’t have food, and every basics because the government doesn’t allow them, but at the same time they have been fighting for two years, and they have been shelling us with mortars and killing civilians from their area. It means, according to this narrative, that we are allowing them to have armaments, but we don’t allow them to have food, is that realistic?

Question 62: That’s what the UN says. The UN says, for example, in Madaya it’s only managed to get four aid convoys in, in all these years.

President Assad: How do we prevent them from having food and we don’t prevent them from having armaments to kill us? What is the logic in this? This is contradiction. We either besiege everything or we allow everything. This is first. Second, the proof that this is not correct is that you have every video about the convoys coming from the United Nations to reach those areas. Otherwise, how could they survive for years if they are under the siege? It’s been years, they have been talking about the same narrative, repeating, reiterating for years now, but people are still alive, how could they live without food?

Question 63: As you know, targeting civilians in a war is a war crime and just recently, the family of Marie Colvin, an American journalist, has launched a suit in the United States charging you and your government with deliberately targeting and killing her. You know Marie Colvin; she was a friend of mine.

President Assad: Yeah, a journalist, yeah.

Question 64: Did your forces target Marie Colvin and her colleagues with an intention to kill her?

President Assad: No, very simply. First of all, the army forces didn’t know that Marie Colvin existed somewhere, because before that we hadn’t known about Marie Colvin. So, it’s a war and she came illegally to Syria, she worked with the terrorists, and because she came illegally, she’s been responsible of everything that befall on her, this is first. Second-

Question 65: She is responsible for her own death?

President Assad: Of course, she came illegally to Syria. We can be responsible of everyone within our country when they come legally to Syria. She came illegally, and she went with the terrorists. We didn’t send her anywhere, we don’t know anything about her.

Question 66: As you know, that doesn’t explain why missiles hit the house that she was in in Homs?

President Assad: No, no, nobody knows if she was killed by a missile or which missile or where did the missile come from or how. No one has any evidence. This is just allegations, because it’s a conflict area, it’s a war. You know about crossfire, when you are caught in a crossfire somewhere, you cannot tell who killed who. So, these are allegations. Second, we had hundreds of journalists who came to Syria legally and illegally, and they covered for the terrorists, not for the government, and we didn’t kill them. So, why to single out this person in order to kill her? There is no reason. This is second. Third, tens of journalists working for the government and support the government have been killed, did we kill them? We didn’t. So, this is war. Have you heard about a good war? I don’t think that anyone has heard about a good war. It’s a war. You always have causalities, you always have innocent people being killed by any means, and no one can tell how.

Question 67: You see the impression you give, Mr. President, is of a man who feels he bears no responsibility for the terrible things that are done in his name to the Syrian people. You have an air of “oh well, it really does not matter.”

President Assad: You only bear the responsibility for the decision that you take. You don’t bear the responsibility for the decision that you didn’t take.

Question 68: But some of the decisions you’ve taken have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
President Assad: Like?

Question 69: Attacking certain areas, launching campaigns, airstrikes, the use of certain weapons.

President Assad: The only two decisions that we’ve taken since the beginning of the crisis are to defend our country against the terrorists, and that’s a correct decision. The second one is to make dialogue with everyone. We made dialogue with everyone, including some terrorist groups who wanted to give up their armaments, and we made it. We’re very flexible. We didn’t take any decision to attack any area that doesn’t include terrorists or where terrorists don’t shell the others’ cities
adjacent to them.

Question 70: Do you ever see pictures, photographs, videos of children, for example, in rebel-held areas? And I wonder if you have seen these photographs, what do you feel? Sorrow, regret, nothing?

President Assad: My question is, how could you verify that those children that you saw on the internet are in their area?

Question 71: You see, there you go again, Mr. President. An answer like that simply reinforces people’s view that you are evading responsibility-

President Assad: No, no, no.

Question 72: That actually you don’t care for the people on the other side that your forces kill.

President Assad: That question could be answered, if you answer that question: how can you blame now Bush for the one million Iraqis dead since the war in Iraq in 2003?

Question 73: I’m not talking about President Bush; I am here to ask you-

President Assad: No, no. I’m talking about the principle now; it’s about the principle. The same principle. He attacked a sovereign country, while I defend my country. If you want to use one standard, it is one thing, but if you want to do a double standard, that is another thing.

Question 74: You’re still not giving me the impression that actually you care very much.

President Assad: No, no. I talk to an American audience, so there must be an analogy between the two things, because it is about the logic that you use to explain something. It is not only about my answer. He attacked a sovereign country while we are defending our country. He killed Iraqi people on their land, we are defending mainly against terrorists who are coming from different places in that world. So, this is our right, while to talk about a clean war where there is no causalities, no civilians, no innocent people to be killed, that doesn’t exist. No one could make it. No war in the world.

Question 75: Is this how you explain the war, for example, to your children at the breakfast table, I am sure they are very-

President Assad: Of course, I’m going to talk about the reality, about the facts, while to talk about children being killed, children of who, where, and how? You are talking about propaganda and about media campaigns, and about sometimes fake pictures on the internet. We cannot talk but about the facts. We have to talk about the facts. I cannot talk about allegations.

Question 76: Have you ever cried about what happened to Syria?

President Assad: Crying doesn’t mean you are a good man, and doesn’t mean you have a lot of passion; it’s about the passion that’s within your heart, it is not about your eyes, it is not about the tears. This is first. Second, as a president, it’s about what you’re going to do, not about how you’re going to feel. How are you going to protect the Syrians? When you have an incident, bad incident, and you have it every day, do you keep crying every day, or you keep working? My question is how I can help whenever I have a bad event or incident. I ask myself how can I protect the other Syrians from having the same problem.

Question 77: What are you going to do next? Are you just going to go on and on and on? You and your father have been in power for forty-six years, is that right?

President Assad: No, it’s not right, because he is a president and I am another president. So, it’s not right. The description is not right at all. He was elected by the Syrian people, and I was elected after he died. He didn’t put me in any position, so you cannot connect. I’m a president, and he’s a president. I have been in power for sixteen years, not for forty-five years.

Question 78: You have been in power for sixteen years, my question is: are you going to go on and on and on?

President Assad: Ah, in my position? In my position, you have to ask the Syrian people. If they don’t want me, I have to leave right away, today. If they want me, I have to stay. It depends on them, I mean, if I want to stay against their will, I cannot produce, I cannot succeed, and I do not think I have the intention not to
succeed.

Question 79: How do you think history will remember you?

President Assad: How I hope history will remember me. I cannot foretell; I am not a fortuneteller. I hope that history will see me as the man who protected his country from terrorism and from intervention and saved its sovereignty and the integrity of its land.

Question 80: Because you know what the first draft of history is saying, that you’re a brutal dictator, you are a man with blood on your hands, more blood on your hands than even on you father.

President Assad: No, again, I will draw that example if you have a doctor who cut the hand because of a gangrene to save the patient, you do not say he’s a brutal doctor. He’s doing his job in order to save the rest of the body. So, when you protect your country from the terrorists and you kill terrorists and you defeat terrorists, you are not brutal; you are a patriot. That is how you look at yourself, and that’s how the people want to look at you.

Question 81: And that is how you see yourself, as a patriot?

President Assad: I cannot be objective about looking at myself. The most important thing is how the Syrians look at me, that is the real and objective opinion, not my opinion. I cannot be objective about myself.

Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for answering NBC’s questions and for taking time to talk to me. Thank you very much.

President Assad: Thank you.

Last week, seven years after the Iraq Inquiry was set up, Sir John Chilcot finally delivered his long-awaited report. Although it stopped short of declaring the Iraq war illegal, and although it failed to examine the real motives for war, the report was not quite the whitewash that had been feared by peace campaigners.

Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, gave a succinct summary of the Chilcot report, listing four of the main findings (each followed by our own comment):

1. There was no imminent threat to Britain from Saddam Hussein, so war in March 2003 was unnecessary.

In reality: utterly devastated by war, bombing and 12 years of sanctions, Iraq posed no threat whatsoever towards Britain or the US. The idea that there was any kind of threat from this broken, impoverished country was simply a lie; a propaganda fabrication by warmongering cynics and corporate hangers-on eager for a piece of the pie.

2. The existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was presented with a certainty that was not justified. It was never ‘beyond doubt’ that the weapons existed. None have been found in the subsequent 13 years.

In reality: it was completely clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the whole ‘weapons of mass destruction’ issue was a propaganda fabrication; a way of suggesting a ‘threat’ where none existed. Iraq only ever possessed battlefield biological and chemical weapons that were of no conceivable threat to the West. Iraq didn’t even use them when the West attacked the country in 1991. Not only that, but UN weapons inspectors had overseen the near-complete destruction of even these tinpot devices between 1991-1998; only ‘sludge’ remained: a known fact. Iraq was of no more threat to the West in 2002-2003 than Thailand or Iceland; that is all that needs to be said. Almost everything else is superfluous: cynical propaganda which was, and is, manipulated by violent Western leaderships that think nothing of smashing other countries to bits for whatever reason they declare ‘necessary’.

3. There was a failure of democratic government and accountability, with Blair keeping most of his Cabinet in the dark. This meant that he avoided telling them things which they ought to have known.

In reality: The Americans decided to exploit the dead of September 11 to wage war in the name of power and profit. Blair decided to take part in the crime, come what may, from the start. His whole intention was to make that possible, to trap Iraq into war and to use the UN to apply a veneer of legality to the monstrous crime. One million people paid with their lives, and a whole country was destroyed in the process. Bush at least had an ‘excuse’; he was, after all, a hard-right president operating out of a notoriously venal, violent and corrupt Republican ‘party’. (As Noam Chomsky has noted, it is wrong to consider it a legitimate party. It is merely a collection of greedy vested interests, qualifying it as a candidate for ‘for the most dangerous organization in human history’.) Blair, on the other hand, was prime minister on behalf of a supposedly left-leaning Labour party rooted in supposedly genuine ethical values. His rejection of democracy in the name of war was the perfect culmination of his coup transforming Labour into another power-serving Tory party.

4. George Bush and Blair worked to undermine the authority of the UN.

In reality: Bush and Blair sought to exploit the good name of the UN to provide a cover for their crime. The intention was to use the appearance of diplomacy as propaganda justifying war. If Saddam could be trapped into appearing intransigent in the face of UN resolutions, so much the better for war. Diplomacy was only ever perceived as a means to achieve war, not peace. The whole ‘weapons of mass destruction’ fraud had been concocted by conspirators intent on war. Why would those same fraudsters attempt to work through the UN to achieve peace? That was the last outcome they wanted.

In an already infamous phrase, Blair told Bush that:

I will be with you, whatever.

Those words will haunt Blair to his grave.There is no doubt that his reputation is now in tatters, even in ‘mainstream’ circles. There have been follow-up calls for him to be punished by being thrown out of the Queen’s Privy Council, impeached and put on trial for misleading Parliament, and charged with war crimes.

Unusually for the ‘mainstream’ press, Andrew Buncombe of the Independent wrote a piece focusing on the death toll in Iraq. As he notes, a study conducted by Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, published in the prestigious journal The Lancet in 2006, estimated the number of Iraqi dead at around 650,000. Even worse, a report (pdf) last year by Physicians for Social Responsibility estimated the Iraq death toll as around one million. Added to this ghastly pyramid of corpses, the Bush-Blair ‘War on Terror’ has led to 220,000 dead in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan. These appalling figures hardly ever appear in the ‘mainstream’ media. As Les Roberts, one of the Lancet authors, observes, the media is guilty of ‘failing to report on uncomfortable truths.’

Burying The Facts And Stifling Dissent

As well as burying the Iraq death toll, the corporate media have been guilty of hiding or downplaying the following:

• Iraq’s people and infrastructure had already been crushed by a genocidal regime of UN sanctions, maintained with especially brutal vigour by Washington and London.

• Iraq had already been essentially disarmed of any WMD, as revealed by relevant experts; notably Scott Ritter, former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector. This was known well in advance of the war, as our media alerts from October 2002 make clear (‘Iraq and Arms Inspectors – The Big Lie’, Part 1 andPart 2).

• In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, there was an agreed-upon Washington strategy to start wars against seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran) in five years, asrevealed by US General Wesley Clark.

• The infamous ‘Downing Street Memo’ showed that the intelligence and facts were being ‘fixed around’ the pre-existing policy of invasion. Indeed, this was nothing less than a conspiracy to launch a war. You will struggle in vain to find ‘mainstream’ commentators linking any of this to Blair’s ‘I’m with you, whatever’ pledge to Bush.

• The West’s desire to control oil resources was a key motivating factor for war.

• The role of corporations and financial interests in driving government policy; in particular, the profits demanded by the ‘defence’ industry and arms manufacturers.

• War crimes committed by US armed forces; for example, in Fallujah.

• The devastating long-term impacts of the invasion in terms of cancer rates and congenital abnormalities.

In 2004, when we challenged media editors to critique their own abysmal performance on Iraq, we were essentially told: ‘We have nothing to apologise for’. The response from David Mannion, then head of ITV News, summed up media complacency, indeed complicity, in channelling war propaganda:

The evidence suggests we have no need for a mea culpa. We did our job well.

Today, the body of media evidence that we have accumulated shows precisely the opposite. In particular, the bulk of BBC output on Iraq can be characterised by one word: ‘Newspeak’. In 2003, a Cardiff University report found that the BBC ‘displayed the most “pro-war” agenda of any broadcaster’ on the Iraq invasion. Over the three weeks of the initial conflict, 11% of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC was less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent sources, who also tended to be the most sceptical. The BBC also placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties, which were mentioned in 22% of its stories about the Iraqi people, and it was least likely to report on Iraqi opposition to the invasion.

On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Bergin, the press officer for Stop the War, told Media Lens:

Representatives of the coalition have been invited to appear on every TV channel except the BBC. The BBC have taken a conscious decision to actively exclude Stop the War Coalition people from their programmes, even though everyone knows we are central to organising the massive anti-war movement. (Email to Media Lens, March 14, 2003)

In 2003, Richard Sambrook, then head of BBC News, told staff not to broadcast ‘extreme’ anti-war opinion. His deputy, Mark Damazer, issued an email to newsroom staff ‘listing which categories of journalist should not attend’ the peace march in London in February 2003:

These include all presenters, correspondents, editors, output editors and “anyone who can be considered a ‘gatekeeper’ of our output”.

David Miller, then a professor of sociology at Strathclyde University and co-founder of SpinWatch,noted afterwards:

BBC managers have fallen over themselves to grovel to the government in the aftermath of the Hutton whitewash… When will their bosses apologise for conspiring to keep the anti-war movement off the screens? Not any time soon.

In a speech at New York’s Columbia University, John Pilger commented:

We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by MI6, the secret intelligence service. In what was called “Operation Mass Appeal”, MI6 agents planted stories about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All these stories were fake.

Pilger’s documentary on the propaganda role played by the corporate media, The War You Don’t See, is a must-watch.

‘Bringing Democracy And Human Rights’ To Iraq

It is worth reminding ourselves just what some media ‘gatekeepers’ were saying back in 2003. The BBC’s Nicholas Witchell declared of the US invasion, as it steamrollered its way into central Baghdad:

It is absolutely, without a doubt, a vindication of the strategy. (BBC News at Six, April 9, 2003)

Natasha Kaplinsky, then a BBC breakfast news presenter, beamed as she described how Blair ‘has become, again, Teflon Tony’. The BBC’s Mark Mardell agreed:

It has been a vindication for him.  (BBC1, Breakfast News, April 10, 2003)

ITN’s Tom Bradby said:

This war has been a major success. (ITN Evening News, April 10, 2003)

ITN’s John Irvine also saw vindication in the arrival of US armed forces:

A war of three weeks has brought an end to decades of Iraqi misery. (ITN Evening News, April 9, 2003)

On Channel 4 News, Jack Straw, then UK foreign secretary, told Jon Snow that he had met with the French foreign minister that day:

Did he look chastened?’, asked Snow wryly. (Channel 4, April 9, 2003)

Snow did not respond when he was asked on Twitter a few days ago by one of our readers whether the Channel 4 News presenter ‘felt chastened’ on being reminded of this.

In 2006, we noted that ’embedded’ BBC reporter Paul Wood had asserted that US and British troops had come to Iraq to ‘bring democracy and human rights’. When we challenged Helen Boaden, then head of BBC News, to explain this propagandistic reporting, she sent us six pages of quotes by Bush and Blair as supposed proof of noble intent. The notion that ‘we’ are the ‘good guys’ is fully embedded in the mindsets of senior media professionals. When Boaden grew exasperated with Media Lens challenges about the BBC’s systematically biased reporting on Iraq, she changed her email address and joked about it to an audience of media professionals.

Boaden was not alone in her ideological fervour, however. Many MPs bought Blair’s rhetoric about ‘bringing democracy and human rights’ to Iraq. Investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed notes that most of the Labour MPs now opposing Jeremy Corbyn are ‘stained with the blood of Iraq’. He adds:

nearly 100 percent of the Labour MPs who have moved to oust Jeremy Corbyn voted against an investigation into the Iraq war.

Ahmed continues:

Amongst the Labour MPs who had voted in 2003 on the Iraq war, an overwhelming majority who voted against Corbyn were in favour of the military invasion of the country, which paved the way for an escalation of sectarian strife, and ultimately the rise of the Islamic State (IS).

More generally, well over half of the Labour MPs against Corbyn are supportive of British military interventions abroad.

These so-called ‘chicken coup’ plotters attempting to oust Corbyn are now ‘in retreat’, pinning ‘their hopes on a challenge by Angela Eagle, despite many believing that she will not beat Mr Corbyn because of his support among members.’

Broken Promises, Regrets And Silences

Cast your mind back to April 9, 2003. US troops had just reached central Baghdad. Recall the footageof Saddam’s statue being pulled down in Firdos Square in what is now known to have been a staged public relations exercise to create a ‘propaganda moment’. The US army even admitted as much later.

That night, Andrew Marr, then BBC News political editor, addressed his audience on BBC News at Ten. It is worth recounting in full what he said:

Frankly, Huw, the main mood [in Downing Street] is unbridled relief. I’ve been watching ministers wander around with smiles like split watermelons.

The fact that Marr delivered this with his own happy smile was a portent of what was to come. He was then asked by BBC news presenter Huw Edwards to describe the significance of the fall of Baghdad:

Well, I think this does one thing. It draws a line under what had been, before this war, a period of… well, a faint air of pointlessness, almost, was hanging over Downing Street. There were all these slightly tawdry arguments and scandals. That is now history. Mr Blair is well aware that all his critics out there in the party and beyond aren’t going to thank him – because they’re only human – for being right when they’ve been wrong. And he knows that there might be trouble ahead, as I’ve said. But I think this is a very, very important moment for him. It gives him a new freedom and a new self-confidence. He confronted many critics.

I don’t think anybody after this is going to be able to say of Tony Blair that he’s somebody who is driven by the drift of public opinion, or focus groups, or opinion polls. He took all of those on. He said that they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right. And it would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result.

This was BBC ‘impartiality’ in action. Although reading those words today and, especially, watching the clip is jaw-dropping, such propagandist comments about Blair and Iraq were not unusual then on the BBC, and elsewhere in the national news media. The next time BBC News praises itself as ‘the best news organisation in the world’, just think of that clip.

In the wake of Chilcot, we reminded readers about this – arguably now infamous – Marr clip. Weasked Marr for his thoughts about it now; he ignored us. However, he responded to someone else who asked him about it. He answered:

it was rubbish but it came after weeks when I’d been predicting Baghdad bloodbath – the Iraqi army gave up.

Gave up? Or were slaughtered under ‘Shock and awe’? As for the gushing praise for Blair, Marr was silent.

Marr’s successor as BBC News political editor was Nick Robinson. We reminded Marr of Robinson’s mournful comment:

‘The build-up to the invasion of Iraq is the point in my career when I have most regretted not pushing harder and not asking more questions.

(Nick Robinson, Live From Downing Street, Bantam Books, London, p. 332)

Robinson had been ITV News political editor from 2002-2005. We asked Marr whether he shared his colleague’s regrets. Again, the response was silence.

Of course, Robinson had earlier excused himself by saying that in his role as political editor:

It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking . . . That is all someone in my sort of job can do.

(Nick Robinson, ‘”Remember the last time you shouted like that?” I asked the spin-doctor’, The Times, July 16, 2004)

As the US journalist Glenn Greenwald later remarked:

That’d make an excellent epitaph on the tombstone of modern establishment journalism.

In the same Times column, Robinson had attempted to justify his lack of scrutiny of government propaganda:

Elsewhere on our bulletins we did report those who questioned the truth of what we were being told.

There is scant evidence of that being the case. Those with the expertise, not just to question, but to demolish, Bush and Blair’s ludicrous excuses for war were rarely seen.

In his article, Robinson had also made this solemn promise:

Now, more than ever before, I will pause before relaying what those in power say. Now, more than ever, I will try to examine the contradictory case.

To little or no avail, as we have seen in the intervening years. Those with the expertise, not just to question, but to demolish, Bush and Blair’s ludicrous excuses for war were nowhere to be seen.

As for Blair, John Pilger had already written back in 2010 that the former Prime Minister should be prosecuted for his shared responsibility for a war of aggression that had led to the deaths of a million Iraqis. But the responsibility does not stop there:

The Cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Jack Straw, later appointed “justice secretary”, suppressed the relevant Cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them.

Also sitting in the Blair Cabinet were Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary; Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer who released the finances to fund the war; and John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Sunday, Prescott tried to dodge his part in the supreme international crime by claiming that he was ‘forced’ to sign up to what he now concedes was an illegal war by the devious, wily Blair. Prescott, we are to believe, was duped by Blair’s mendacious charm, even while millions of people saw through the lies and went out to march in protest on British streets.

As Lindsey German of Stop the War sums up:

Thirteen years after the war, the Middle East is in flames, Britain is a more dangerous place than it was and the threat of terrorism across the region is greater. Chilcot makes clear that this was a catastrophe both foretold and avoidable.

Chilcot would not have happened without the anti-war movement and we should not see it as the end.

‘There have to be consequences for those responsible for this terrible war.

Those responsible include not only those politicians who took this country into war, but also the media that facilitated the greatest crime of the century.

Global Research Editor’s Note:

Read this important article by Nika Knight, Common Dreams.

Let us take this case to the Supreme Court. War is an illegal and criminal undertaking. Obama is a war criminal. Obama’s counterterrorism operation directed against Syria is in violation of international law.

The evidence amply confirms that Washington is supporting the terrorists.  The US Congress has endorsed a criminal undertaking.

Let us support Captain Nathan Michael Smith in his endeavor. (M.Ch. GR Editor)

*      *      *

A lawsuit filed earlier this year charging President Barack Obama with waging an illegal war against the Islamic State (or ISIS) was met on Tuesday with a motion from the Obama administration asking the court to dismiss it.

In its motion to dismiss (pdf), the administration argues that Congressional funding for the war amounts to Congressional approval for it.

The lawsuit (pdf) was filed in U.S. district court by Capt. Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence official stationed in Kuwait, in May. Smith has been assigned to work for “Operation Inherent Resolve,” the administration’s name for the nebulous conflict against the terrorist group ISIS.

To read the complete lawsuit (pdf) click screenshot below

“How could I honor my oath when I am fighting a war, even a good war, that the Constitution does not allow, or Congress has not approved?” Smith wrote.

“To honor my oath, I am asking the court to tell the president that he must get proper authority from Congress, under the War Powers Resolution, to wage the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”

Excerpt of Captain Smith’s lawsuit

According to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, “when the President introduces United States armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where hostilities are imminent,” Smith’s lawsuit reads, “he must either get approval from Congress within sixty days to continue the operation, in the form of a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, or he must terminate the operation within the thirty days after the sixty-day period has expired.”

The Obama administration has justified the legality of the war on ISIS by relying on the Authorization for the Use Military Force (AUMF) resolution, passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001.

The single sentence, consisting of only 60 words, has now been relied upon by first President George W. Bush and now Obama to justify the unending wars waged by the U.S. in the 21st century.

The AUMF reads in full:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Those 60 words gave Bush far-reaching powers to combat forces associated with Al-Qaeda, once his administration determined the terrorist organization was responsible for the September 11 attacks.

But ISIS is an enemy group of Al-Qaeda, and it remains therefore unclear to many legal observers whether the AUMF technically applies to the U.S. combat operations against that group. That has not prevented the Obama administration from pursuing and ramping upU.S. involvement in the conflict, however.

As Buzzfeed‘s Gregory Johnson reported back in 2014, “Several of the lawyers I talked to, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations, spoke eloquently and at great length about the limits of the AUMF and being constrained by the law[…] But none of them were able to point to a case in which the U.S. knew of a terrorist but couldn’t target him because it lacked the legal authority. Each time the president wanted to kill someone, his lawyers found the authority embedded somewhere in those 60 words.”

It is this authority that Smith’s lawsuit is challenging.

And in fact, Obama appears to have recognized—at least somewhat—the lack of clear legal authorization for the conflict, as he has requested several times that Congress issue an official declaration of war against ISIS and issue a new AUMF.

“There appears to be no real opposition to the war effort on Capitol Hill,” The Atlantic‘s Garret Epps notes, “But Congress has not held hearings or a vote of any kind.”

Yet the White House has also argued that Congressional approval for the war is unnecessary, because the 2001 AUMF provides legal cover for it. Attempts to repeal the AUMF have failed.

On Tuesday, the administration argued that the case should be dismissed because,

The President has determined that he has the authority to take military action against ISIL, and Congress has ratified that determination by appropriating billions of dollars in support of the military operation. Congress has made these funds available over the course of two budget cycles, in connection with close oversight of the operation’s progress, and with knowledge of the authority under which the operation is being conducted. The political branches have exercised their respective constitutional roles, and their joint effort in support of Operation Inherent Resolve is precisely the kind of mutual participation that courts have looked to in dismissing war powers challenges under the political question doctrine.

The New York Times observed that this justification for the war on ISIS amounts to the “most extensive public explanation yet of [the Obama administration’s] war powers theory.”

Yet as Epps wrote last month, “The relief Smith and other soldiers are actually seeking—and one they richly deserve—would be a decision by their political leaders to treat the Constitution, the nation’s commitment to military force, and the lives of American personnel as a serious matters, worthy of sustained attention.”

And as Earth Institute director Jeffrey D. Sachs argued in his remembrance of peace activist Father Daniel Berrigan, “America is quick to ask other countries to repent their sins and to remember their evil deeds. It is quick to haul other leaders to the International Criminal Court. But it is chronically incapable of looking inward.”

The slimmest of hopes, which got extremely threadbare in the last month, was nursed that Bernie Sanders might have taken his support base and made it into a third movement.  A US political scene so typified by the banking retainers, the counterfeit pioneers and fraudulent managers, could have done with a new force.

Sanders, having watered and cultivated a genuine counter to a Democratic stream so deeply compromised, ultimately succumbed to the Clintonite machine.  His July 12 message reads in part tones of regret, condescension and capitulation.  There is also that sense of self-deception.  “Let me begin by thanking the 13 million Americans who voted for me during the Democratic primaries.”[1]

Sanders proceeds to state that the “political revolution” (rather exaggerated) had commenced “to transform America and that revolution continues.”  Such wishful thinking can only assume form in the guise of a genuine electoral force, rather than egging Hillary Clinton from a well closeted behind.

Sanders seems to think otherwise, engaging in the rhetoric of a phantom revolution that will somehow survive a Clinton seizure.  “Together, we continue to fight to create a government that represents all of us, and not just the one per cent –a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.”

Having conceded to Clinton in the primary race, and his failure to net the number of delegates and super-delegates necessary to net the presidential nomination, Sanders proceeded to accept such mathematics as a definitive conclusion.

It need not have been the case, at least if you accept the proposition that US politics need not be eternally binary in its character.  The House Speaker Paul Ryan alluded to this dilemma with a response to a voter’s question on Tuesday in a CNN town hall event: “It’s a binary choice.  It is either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton – you don’t get a third choice.”[2]

Well Sanders might say that his rival had won the nomination process for the Democratic party; that was no reason for the Vermont senator to assume that he could not take that force of creation out of the sewer of major party politics and create a parallel force.  Since the primary in New Hampshire, the US has borne witness to exactly that fact, a rumbling indignation for reform.

Instead, Sanders waded deep into the waters with an endorsement.  Clinton “will be the Democratic nominee for president and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.”

A mealy-mouthed way of justifying capitulation in political contest is to suggest that the broader cause, rather than the individual, matters. The Great Figure of History argument becomes a matter of individual forces on the ground, with great ideas supposedly assuming a force of their own. (Ideas never move, run or jog without inhabiting some body and mind, a point sometimes missed in these debates.)

Thus, Sanders can claim that during the course of campaigning, he “learned from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency.”  After this rather telling observation of denial, his forgiving escape hatch was that the electoral campaign “is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face.”

This gesture of abandonment is profound.  The Sandernistas and those loosely associated with shim as a genuine source of change had come up with a figure who disassociated himself from politics as personality. The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy.

Rather than admitting, in a time characterised by anti-establishment politics, that Clinton had to move over or be damned electorally, Sanders gravitated to the siren call of the establishment.  As he put it rather unconvincingly, the battle with Clinton involved disagreement about a “number of issues,” because that is “what democracy is about.” It would have been an even greater exercise in democracy to run as a third presidential candidate.

If one were to be generous, Sanders has provided a truly foolish reading of the electorate, one that assumes character and idea to be divorceable matters.  Clinton always hoped that to be the case; her character does not have much for going for it. The demerits for both the presumptive nominees, Democrat and Republican, are considerably heavier than that of Sanders.

The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November.

The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison.  Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000.

The Sanders chapter in US political history gives us an enduring reminder about candidates and their campaigns.  Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise.  Keep in mind that US politics remains a “binary” choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.  The best way Sanders could have thanked his individual supporters and voters would have been representing them to the end. He preferred to haul them over the coals of political surrender.

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

Ever since mankind emerged from the evolutionary stream, human life has been characterized by conquest, plunder, exploitation, slavery, and killing. Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun lived it. The Babylonians and Jews lived it. The Norse and the Swedes lived it. The Greeks and Persians lived it. The Romans and Carthaginians lived it. The Spanish and Portuguese lived it. So did the Dutch and the French and the English. Maybe all tribes have lived it. Human beings are still living it today. Conquest, plunder, exploitation, slavery, and homicide make up the human condition. Human beings comprise  a violent bunch! Kindness has never been a common practice in human tribes.

One after another, tribes have picked up the sword to fulfill their desires to take what they wanted from others. They have lived and died by it. They are attempting to live by it and are dying by it today. In spite of everything, nothing fundamental really changes.

In fact, things have gotten worse. This mayhem has historically been carried on by tribes, but since 1789, its character has been expanded. In 1789, the French revolted. In the ensuing decade, they overthrew the monarchy. They also beheaded lots of people, especially “aristocrats.” These beheadings sent a shiver of fear throughout the European aristocracy. Just like the United States has done today, those aristocrats formed an alliance of European monarchies to oppose the revolution and restore the monarchy. It took a long time, but in fifty years it was over. Napoleon, the defender of the revolution, had been defeated, the monarchy was restored and then abolished again, and the Second Republic was formed. Some thought the Second Republic was a restoration of the revolution, but in reality, it was a restoration of the ancien regime in a different guise. France had become a conventional pseudo “democracy” with hegemonic goals of its own, a characteristic it has maintained. The reactionaries had won. Europe’s aristocracy no longer feared the revolution.

The wars against France and the revolution were very much like the incessant wars today, except today’s wars are against changes taking place in the Arab world, the Arab world that was organized by the English and French after the First World War. In 1916 it was the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Today that arrangement is coming apart and the same Western European aristocracy in addition to the United States of America is desperately trying to reestablish it. In 1789, it was Napoleon and the French. Today it is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and ISIL. The West wants its Middle Eastern conquests back so it can continue its exploitation.

Since 1830, the West’s agenda has been “no more French revolutions, not anywhere.” The progress of people to extract themselves from tyranny must be stopped; it cannot be tolerated. The world belongs to the Western money grubbing aristocracy. So the Arab Spring has been converted into Winter, the color revolutions have all turned gray, Latin America must always be the United States’ back yard, Africa, England and France’s. Progress must never be permitted; regress must always prevail. The only difference between today and Europe in 1800 is that in 1800 monarch’s were in charge; today non-governmental organizations are. The bankers have taken over. Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers took charge when they realized that enough money could buy anything including governments. Elected governments are now the tails the wealthy dogs wag.

John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

US State Department officials refuse to comment on reports that CIA weapons meant for ‪‎Syrian‬ “rebels” are magically stolen, again, and somehow ended up in Al Qaeda / Al Nusra hands. Funny how that keeps on happening.

“No Comment.”

“It’s an ongoing investigation.”

Then AP’s Matt Lee says, “How long should I hold my breath”.

Referring to how long it will take for some explanation as to why, mysteriously albeit, US weapons meant for “moderate Syrian rebels” keep on ending up in Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, ISIS hands.

Image: El Salvador Death Squads

This article was first published by Global Research on January 4, 2013. It is also published as a chapter in Michel Chossudovsky’s book  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity. Global Research Publishers, 2015

In recent developments the Chilcot Report has revealed the role of Latin-american style death squads in Iraq.

The recruitment of death squads is part of a well established US military-intelligence agenda. There is a long and gruesome US history of covert funding and support of  terror brigades and targeted assassinations going back to the Vietnam war. 

As government forces continue to confront the self-proclaimed “Free Syrian Army” (FSA),  the historical roots of  the West’s covert war on Syria –which has resulted in countless atrocities– must be fully revealed.

From the outset in March 2011, the US and its allies have supported the formation of death squads and the incursion of  terrorist brigades in a carefully planned undertaking.

The recruitment and training of terror brigades in both Iraq and Syria was modeled on the “Salvador Option”,  a “terrorist model” of mass killings by US sponsored death squads in Central America. It was first applied in  El Salvador, in the heyday of resistance against the military dictatorship, resulting in an estimated 75,000 deaths.

The formation of death squads in Syria builds upon the history and experience of US  sponsored terror brigades in Iraq, under the Pentagon’s “counterinsurgency” program.

The Establishment of Death Squads in Iraq

US sponsored death squads were recruited in Iraq starting in 2004-2005 in an initiative launched under the helm of the US Ambassador John Negroponte, [image: right] who was dispatched to Baghdad by the US State Department in June 2004.

Negroponte was the “man for the job”. As US Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. Negroponte played a key role in supporting and supervising the Nicaraguan Contras based in Honduras as well as overseeing the activities of the Honduran military death squads.

“Under the rule of General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, Honduras’s military government was both a close ally of the Reagan administration and was “disappearing” dozens of political opponents in classic death squad fashion.”

In January 2005, the Pentagon, confirmed that it was considering:

” forming hit squads of Kurdish and Shia fighters to target leaders of the Iraqi insurgency [Resistance] in a strategic shift borrowed from the American struggle against left-wing guerrillas in Central America 20 years ago”.

Under the so-called “El Salvador option”, Iraqi and American forces would be sent to kill or kidnap insurgency leaders, even in Syria, where some are thought to shelter. …

Hit squads would be controversial and would probably be kept secret.

The experience of the so-called “death squads” in Central America remains raw for many even now and helped to sully the image of the United States in the region.

Then, the Reagan Administration funded and trained teams of nationalist forces to neutralise Salvadorean rebel leaders and sympathisers. …

John Negroponte, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, had a front-row seat at the time as Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85.

Death squads were a brutal feature of Latin American politics of the time. …

In the early 1980s President Reagan’s Administration funded and helped to train Nicaraguan contras based in Honduras with the aim of ousting Nicaragua’s Sandinista regime. The Contras were equipped using money from illegal American arms sales to Iran, a scandal that could have toppled Mr Reagan.

The thrust of the Pentagon proposal in Iraq, … is to follow that model …

It is unclear whether the main aim of the missions would be to assassinate the rebels or kidnap them and take them away for interrogation. Any mission in Syria would probably be undertaken by US Special Forces.

Nor is it clear who would take responsibility for such a programme — the Pentagon or the Central Intelligence Agency. Such covert operations have traditionally been run by the CIA at arm’s length from the administration in power, giving US officials the ability to deny knowledge of it.  (El Salvador-style ‘death squads’ to be deployed by US against Iraq militants – Times Online, January 10, 2005, emphasis added)

While the stated objective of the “Iraq Salvador Option” was to “take out the insurgency”, in practice the US sponsored terror brigades were involved in routine killings of civilians with a view to fomenting sectarian violence. In turn, the CIA and MI6 were overseeing “Al Qaeda in Iraq”  units involved in targeted assassinations directed against the Shiite population. Of significance, the death squads were integrated and advised by undercover US Special Forces.

Robert Stephen Ford –subsequently appointed US Ambassador to Syria– was part of Negroponte’s team in Baghdad in 2004-2005. In January 2004, he was dispatched as U.S. representative to the Shiite city of Najaf which was the stronghold of the Mahdi army, with which he made preliminary contacts.

In January 2005, Robert S. Ford’s was appointed Minister Counselor for Political Affairs at the US Embassy under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte. He was not only part of the inner team, he was Negroponte’s partner in setting up the Salvador Option.  Some of the groundwork had been established in Najaf prior to Ford’s transfer to Baghdad.

John Negroponte and Robert Stephen Ford were put in charge of recruiting the Iraqi death squads. While Negroponte  coordinated the operation from his office at the US Embassy, Robert S. Ford, who was fluent in both Arabic and Turkish, was entrusted with the task of establishing strategic contacts with Shiite and Kurdish militia groups outside the “Green Zone”.

Two other embassy officials, namely Henry Ensher (Ford’s Deputy) and a younger official in the political section, Jeffrey Beals, played an important role in the team “talking to a range of Iraqis, including extremists”. (See The New Yorker, March 26, 2007).  Another key individual in Negroponte’s team was James Franklin Jeffrey, America’s ambassador to Albania (2002-2004). In 2010, Jeffrey was appointed US Ambassador to Iraq (2010-2012).

Negroponte also brought into the team one of his former collaborators Colonel James Steele (ret) from his Honduras heyday:

Under the “Salvador Option,” “Negroponte had assistance from his colleague from his days in Central America during the 1980’s, Ret. Col James Steele. Steele, whose title in Baghdad was Counselor for Iraqi Security Forces supervised the selection and training of members of the Badr Organization and Mehdi Army, the two largest Shi’ite militias in Iraq, in order to target the leadership and support networks of a primarily Sunni resistance. Planned or not, these death squads promptly spiralled out of control to become the leading cause of death in Iraq.

Intentional or not, the scores of tortured, mutilated bodies which turn up on the streets of Baghdad each day are generated by the death squads whose impetus was John Negroponte. And it is this U.S.-backed sectarian violence which largely led to the hell-disaster that Iraq is today. (Dahr Jamail, Managing Escalation: Negroponte and Bush’s New Iraq Team,. Antiwar.com, January 7, 2007)

“Colonel Steele was responsible, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich for implementing  “a plan in El Salvador under which tens of thousands Salvadorans “disappeared” or were murdered, including Archbishop Oscar Romero and four American nuns.”

Upon his appointment to Baghdad, Colonel Steele was assigned to a counter-insurgency unit known as the “Special Police Commando” under the Iraqi Interior Ministry” (See ACN, Havana,  June 14, 2006) 

Reports confirm that “the US military turned over many prisoners to the Wolf Brigade, the feared 2nd battalion of the interior ministry’s special commandos” which so happened to be under supervision of  Colonel Steele:

“US soldiers, US advisers, were standing aside and doing nothing,” while members of the Wolf Brigade beat and tortured prisoners. The interior ministry commandos took over the public library in Samarra, and turned it into a detention centre, he said.  An interview conducted by Maass [of the New York Times] in 2005 at the improvised prison, accompanied by the Wolf Brigade’s US military adviser, Col James Steele, had been interrupted by the terrified screams of a prisoner outside, he said. Steele was reportedly previously employed as an adviser to help crush an insurgency in El Salvador.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

Another notorious figure who played a role in Iraq’s counter-insurgency program was Former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik  [image: Bernie Kerik  in Baghdad Police Academy with body guards] who in 2007 was indicted in federal court on 16 felony charges.

Kerik had been appointed by the Bush administration at the outset of the occupation in 2003 to assist in the organization and training  of the Iraqi Police force. During his short stint in 2003, Bernie Kerik –who took on the position of interim Minister of the Interior– worked towards organizing terror units within the Iraqi Police force: “Dispatched to Iraq to whip Iraqi security forces into shape, Kerik dubbed himself the “interim interior minister of Iraq.” British police advisors called him the “Baghdad terminator,” (Salon, December 9, 2004, emphasis added)

Under Negroponte’s helm at the US Embassy in Baghdad, a  wave of covert civilian killings and targeted assassinations had been unleashed. Engineers, medical  doctors, scientists and intellectuals were also targeted.

Author and geopolitical analyst Max Fuller has documented in detail the atrocities committed under the US sponsored counterinsurgency program.

The appearance of death squads was first highlighted in May this year [2005], …dozens of bodies were found casually disposed … in vacant areas around Baghdad. All of the victims had been handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head and many of them also showed signs of having been brutally tortured.  …

The evidence was sufficiently compelling for the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), a leading Sunni organisation, to issue public statements in which they accused the security forces attached to the Ministry of the Interior as well as the Badr Brigade, the former armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), of being behind the killings. They also accused the Ministry of the Interior of conducting state terrorism (Financial Times).

The Police Commandos as well as the Wolf  Brigade were overseen by the US counterinsurgency program in the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior:

The Police Commandos were formed under the experienced tutelage and oversight of veteran US counterinsurgency fighters, and from the outset conducted joint-force operations with elite and highly secretive US special-forces units (Reuters, National Review Online).

…A key figure in the development of the Special Police Commandos was James Steele, a former US Army special forces operative who cut his teeth in Vietnam before moving on to direct the US military mission in El Salvador at the height of that country’s civil war. …

Another US contributor was the same Steven Casteel who as the most senior US advisor within the Interior Ministry brushed off serious and well-substantiated accusations of appalling human right violations as ‘rumor and innuendo’. Like Steele, Casteel gained considerable experience in Latin America, in his case participating in the hunt for the cocaine baron Pablo Escobar in Colombia’s Drugs Wars of the 1990s …

Casteel’s background is significant because this kind of intelligence-gathering support role and the production of death lists are characteristic of US involvement in counterinsurgency programs and constitute the underlying thread in what can appear to be random, disjointed killing sprees.

Such centrally planned genocides are entirely consistent with what is taking place in Iraq today [2005] …It is also consistent with what little we know about the Special Police Commandos, which was tailored to provide the Interior Ministry with a special-forces strike capability (US Department of Defense). In keeping with such a role, the Police Commando headquarters has become the hub of a nationwide command, control, communications, computer and intelligence operations centre, courtesy of the US. (Max Fuller, op cit)

This initial groundwork established under Negroponte in 2005 was implemented under his successor Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad.  Robert Stephen Ford ensured the continuity of the project prior to his appointment as US Ambassador to Algeria in 2006,  as well as upon his return to Baghdad as Deputy Chief of Mission in 2008.

The gruesome Iraqi version of the “Salvador Option” under the helm of Ambassador John Negroponte has served as a “role model” for setting up the “Free Syrian Army” Contras. Robert Stephen Ford was, no doubt, involved in the implementation of the Syrian Contras project, following his reassignment to Baghdad as Deputy Head of Mission in 2008.

The objective in Syria was to create factional divisions between Sunni, Alawite, Shiite, Kurds, Druze and Christians. While the Syrian context is entirely different to that of Iraq, there are striking similarities with regard to the procedures whereby the killings and atrocities were conducted.

A report published by Der Spiegel pertaining to atrocities committed in the Syrian city of Homs confirms an organized sectarian process of mass-murder and extra-judicial killings comparable to that conducted by the US sponsored death squads in Iraq.

People in Homs were routinely categorized as   “prisoners” (Shia, Alawite) and “traitors”.  The “traitors” are Sunni civilians within the rebel occupied urban area, who express their disagreement or opposition to the rule of terror of the Free Syrian Army (FSA):

“Since last summer [2011], we have executed slightly fewer than 150 men, which represents about 20 percent of our prisoners,” says Abu Rami. … But the executioners of Homs have been busier with traitors within their own ranks than with prisoners of war. “If we catch a Sunni spying, or if a citizen betrays the revolution, we make it quick,” says the fighter. According to Abu Rami, Hussein’s burial brigade has put between 200 and 250 traitors to death since the beginning of the uprising.” (Der Spiegel, March 30, 2012)

The project required an initial program of recruitment and training of mercenaries. Death squads including Lebanese and Jordanian Salafist units entered Syria’s southern border with Jordan in mid-March 2011.  Much of the groundwork was already in place prior to Robert Stephen Ford’s arrival in Damascus in January 2011.

Ambassador Ford in Hama in early July 2011

Ford’s appointment as Ambassador to Syria was announced in early 2010. Diplomatic relations had been cut in 2005 following the Rafick Hariri assassination, which Washington blamed on Syria. Ford arrived in Damascus barely two months before the onset of the insurgency.

The Free Syrian Army (FSA)

Washington and its allies replicated in Syria the essential features of the “Iraq Salvador Option”, leading to the creation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and its various terrorist factions including the Al Qaeda affiliated Al Nusra brigades.

While the creation of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was announced in June 2011, the recruitment and training of foreign mercenaries was initiated at a much an earlier period.

In many regards, the Free Syrian Army is a smokescreen. It is upheld by the Western media as a bona fide military entity established as a result of mass defections from government forces.  The number of defectors, however, was neither significant nor sufficient to establish a coherent military structure  with command and control functions.

The FSA  is not a professional  military entity, rather it is a loose network of separate terrorist brigades, which in turn are made up of numerous paramilitary cells operating in different parts of the country.

Each of these terrorist organizations operates independently. The FSA does not effectively exercise command and control functions including liaison with these diverse paramilitary entities. The latter are controlled by US-NATO sponsored special forces and intelligence operatives which are embedded within the ranks of selected terrorist formations.

These (highly trained) Special forces on the ground (many of whom are employees of private security companies) are routinely in contact with US-NATO and allied military/intelligence command units (including Turkey). These embedded Special Forces are, no doubt, also involved in the carefully planned bomb attacks directed against government buildings, military compounds, etc.

The death squads are mercenaries trained and recruited by the US, NATO, its Persian Gulf GCC allies as well as Turkey.  They are overseen by allied special forces (including British SAS and French Parachutistes), and private security companies on contract to NATO and the Pentagon. In this regard, reports confirm the arrest by the Syrian government of some 200-300 private security company employees who had integrated rebel ranks.

The Jabhat Al Nusra Front

The Al Nusra Front –which is said to be affiliated to Al Qaeda– is described as the most effective “opposition” rebel fighting group, responsible for several of the high profile bomb attacks. Portrayed as an enemy of America (on the State Department list of terrorist organizations), Al Nusra operations, nonetheless, bear the fingerprints of US paramilitary training, terror tactics and weapons systems. The atrocities committed against civilians by Al Nusra (funded covertly by US-NATO) are similar to those undertaken by the US sponsored death squads in Iraq.

In the words of Al Nusra leader Abu Adnan in Aleppo: “Jabhat al-Nusra does count Syrian veterans of the Iraq war among its numbers, men who bring expertise — especially the manufacture of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) — to the front in Syria.”

As in Iraq, factional violence and ethnic cleansing were actively promoted. In Syria, the Alawite, Shiite and Christian communities have been the target of the US-NATO sponsored death squads.  The Alawite and the Christian community are the main targets of the assassination program. Confirmed by the Vatican News Service:

Christians in Aleppo are victims of death and destruction due to the fighting which for months, has been affecting the city. The Christian neighborhoods, in recent times, have been hit by rebel forces fighting against the regular army and this has caused an exodus of civilians.

Some groups in the rugged opposition, where there are also jiahadist groups, “fire on Christian houses and buildings, to force occupants to escape and then take possession [ethnic cleansing] (Agenzia Fides. Vatican News, October 19, 2012)

“The Sunni Salafist militants – says the Bishop – continue to commit crimes against civilians, or to recruit fighters with force. The fanatical Sunni extremists are fighting a holy war proudly, especially against the Alawites. When terrorists seek to control the religious identity of a suspect, they ask him to cite the genealogies dating back to Moses. And they ask to recite a prayer that the Alawites removed. The Alawites have no chance to get out alive.”  (Agenzia Fides 04/06/2012)

Reports confirm the influx of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated death squads as well as brigades under the auspices of the Muslim Brotherhood into Syria from the inception of the insurgency in March 2011.

Moreover, reminiscent of  the enlistment of  the Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war, NATO and the Turkish High command, according to Israeli intelligence sources, had initiated”

“a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011).

Private Security Companies and the Recruitment of Mercenaries

According to reports, private security companies operating out of Gulf States are involved in the recruiting and training of mercenaries.

Although not specifically earmarked for the recruitment of mercenaries directed against Syria, reports point to the creation of  training camps in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In Zayed Military City (UAE), “a secret army is in the making”  operated by Xe Services, formerly Blackwater.  The UAE deal to establish a military camp for the training of mercenaries was signed in July 2010, nine months before the onslaught of the wars in Libya and Syria.

In recent developments, security companies on contract to NATO and the Pentagon are involved in training “opposition” death squads in the use of chemical weapons:

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

The names of the companies involved were not revealed.

Behind Closed Doors at the US State Department

Robert Stephen Ford was part of a small team at the US State Department team which oversaw the recruitment and training of  terrorist brigades,  together with Derek Chollet  and Frederic C. Hof, a former business partner of Richard Armitage, who served as Washington’s “special coordinator on Syria”. Derek Chollet has recently been appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (ISA).

This team operated under the helm of  (former) Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman.

Feltman’s team was in close liaison with the process of recruitment and training of mercenaries out of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Libya (courtesy of the post-Gaddafi regime, which dispatched six hundred Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) troops to Syria, via Turkey in the months following the September 2011 collapse of the Gaddafi government).

Assistant Secretary of State Feltman was in contact with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, and Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim. He was also in charge of a  Doha-based office for “special security coordination” pertaining to  Syria, which included representatives from Western and GCC intelligence agencies well as a representative from Libya. Prince Bandar bin Sultan. a prominent and controversial member of Saudi intelligence was part of this group. (See Press Tv, May 12, 2012).

In June 2012, Jeffrey Feltman (image: Left) was appointed UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, a strategic position  which, in practice, consists in setting  the UN agenda (on behalf of Washington) on issues pertaining to “Conflict Resolution” in various “political hot spots” around the world (including Somalia, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Mali). In a bitter irony, the countries for UN “conflict resolution” are those which are the target of  US covert operations.

In liaison with the US State Department, NATO and his GCC handlers in Doha and Riyadh, Feltman is Washington’s man behind UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahmi’s “Peace Proposal”.

Meanwhile, while paying lip service to the UN Peace initiative, the US and NATO have speeded up the process of recruitment and training of  mercenaries in response to the heavy casualties incurred by “opposition” rebel forces.

The US proposed “end game” in Syria is not regime change, but the destruction of Syria as a Nation State.

The deployment of “opposition” death squads with a mandate to kill civilians is part of this criminal undertaking.

“Terrorism with a Human Face” is upheld by the United Nations Human Rights Council, which constitutes a mouthpiece for NATO “Humanitarian Interventions” under the doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

The atrocities committed by the US-NATO death squads are casually blamed on the government of Bashar Al Assad. According to UN Human Rights Council High Commissioner Navi Pillay:

“This massive loss of life could have been avoided if the Syrian Government had chosen to take a different path than one of ruthless suppression of what were initially peaceful and legitimate protests by unarmed civilians,” (quoted in Stephen Lendman, UN Human Rights Report on Syria: Camouflage of US-NATO Sponsored Massacres, Global Research, January 3, 2012)

Washington’s “unspeakable objective” consists in breaking up Syria as a sovereign nation –along ethnic and religious lines– into several separate and “independent” political entities.

Order directly from Global Research

Africa is facing a new and devastating colonial invasion driven by a determination to plunder the natural resources of Africa, especially its strategic energy and mineral resources. That’s the message from a damning new report from War On Want ‘The New Colonialism: Britain’s scramble for Africa’s energy and mineral resources’ that highlights the role of the British government in aiding and abetting the process.

Written and researched by Mark Curtis, the report reveals the degree to which British companies now control Africa’s key mineral resources, notably gold, platinum, diamonds, copper, oil, gas and coal. It documents how 101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) – most of them British – have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries and collectively control over $1 trillion worth of Africa’s most valuable resources.

The UK government has used its power and influence to ensure that British mining companies have access to Africa’s raw materials. The report exposes the long-term involvement of the British government (Labour and Conservative) to influence and control British companies’ access to raw materials. Access has been secured through a revolving door between the political establishment and British mining companies, with at least five British government officials taking up seats on the boards of mining companies operating in Africa.

Augmented by WTO rules, Britain’s leverage over Africa’s political and economic systems has resulted in a company like Glencore being able to to show revenues 10 times that of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Zambia.

Under the guise of the UK helping Africa in its economic development (a continuation of the colonial paternal narrative), $134 billion has flowed into the continent each year in the form of loans, foreign investment and aid, while British government has enabled the extraction of $192 billion from Africa mainly in profits by foreign companies, tax dodging and the cost of adapting to climate change.

The report highlights the roles played by major companies, such as Rio Tinto, Glencore and Vedanta. From the displacement of people and killings to labour rights violations, environmental degradation and tax dodging, Africa appears to have become a free for all. In only a minority of mining operations do African governments have a shareholding in projects. And even if they do, it tends to be small at 5-20%.

In the report, Mark Curtis argues that an African country could benefit from mining operations by insisting that companies employ a large percentage of their staff from the country and buy a large proportion of the goods and services they procure from the country. However, World Trade Organisation rules prevent African countries from putting such policies in place.

Countries could also benefit from corporate taxation, but tax rates and payments in Africa are minimal and companies are easily able to avoid paying taxes, either by their use of tax havens or because they have been given large tax incentives by governments — or often both. And when companies export minerals, governments usually do not benefit at all. Governments only benefit from exports when there is an export tax. There are almost none in Africa.

Various case studies of abuses and disregard for people’s rights

One of the case studies in the report is the scramble for gas and oil in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. Morocco has occupied much of Western Sahara since 1975. Most of the population has been expelled by force, many to camps in the Algerian desert where 165,000 refugees still live. Morocco’s occupation is a blatant disregard for international law, which accords the Saharawi people the right to self-determination and the way in which their resources are to be used.Over 100 UN resolutions call for this right to self-determination but UN efforts to settle the conflict by means of a referendum have been thwarted by Morocco. The International Court of Justice has stated that there are no ties of sovereignty between Morocco and Western Sahara, and no state in the world recognises Morocco’s self-proclaimed sovereignty over the territory. Despite this, six British and/or LSE-listed companies have been handed permits by the Moroccan government to actively explore for oil and gas resources, making them complicit in the illegal and violent occupation of Western Sahara.

Cairn Energy, based in Edinburgh and LSE listed, is one such company. It is part of a consortium, led by US company Kosmos Energy, that in December 2014 became the first to drill for and later discover oil off the coast of Western Sahara. The former Director of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, has been a member of the Kosmos Board of Directors since 2012.

Saharawis have consistently protested against the exploration activities of oil companies in Western Sahara, but by doing deals with the Moroccan government oil companies such as Cairn are directly undermining the Saharawis’ right to a referendum on self-determination.

Cairn’s claim to support human rights are hard to square with Morocco’s activities in Western Sahara, where basic rights and freedoms are routinely suppressed by the same authorities which have given oil companies ‘rights’ to operate.

The report states that, instead of reining in companies such as Cairn, the British government has actively championed them through trade, investment and tax policies. Successive British governments have long been fierce advocates of liberalised trade and investment regimes in Africa that provide access to markets for foreign companies. They have also consistently opposed African countries putting up regulatory or protective barriers and backed policies promoting low corporate taxes.

In response to the report’s findings, War on Want believes that UK companies must be held responsible for their behaviour in Africa and that the UK government must be held accountable for its complicity in the plunder. It supports calls for mining revenues to stay in the countries where they are mined; for raw materials to be processed in the countries where they are mined to promote maximum value addition; and for governments to act to protect the rights of people affected by mining rather than protecting the profit margins of corporations exploiting them.

On the back of the report, Saranel Benjamin, International Programmes Director at War on Want, says:

The African continent is today facing a new colonial invasion, no less devastating in scale and impact than the one it suffered during the nineteenth century. It’s a scandal that Africa’s wealth in natural resources is being seized by foreign, private interests, whose operations are leaving a devastating trail of social, environmental and human rights abuses in their wake. For too long, British companies have been at the forefront of the plunder, yet rather than rein in these companies, successive UK governments are actively championing them through trade, investment and tax policies. It is time British companies and the UK government were held to account.

It is not the first time we see the enabling role of government where the private sector is concerned, regardless of the massive adverse impacts on people, communities and the environment. In capitalism, the state’s role is first and foremost to secure the interests of private capital. In 2014, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray said that as a state the UK that is prepared to go to war to make a few people wealthy. He added that he had seen things from the inside and the UK’s foreign interventions are almost always about resources.

Military intervention is, however, often the final resort. The institutions of international capitalism – from the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO to the compliant bureaucracies of national states or supranational unions – facilitate private capital’s ability to appropriate wealth and institute everyday forms of structural violence (unemployment, infant mortality, bad housing, poverty, disease, malnutrition, environmental destruction, etc) that have become ‘accepted’ as necessary and taken for granted within mainstream media and political narratives.

When referring to Western countries, those narratives like to use the euphemism ‘austerity’ for deregulation, privatisation and gross inequalities and hardship, while hiding being the mantra ‘there is no alternative’.

When referring to Africa, they use the euphemism ‘helping Africa’ for colonialism and economic plunder, while hiding behind the term ‘investing in’.

The State Department restarted their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails following the DoJ’s unanimous recommendation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch not pursue criminal charges for Hillary’s negligence in handling classified documents. FBI insiders now believe a deal was struck when Bill Clinton met Loretta Lynch on a Phoenix airport tarmac in June. Agents have also said they were forced to sign a document that went above and beyond the typical NDA signed when performing investigations

When news broke of the infamous tarmac Lynch-Clinton meeting we said: “Well then, if Lynch says it was a completely random encounter with Hillary Clinton’s husband on a tarmac (admit it, that happens often to most people), and nothing was discussed that pertains to official business, then that certainly must be the truth.”

We were sarcastic. We may also have been right.

According to The New York Post, which not only cited a source saying that “FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting”, but it also reports that FBI agents had been required to sign a Case Briefing Acknowledgment Addendum. To wit:

 In an unusual move, FBI agents working the Hillary Clinton email case had to sign a special form reminding them not to blab about the probe to anyone unless called to testify.

As for what that “special form” is:

  Sources said they had never heard of the “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” form being used before, although all agents must initially sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

A retired FBI Chief opined on agents signing a Case Briefing Acknowledgment saying:

 “This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others”

Zero Hedge searched for “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” throughout various databases and found no credible hits relating to such a document. Which is odd in light of that by-chance meeting on a tarmac because the document was acknowledged in a July 1 letter from Stephen Kelly, the top legislative affairs official for the FBI in a response to Chairman Charles Grassley’s letter requesting more information about the Case Briefing Acknowledgment.

The Clintons continue to display an uncanny ability for creating the best timed coincidences.

Grassely FBI by zerohedge on Scribd

New UK Prime Minister Theresa May made key ministerial changes straightaway in office.

Notably she named former London mayor/leading Brexiteer proponent Boris Johnson as foreign minister, shifting incumbent Philip Hammond to finance ministerial duties.

David Cameron’s chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne was sacked, earlier seen as the favorite for Tory leadership, now out of government entirely.

Johnson is no stranger to controversy. Earlier he called Obama “the part-Kenyan president.” He complained about him allegedly removing a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office, attributing it to an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.”

He criticized Obama for pressuring Brits to stay in the EU, calling his meddling “outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy,” adding:

“In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU’s federalizing structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves.”

“That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty (sic). They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty (sic), too.”

“For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy (sic) – it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do. It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical.”

Last year, Johnson blasted Hillary Clinton, comparing her to Lady Macbeth. During her 2008 presidential campaign, he said

“(s)he’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”

He recently said

“(t)he only reason (he) wouldn’t visit some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”

Last year he called Vladimir Putin “a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.” Expect no improvement in UK/Russia relations.

These and other blunt comments hardly make good diplomacy. It remains to be seen how Johnson behaves as foreign minister.

Calling himself a One-Nation Conservative, he was Tory London mayor from May 2008 – May 2012, an MP from June 2001 – June 2008, then again since May 2015.

A leading Eurosceptic, he said Brexit won’t deny Britain access to European markets. “I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe and always will. be,” he stressed.

One critic called him “genial to all…malicious towards most…with a light giggle…knows how to put the boot in.”

Does his appointment mean May intends sticking by her saying

“Brexit means Brexit, and we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU.”

First published by Global Research in March 2016, this article provides a background of the evolving conflict

The start of 2016 has witnessed a sharp escalation in the militarization of the South China Sea. The cause of the escalation is multifaceted and comes from both regional and international quarters. The militarization has been initiated and exacerbated by both China and the United States, both bearing responsibility for the current level of tension in the region.

The USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group sailed to the region from its home port in Bremerton, Washington on January 15^th and passed through the Luzon strait separating Taiwan and the Philippines on March 1^st. The Stennis is accompanied by the guided missile cruisers the USS Antietam and the USS Mobile Bay as well as the guided missile destroyers USS Stockdale and USS Chung-Hoon. The Antietam is based at Yokosuka Japan, and was ordered off its normal patrol to join the Carrier Strike Group. The 7^th Fleet flag ship, the USS Blue Ridge is also in the area, having docked in Manilla on March 4^th.

USS John C. Stennis

Trilateral talks were held onboard the Blue Ridge on March 5^th between the U.S. Navy, Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces and the Philippine Navy. The key subject of discussion was how the three nations can work together to confront China in the South China Sea, promote security and stability in the region, and develop future multilateral training and exercises.

The current deployment of the Stennis CSG to the region follows the previous deployment of the USS Lassen guided missile destroyer to the Spratley Islands last October, and the USS Curtis Wilbur to the Paracel Islands in late January of this year. The U.S. has also increased surveillance flights over the areas by P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft, as well as in one case, B-52 strategic bombers.

The Navies of China and Vietnam fought a naval engagement for control of the Paracel Islands in 1974, which resulted in China’s defacto control of the islands.  China has established a military presence on Woody Island since that time, and has engaged in an extensive expansion of the base in recent years. Woody Island now has an extensive military airbase, with a number of newly built hangars and munitions storage buildings. In February, satellite surveillance revealed the deployment of two batteries of HQ-9 surface-to-air missile launchers, as well as supporting vehicles such as an engagement radar and the Type 305B AESA acquisition radar on the northern end of the island. Last November, China announced the deployment of J-11 fighters to Woody Island.

–

As land reclamation and building efforts on the part of the Chinese continue at Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands with no signs of slowing down in the immediate future, it will be interesting to see if the U.S. Navy increases the size and tempo of future patrols in the area. With the Royal Australian Navy taking delivery of its second Canberra class LHD HMAS Adelaide on December 4^th of last year and the first of two Makassar Class LPD vessels built by Indonesia for the Philippine Navy the BRP Tarlac launched on January 17^th of this year, the U.S. Navy may soon be bolstered by more powerful regional navies in future patrols. The prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe announced in November of last year his willingness to have the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces join the U.S. Navy in patrols of the South China Sea. Australian P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft are currently flying freedom of navigation missions in the region.

It was reported just days ago on March 9^th, that the United States and Australia were negotiating the basing of more U.S. strategic bombers, including the supersonic B-1, and aerial tankers at Australian bases on a rotational basis. The aircraft would be based at Tindal and Darwin in northern Australia. They would complement U.S. B-52 strategic bombers already based at Darwin on a similar rotation. As the brinkmanship continues, with no signs of either China or the United States backing down, the chances of a military confrontation in the South China Sea, whether calculated or accidental, continue to grow with each passing day.

Support South Front! PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

First published by Global Research in March 2016, this article provides a background of the evolving conflict

The start of 2016 has witnessed a sharp escalation in the militarization of the South China Sea. The cause of the escalation is multifaceted and comes from both regional and international quarters. The militarization has been initiated and exacerbated by both China and the United States, both bearing responsibility for the current level of tension in the region.

The USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group sailed to the region from its home port in Bremerton, Washington on January 15^th and passed through the Luzon strait separating Taiwan and the Philippines on March 1^st. The Stennis is accompanied by the guided missile cruisers the USS Antietam and the USS Mobile Bay as well as the guided missile destroyers USS Stockdale and USS Chung-Hoon. The Antietam is based at Yokosuka Japan, and was ordered off its normal patrol to join the Carrier Strike Group. The 7^th Fleet flag ship, the USS Blue Ridge is also in the area, having docked in Manilla on March 4^th.

USS John C. Stennis

Trilateral talks were held onboard the Blue Ridge on March 5^th between the U.S. Navy, Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces and the Philippine Navy. The key subject of discussion was how the three nations can work together to confront China in the South China Sea, promote security and stability in the region, and develop future multilateral training and exercises.

The current deployment of the Stennis CSG to the region follows the previous deployment of the USS Lassen guided missile destroyer to the Spratley Islands last October, and the USS Curtis Wilbur to the Paracel Islands in late January of this year. The U.S. has also increased surveillance flights over the areas by P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft, as well as in one case, B-52 strategic bombers.

The Navies of China and Vietnam fought a naval engagement for control of the Paracel Islands in 1974, which resulted in China’s defacto control of the islands.  China has established a military presence on Woody Island since that time, and has engaged in an extensive expansion of the base in recent years. Woody Island now has an extensive military airbase, with a number of newly built hangars and munitions storage buildings. In February, satellite surveillance revealed the deployment of two batteries of HQ-9 surface-to-air missile launchers, as well as supporting vehicles such as an engagement radar and the Type 305B AESA acquisition radar on the northern end of the island. Last November, China announced the deployment of J-11 fighters to Woody Island.

–

As land reclamation and building efforts on the part of the Chinese continue at Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands with no signs of slowing down in the immediate future, it will be interesting to see if the U.S. Navy increases the size and tempo of future patrols in the area. With the Royal Australian Navy taking delivery of its second Canberra class LHD HMAS Adelaide on December 4^th of last year and the first of two Makassar Class LPD vessels built by Indonesia for the Philippine Navy the BRP Tarlac launched on January 17^th of this year, the U.S. Navy may soon be bolstered by more powerful regional navies in future patrols. The prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe announced in November of last year his willingness to have the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces join the U.S. Navy in patrols of the South China Sea. Australian P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft are currently flying freedom of navigation missions in the region.

It was reported just days ago on March 9^th, that the United States and Australia were negotiating the basing of more U.S. strategic bombers, including the supersonic B-1, and aerial tankers at Australian bases on a rotational basis. The aircraft would be based at Tindal and Darwin in northern Australia. They would complement U.S. B-52 strategic bombers already based at Darwin on a similar rotation. As the brinkmanship continues, with no signs of either China or the United States backing down, the chances of a military confrontation in the South China Sea, whether calculated or accidental, continue to grow with each passing day.

Support South Front! PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

We bring to the attention of our readers the research conducted under the auspices of BioInitiative 2012 on the health impacts of environmental exposure to low intensity electronic radiation.

This is a global concern. Potentially the  entire planet is affected. The health impacts of EMF and RFR radiation has been the object of media cover-up despite the results of scientific research.  Wireless communication is everywhere.  The public must be informed. 

Below is an introductory summary followed by the Preface of the Bioinitative 2012 Report entitled A Rationale for Biological Exposure Standard for Low Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation

Debate on this issue is of crucial significance in view of the introduction of the multibillion 5G network, and its potential health impacts. There is so much money involved. That is why nobody wants to address the health issues. 

The 5G network will be the object of subsequent articles. 

“With some industry giants predicting 50 billion connected devices by 2020 and with the employment of much higher transmission frequencies proposed for the 5G rollout, it is essential to determine how the future of telecommunications will affect the health of its users,”

Michel Chossudovsky.  Global Research Editor, July 13, 2016

*     *     *

A Rationale for Biological Exposure Standard for Low Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation

Summary

Why We Care. The Stakes are Very High

Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body. In some cases, this may cause discomfort, or sleep disruption, or loss of wellbeing (impaired mental functioning and impaired metabolism) or sometimes, maybe it is a dread disease like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease.

It may be interfering with ones’ ability to become pregnant, or carry a child to full term, or result in brain development changes that are bad for the child. It may be these exposures play a role in causing long-term impairments to normal growth and development of children, tipping the scales away from becoming productive adults. We have good evidence these exposures can damage our health, or that of children of the future who will be born to parents now immersed in wireless exposures.

In the United States, the deployment of wireless infrastructure (cell tower sites) to support cell phone use has accelerated greatly in the last decades. The spread of cell towers in communities, often placed on pre-school, church day-care, and school campuses means that young children can have thousands of times higher RF exposures in home and school environments that existed even 20-25 years ago.

CTIA estimates that in 1997 there were only 36,650 cell sites in the US; but increased rapidly to 131,350 in June 2002; 210,350 in June 2007 and 265,561 in June 2012 (CTIA, 2012). About 220,500 cell sites existed in 2008. These wireless antennas for cellular phone voice and data transmission produce whole-body RFR exposures over broad areas in communities that are an involuntary and unavoidable source of radiofrequency radiation exposure.

Further, the nearly universal switch to cordless and cell phones, and away from corded landline phones means close and repetitive exposures to both EMF and RFR in the home.

Other new RFR exposures that didn’t exist before come from WI-FI access points (hotspots) that radiate 24/7 in cafes, stores, libraries, classrooms, on buses and trains, and from personal WI-FI enabled devices (iPads, tablets, PDAs, etc). The largest single source of community-wide, pervasive RFR yet rolled out is the ‘smart meter’ infrastructure. This program places a wireless device (like a mini-mobile phone base station) on the wall, replacing the electromechanical (spinning dial) meter. They are to be installed on every home and classroom (every building with an electric meter).

Utilities from California to Maine have installed tens of millions already, despite health concerns of experts and enormous public resistance. The wireless meters produce spikes of pulsed radiofrequency radiation 24/7, and in typical operation, will saturates living space at levels that can be much higher than already reported to cause bioeffects and adverse health effects (utilities can only say they are compliant with outdated federal safety standards, which may or may not always be true – see http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf).

These meters, depending on where they are placed relative to occupied space in the home or classroom, can produce RFR exposure levels similar to that within the first 100 feet to 600 feet of a mobile phone base station (cell tower).

The cumulative RFR burden within any community is largely unknown. Both involuntary sources (like cell towers, smart meters and second-hand radiation from the use of wireless devices by others) plus voluntary exposures from ones’ personal use of cell and cordless phones, wireless routers, electronic baby surveillance monitors, wireless security systems, wireless hearing aids, and wireless medical devices like implanted insulin pumps all add up.

No one is tallying up the combined exposure levels. Billions of new RFR transmitters from the smart meter rollout alone will raise the baseline RFR levels, and will significantly add to the existing RFR background.

Sometimes, science does not keep pace with new environmental exposures that are by-products of useful things we want to buy and use in society. So, the deployment runs ahead of knowledge of health risks. It is an old story. This is the case for EMF and RFR, and this Report underscores the critical need to face difficult questions, make mid-course corrections, and try to repair the damage already done in this generation, and to think about protecting future generations.

Preface

To consult the complete report click here

Today, the BioInitiative 2012 Report updates five years of science, public health, public policy and global response to the growing health issue of chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiofrequency radiation in the daily life of billions of people around the world.

The BioInitiative 2012 Report has been prepared by 29 authors from ten countries*,  ten holding medical degrees (MDs), 21 PhDs, and three MsC, MA or MPHs.  Among the authors are three former presidents of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, and five full members of BEMS.  One distinguished author is the Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation.   Another is a Senior Advisor to the European Environmental Agency.  As in 2007, each author is responsible for their own chapter.

The great strength of the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org) is that it has been done independent of governments, existing bodies and industry professional societies that have clung to old standards. Precisely because of this, the BioInitiative Report presents a solid scientific and public health policy assessment that is evidence-based.

The BioInitiative Report was first posted in August 2007.  It still has a significant international viewing audience.  Each year, about 100,000 people visit the site.  In the five years since it’s publication, the BioInitiative website has been accessed over 10.5 million times, or four times every minute.  Every five minutes on the average, a person somewhere in the world has logged on.   More than 5.2 million files and 1 million pages of information has been downloaded.  That is equivalent to more than 93,000 full copies of the 650+ page report (288.5 million kbytes).

The global conversation on why public safety limits for electromagnetic and radiofrequency fields remain thousands of time higher than exposure levels that health studies consistently show to be associated with serious health impacts  has intensified since 2007.   Roughly, 1800 new studies have been published in the last five years reporting effects at exposure levels ten to hundreds or thousands of times lower than allowed under safety limits in most countries of the world.  Yet, no government has instituted comprehensive reforms.  Some actions have been taken that highlight partial solutions.  The Global Actions chapter presents milestone events that characterize the international ‘sea change’ of opinion that has taken place, and reports on precautionary advice and actions from around the world.

* Sweden (6), USA (10), India (2), Italy (2), Greece (2), Canada (2), Denmark (1), Austria (2), Slovac Republic (1), Russia (1)

The world’s populations – from children to the general public to scientists and  physicians – are increasingly faced with great pressures from advertising urging the  incorporation of the latest wireless device into their everyday lives.  This is occuring even while an elementary understanding the possible health consequences is beyond the ability of most people to grasp.   The exposures are invisible, the testing meters are expensive and technically difficult to operate, the industry promotes new gadgets and generates massive advertising and lobbying campaigns that silence debate, and the reliable, non-wireless alternatives (like wired telephones and utility meters) are being discontinued against public will.  There is little labeling, and little or no informed choice.   In fact there is often not even the choice to stay with safer, wired solutions, as in the case of the ‘smart grid’ and smart wireless utility metering, an extreme example of a failed corporate-governmental partnership strategy,  ostensibly for energy conservation.

A collision of the wireless technology rollout and the costs of choosing unwisely is beginning and will grow.  The groundwork for this collision is being laid as a result of increased exposure, especially to radiofrequency fields, in education, in housing, in commerce, in communications and entertainment, in medical technologies and imaging, and in public and private transportation by air, bus, train and motor vehicles.  Special concerns are the care of the fetus and newborn, the care for children with learning disabilities,  and consideration of people under protections of the Americans With Disabilities Act,   which includes people who have become sensitized and physiologically intolerant of chronic exposures. The 2012 Report now addresses these issues as well as presenting an update of issues previously discussed..

David Carpenter, M

Co-Editor

BioInitiative Report

Cindy Sage, MA

Co-Editor

BioInitiative Report

Click here to access the complete list of Research summaries

RF Color Charts

 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Sanders is part of the problem, not the solution, a longtime self-serving betraying his supporters for 30 years.

I predicted defection to Clinton months earlier, both candidates likeminded on most issues – differing largely in rhetoric and style.

On Tuesday at a Clinton Portsmouth, New Hampshire campaign event, he proved it by endorsing a legally-challenged neocon, war criminal  and racketeer, her email scandal one of many on her rap sheet.

Throughout the campaign Sanders said one thing. In the end, he sold out to wealth, power and privilege, betraying loyal supporters – more evidence of America’s debauched one-party state with two right-wings.

Deplorably Sanders said “I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton, and why she must become our next president.”

Fact: He’s endorsing what demands committed opposition, ending with Clinton in prison serving hard time – along with husband Bill for his involvement.

Sanders: “Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent.”

Fact: Hillary is a Wall Street/war-profiteer’s tool – exclusively supporting monied interests, popular ones be damned.

Sanders: “(W)e produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic (sic) party.”

Fact:  Democrat New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society programs are disappearing, targeted for elimination.

Fact: The Democrat party platform is hugely regressive, not progressive – dirty business as usual pretending otherwise.

Nothing in it about opposing corporate coup d’etat trade deals. Nothing meaningful about reigning in Wall Street or war-profiteering.

Nothing about ending wars of aggression. Nothing about rescinding police state repression, holding killer cops accountable – putting people above privilege and profits.

Not a dime’s worth of difference separates Democrats from Republicans on issues mattering most.

Endorsing Clinton shows where Sanders really stands – contemptuous of world peace, rule of law principles and democratic values – equity and justice mere meaningless words.

Sanders is coopted.

In November, vote independent or stay home. Above all reject Clinton, America most recklessly dangerous presidential aspirant in history – WW III perhaps likely on her watch.

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

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

The Ustasha and the Rising Tide of Neo-Nazi Politics in Croatia

By Nenad Dumanovic and Daniel Jankovic, July 13 2016

Over the past several years, analysts have noticed a rising tide of domestic support for the Croatian homegrown Nazi movement of the Second World War, the Ustashe, which actively exterminated Serbs, Jews, and Roma in the territory it controlled from 1941-45.

War and Destabilization: NATO Expansion and the European Union Crisis

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 13 2016

Obama attends summit in Warsaw amid a national outbreak of racial unrest in the United States A meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member-states in Warsaw, Poland agreed to expand the presence of western-allied troops in the region further intensifying tensions with the Russian Federation.

Gestapo America: “Warrantless Access to All Your Internet Activity”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 13 2016

FBI Director James Comey got Hillary off the hook but wants to put you on it.  He is pushing hard for warrantless access to all of your Internet activity, tells Congress that the United States is not safe unless the FBI knows when every American goes online, to whom they are sending emails and from whom they are receiving emails, and knows every website visited by every American.

After the Court Decision: A New Era in China ASEAN Cooperation?

By Chandra Muzaffar, July 13 2016

The decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague on the China- Philippines territorial dispute announced on the 12th of July 2016 may well emerge as a turning-point in the long-standing wrangles over islands in the South China Sea.

Human Psychology: The Delusion ‘I Am Not Responsible’

By Robert J. Burrowes, July 13 2016

One of the many interesting details to be learned by understanding human psychology is how a person’s unconscious fear works in a myriad of ways to make them believe that they bear no responsibility for a particular problem.

So-called ‘Compromise’ Bill Only Compromises the Consumers’ Right to Know

The growing calls by consumer rights groups and concerned citizens for clearly labeling foods produced with genetically modified ingredients suffered a major — potentially grievous — setback Thursday when the Senate passed a so-called compromise bill. Critics say the compromise legislation, originally passed by the House last summer and then tweaked in the Senate, is actually a giant favor to the deep-pocketed pro-GMO-food lobby.

In stark contrast to a robust bill enacted in Vermont on July 1st, which stipulated that genetically-modified foods must be labeled in clear language, the federal law will allow food companies to present the same information in much less accessible forms: on their website, or via a 1-800 phone number, or embedded in a so-called QR Code, basically a barcode that a curious consumer will have to access through a specially designed smart-phone app.

US Capitol Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Navin Rajagopalan / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

If signed by the president, the federal bill, H.R. 1599 — cleverly renamed by GMO-critics as the DARK Act (Deny Americans Right to Know) — will negate the Vermont law, along with similar labeling laws developed in Connecticut and Maine.

“This is blatantly not a labeling law,” Patty Lovera, assistant director of DC based NGO Food & Water Watch, told WhoWhatWhy. “It’s a poor substitute for actual words on a label, which is what Vermont does.” Indeed, it was designed to block the Vermont initiative, she adds.

“It’s also very elitist, you have to have a smartphone, you have to have an app, you have to have a signal in the grocery store, you have to know how to use it,” she said, joking that a consumer would need another hand to shop, perhaps hold on to their child, while moving down the aisle checking QR codes on a to-be-designed app.

Back in June, ABC News reported that “Nearly everyone, moreover — 93 percent — says the federal government should require labels on food, saying whether it’s been genetically modified, or bio-engineered.”

Since what ABC called such “unanimity of public opinion” is extremely rare, why would the Senate risk voting (65-32) so strongly against a near-consensus of its own constituents?

“It’s also very elitist, you have to have a smartphone, you have to have an app, you have to have a signal in the grocery store, you have to know how to use it,” she said, joking that a consumer would need another hand to shop, perhaps hold on to their child, while moving down the aisle checking QR codes on a to-be-designed app.

Lovera said “quite a few bad guys” worked against the popular will in this instance, but points especially to Agricultural Committee chairman Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, and his ally, Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat. Chemical and seed giant Monsanto and the anti-labeling Grocery Manufacturer’s Association were allowed to drive the debate in the committee. Their most consistent gripe, purportedly accepted as fact by Roberts and Stabenow, is that a patchwork of state-by-state regulation would have been economically unsustainable.

“There’s tremendous pressure from these industries; they don’t want to comply with the Vermont law,” Lovera told WhoWhatWhy, raising her tone for emphasis. “They want this taken care of.”

US Senators Pat Roberts and Debbie Stabenow  Photo credit: US Department of Agriculture / Flickr and US Department of Agriculture / Flickr

The pro-business Senate vote surprised even some hardened anti-GMO activists. “I can’t say I am shocked, but I am — shocked! It seemed as if they had finally given up and little Vermont had won,” Bob Klein of Safe & Healthy School Food Coalition toldWhoWhatWhy. He explained that there is just too much money globally at stake to let the people in a small state beat US agribusiness.

If the House of Representatives follows suit, as expected, the bill will go to the White House for President Obama’s signature. Anti-GMO advocates aren’t optimistic that the president will veto such obviously pro-business legislation.

“Back in the day when he was campaigning he had good language that GMOs should be labeled, but in office his administration has been pro-GMO,” Lovera said. “He could have made the FDA require these labels but he never did, so he did not live up to that campaign promise.” She added, almost as an afterthought, “We’ll have to work on him.”

Klein is less guarded in his assessment. “I have no hope in Obama at all. He is a fake on populist issues.”

The next big battle on this front may bring US agribusiness into conflict with the 28 European countries plus Australia that already require disclosure of genetically modified ingredients on food labels.

Both Lovera and Klein speculated that big-agricultural corporations like Monsanto will look to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a pending international trade deal that would allow corporations to sue sovereign governments for any actions that threaten profits.

“European regulations drive US agribusiness bonkers and they’d love to go after them,” Lovera said.

Obama has been a strong proponent of TTIP from day one.

Americans have been trained by decades of Cold War propaganda to look for any confirmation that ‘socialism means poverty.’ But in the case of Venezuela and other states not governed by the free market, this cliche simply doesn’t ring true.

The political and economic crisis facing Venezuela is being endlessly pointed to as proof of the superiority of the free market.

Images and portrayals of Venezuelans rioting in the streets over high food costs, empty grocery stores, medicine shortages, and overflowing garbage bins are the headlines, and the reporting points to socialism as the cause.

The Chicago Tribune published a Commentary piece titled: “A socialist revolution can ruin almost any country.” A headline on Reason’s Hit and Run blog proclaims: “Venezuelan socialism still a complete disaster.” The Week’s U.S. edition says: “Authoritarian socialism caused Venezuela’s collapse.”

Indeed, corporate-owned, mainstream media advises Americans to look at the inflation and food lines in Venezuela, and then repeat to themselves clichés they heard in elementary school about how “Communism just doesn’t work.”

In reality, millions of Venezuelans have seen their living conditions vastly improved through the Bolivarian process. The problems plaguing the Venezuelan economy are not due to some inherent fault in socialism, but to artificially low oil prices and sabotage by forces hostile to the revolution.

Starting in 2014, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia flooded the market with cheap oil. This is not a mere business decision, but a calculated move coordinated with U.S. and Israeli foreign policy goals. Despite not just losing money, but even falling deep into debt, the Saudi monarchy continues to expand its oil production apparatus. The result has been driving the price of oil down from $110 per barrel, to $28 in the early months of this year.The goal is to weaken these opponents of Wall Street, London, and Tel Aviv, whose economies are centered around oil and natural gas exports.

And Venezuela is one of those countries. Saudi efforts to drive down oil prices have drastically reduced Venezuela’s state budget and led to enormous consequences for the Venezuelan economy.

At the same time, private food processing and importing corporations have launched a coordinated campaign of sabotage. This, coupled with the weakening of a vitally important state sector of the economy, has resulted in inflation and food shortages. The artificially low oil prices have left the Venezuelan state cash-starved, prompting a crisis in the funding of the social programs that were key to strengthening the United Socialist Party.

Corruption is a big problem in Venezuela and many third-world countries. This was true prior to the Bolivarian process, as well as after Hugo Chavez launched his massive economic reforms. In situations of extreme poverty, people learn to take care of each other. People who work in government are almost expected to use their position to take care of their friends and family. Corruption is a big problem under any system, but it is much easier to tolerate in conditions of greater abundance. The problem has been magnified in Venezuela due to the drop in state revenue caused by the low oil prices and sabotage from food importers.

The Bolivarian experience in Venezuela

Americans have been trained by decades of Cold War propaganda to look for any confirmation that “socialism means poverty.” A quick, simplistic portrait of the problems currently facing Venezuela, coupled with the fact that President Nicolas Maduro describes himself as a Marxist, can certainly give them such a confirmation. However, the actual, undisputed history of socialist construction around the world, including recent decades in Venezuela, tells a completely different story.

Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in 1999. His election was viewed as a referendum on the extreme free market policies enacted in Venezuela during the 1990s. In December, when I walked through the neighborhoods of central Caracas, Venezuelans spoke of these times with horror.

Demonstrators gather in Bolivar Square to show their support of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas, Venezuela. The demonstrators gathered as the Organization of American States is meeting to discuss a report from Secretary General Luis Almagro denouncing violations of the Venezuela’s constitution.

Venezuelans told of how the privatizations mandated by the International Monetary Fund made life in Venezuela almost unlivable during the 1990s. Garbage wouldn’t be collected. Electricity would go off for weeks. Haido Ortega, a member of a local governing body in Venezuela, said: “Under previous governments we had to burn tires and go on strike just to get electricity, have the streets fixed, or get any investment.”

Chavez took office on a platform advocating a path between capitalism and socialism. He restructured the government-owned oil company so that the profits would go into the Venezuelan state, not the pockets of Wall Street corporations. With the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil exports, Chavez funded a huge apparatus of social programs.

After defeating an attempted coup against him in 2002, Chavez announced the goal of bringing Venezuela toward “21st Century Socialism.” Chavez quoted Marx and Lenin in his many TV addresses to the country, and mobilized the country around the goal of creating a prosperous, non-capitalist society.

In 1998, Venezuela had only 12 public universities, today it has 32. Cuban doctors were brought to Venezuela to provide free health care in community clinics. The government provides cooking and heating gas to low-income neighborhoods, and it’s launched a literacy campaign for uneducated adults.

During the George W. Bush administration, oil prices were the highest they had ever been. The destruction of Iraq, sanctions on Iran and Russia, strikes and turmoil in Nigeria — these events created a shortage on the international markets, driving prices up.

Big oil revenues enabled Chavez and the United Socialist Party to bring millions of Venezuelans out of poverty. Between 1995 and 2009, poverty and unemployment in Venezuela were both cut in half.

After the death of Chavez, Nicolas Maduro has continued the Bolivarian program. “Housing Missions” have been built across the country, providing low-income families in Venezuela with places to live. The Venezuelan government reports that over 1 million modern apartment buildings had been constructed by the end of 2015.

The problems currently facing Venezuela started in 2014. The already growing abundance of oil due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was compounded by Saudi Arabia flooding the markets with cheap oil. The result: massive price drops. Despite facing a domestic fiscal crisis, Saudi Arabia continues to expand its oil production apparatus.

The price of oil remains low, as negotiations among OPEC states are taking place in the hopes that prices can be driven back up. While American media insists the low oil prices are just the natural cycle of the market at work, it’s rather convenient for U.S. foreign policy. Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and the Islamic Republic of Iran all have economies centered around state-owned oil companies and oil exports, and each of these countries has suffered the sting of low oil prices.

The leftist president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has already been deposed due to scandal surrounding Petrobras, the state-owned oil company which is experiencing economic problems due to the falling price of oil. Although much of Brazil’s oil is for domestic consumption, it has been revealed that those who deposed her coordinated with the CIA and other forces in Washington and Wall Street, utilizing the economic fallout of low oil prices to bring down the Brazilian president.

The son of President Ronald Reagan has argued that Obama is intentionally driving down oil prices not just to weaken the Venezuelan economy, but also to tamper the influence of Russia and Iran. Writing for Townhall in 2014, Michael Reagan bragged that his father did the same thing to hurt the Soviet Union during the 1980s:

Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin’s wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil.

Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

The history of socialist construction

Prior to the 1917 revolution, Russia was a primitive, agrarian country. By 1936, after the completion of the Five-Year Plan, it was a world industrial power, surpassing every other country on the globe in terms of steel and tractor production. The barren Soviet countryside was lit up with electricity. The children of illiterate peasants across the Soviet Union grew up to be the scientists and engineers who first conquered outer space. The planned economy of the Soviet Union drastically improved the living standards of millions of people, bringing them running water, modern housing, guaranteed employment, and free education.

There is no contradiction between central planning and economic growth. In 1949, China had no steel industry. Today, more than half of all the world’s steel is produced in China’s government-controlled steel industry.

Cuba has wiped out illiteracy, and Cubans enjoy one of the highest life expectancies in Latin America.

People hold up images showing Fidel Castro, second from right, Venezuela’s late President Hugo Chavez, center, and Cuba’s revolutionary hero Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, bottom left and right, during a May Day march in Revolution Square in Havana, Cuba, Wednesday, May 1, 2013. The image of Chavez carries the words in Spanish “Chavez : Our best friend.” (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)

When the Marxist-Leninist governments of Eastern Europe collapsed in the early 1990s, economists like Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, who can be counted among capitalism’s “true believers,” predicted rapid economic growth. Since the 1990s, conditions in what George W. Bush called the “New Europe” have becomefar worse than under socialism. The life expectancy has decreased and infant mortality has risen. Human and drug traffickers have set up shop. In endless polls, the people of Eastern Europe repeatedly say life was better before the defeat of Communism.

Russia’s recovery from the disaster of the 1990s has come about with the reorientation of the economy to one centered around public control of its oil and natural gas resources — much like Venezuela. The Putin government has also waged a crackdown on the small number of “oligarchs” who became wealthy after the demise of the Soviet Union. Once strong state to control the economy was re-established, Russia’s gross domestic product increased by 70 percent during the first eight years of Putin’s administration. From 2000 to 2008, poverty was cut in half, and incomes doubled.

Neoliberal capitalism has failed

It is only because these facts are simply off-limits in the American media and its discussions of socialism and capitalism that the distorted narrative about Venezuela’s current hardships are believed.

American media has perpetuated a cold-war induced false narrative on the nature of socialism.

When discussing the merits of capitalism and socialism, American media usually restricts the conversation to pointing out that socialist countries in the third world have lower living standards than the United States, a country widely identified with capitalism. Without any context or fair comparison, this alone is supposed to prove the inherent superiority of U.S.-style capitalism.

If the kind of neoliberal “free trade” advocated by U.S. corporations was the solution to global poverty, Mexico, a country long ago penetrated with the North American Free Trade Agreement, would be a shining example of development, not a mess of drug cartels and poverty. The same can be said for oil-rich countries like Nigeria, where exports are massive but the population remains in dire conditions.

The governments of Bangladesh, Honduras, Guatemala, Indonesia, and the Philippines have done everything they can to deregulate the market and accommodate Western ”investment.” Despite the promises of neoliberal theoreticians, their populations have not seen their lives substantially improve.

If one compares the more market-oriented economy of the U.S., not to countries in the global south attempting to develop with a planned economy, but to other Western countries with more social-democratic governments, the inferiority of the “free market” can also be revealed.

The U.S. is rated 43 in the world in terms of life expectancy, according to the CIA World Factbook. People live longer in Germany, Britain, Spain, France, Sweden, Australia, Italy, Iceland — basically, almost every other Western country. Statistics on the rate of infant mortality say approximately the same thing. National health care services along with greater job security and economic protections render much healthier populations.

Even as the social-democratic welfare states of Europe drift closer to the U.S. economic model with “austerity cuts,” the U.S. still lags behind them in terms of basic societal health. Western European countries with powerful unions, strong socialist and labor parties, and less punitive criminal justice systems tend to have healthier societies.

The American perception that socialism or government intervention automatically create poverty, while alaissez faire approach unleashes limitless prosperity, is simply incorrect. Despite the current hardships, this reality is reflected in the last two decades of Venezuela’s history.

A punishment vote, not a vote for capitalism

The artificially low oil prices have left the Venezuelan state cash-starved, prompting a crisis in the funding of the social programs that were key to strengthening the United Socialist Party.

It is odd that the mainstream press blames “socialism” for the food problems in Venezuela, when the food distributors remain in the hands of private corporations. As Venezuelan political analyst Jesus Silva told me recently: “Most food in Venezuela is imported by private companies, they ask for dollars subsidized by the government oil sales to do that; they rarely produce anything or invest their own money.”

According to Silva, the economic sanctions imposed on Venezuela by the U.S., in addition to the oil crisis, have made it more difficult for the Venezuelan government to pay the private food importing companies in U.S. dollars. In response, the food companies are “running general sabotage.”

“Venezuela’s economy depends on oil sales. Now that oil prices are dropping down, the challenge is to get other sources of economic income,” he explained. “Meanwhile, the opposition is garnering electoral support due to the current economic crisis.”

When the United Socialist Party and its aligned Patriotic Pole lost control of Parliament in December, many predicted the imminent collapse of the Bolivarian government. However, months have passed and this clearly has not taken place.

While a clear majority cast a voto castigo (“punishment vote”) in December, punishing the government for mismanaging the crisis, the Maduro administration has a solid core of socialist activists who remain loyal to the Bolivarian project. Across Venezuela, communes have been established. Leftist activists live together and work in cooperatives. Many of them are armed and organized in “Bolivarian Militias” to defend the revolution.

Even some of the loudest critics of the Venezuelan government admit that it has greatly improved the situation in the country, despite the current hardships.

In December, I spoke to Glen Martinez, a radio host in Caracas who voted for the opposition. He dismissed the notion that free market capitalism would ever return to Venezuela. As he explained, most of the people who voted against the United Socialist Party — himself included — are frustrated with the way the current crisis is being handled, but do not want a return to the neoliberal economic model of the 1999s.

He said the economic reforms established during the Chavez administration would never be reversed. “We are not the same people we were before 1999,” Martinez insisted.

The United Socialist Party is currently engaging in a massive re-orientation, hoping to sharpen its response to economic sabotage and strengthen the socialist direction of the revolution. There is also talk of massive reform in the way the government operates, in order to prevent the extreme examples of corruption and mismanagement that are causing frustration among the population.

The climate is being intensified by a number of recent political assassinations. Tensions continue to exist on Venezuela’s border with the U.S.-aligned government of Colombia. The solid base of socialist activists is not going to let revolution be overturned, and tensions continue to rise. The Maduro and the United Socialist Party’s main task is to hold Venezuela together, and not let the country escalate into a state of civil war.

Bernie Sanders’ expected endorsement of Hillary Clinton today at a joint event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire is the culmination of a weeks-long effort by the candidate, who calls himself a “democratic socialist,” to convince supporters that his “political revolution” has shifted the Democratic Party and Clinton herself to the left.

The joint campaign appearance follows a weekend of political theatre in Orlando, Florida, where the Clinton-controlled Democratic Party platform committee agreed to a number of amendments to the party’s 2016 platform proposed by the Sanders camp. The 35-page document, which will be finalized and ratified at the Democratic Party national convention in Philadelphia later this month, is nonbinding and of zero significance in terms of the policies of the next president.

It has been decades since the official platforms adopted by the two parties of American big business, the Democrats and Republicans, were seen by the parties themselves or the political and media establishment as a whole as anything more than window dressing. This year, however, Sanders has sought to portray the document and the convention itself as having great political import. He is doing so in furtherance of his effort to divert the popular disgust with the political system and desire for an anticapitalist alternative that was reflected in the broad support for his campaign back behind the Democratic Party and its right-wing candidate.

Having won more than 20 state primaries and caucuses and 13 million votes based on his denunciations of the economic and political domination of the “billionaire class,” Sanders faces the difficult task of convincing his supporters to back a candidate who speaks for Wall Street and the Pentagon war machine.

“We have made enormous strides,” Sanders said of the weekend platform committee meeting. “Thanks to the millions of people across the country who got involved in the political process—many for the first time—we now have the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party.”

This ridiculous claim was echoed by various news outlets, from Fortune (“How Bernie is Flexing his Muscles on the Democratic Party”) and Slate (“The Democratic Platform Is a Monument to Bernie Sanders’ Campaign”) to NBC News (“Democrats Advance Most Progressive Platform in Party History”).

Even if one assumed that the platform had some bearing on the actual policies to be pursued, one would look in vain for anything remotely hinting at socialism or even serious social reform. Even by the standards of Democratic platforms spanning the decades between the Great Depression and the 1960s, when the Democratic Party, under pressure from militant mass struggles of the working class, oversaw a series of social reforms, the document approved over the weekend is right-wing.

A Sanders-backed amendment, for example, calling for an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15, itself a completely inadequate measure that would leave workers in poverty, is diluted and qualified by language stating that it “should” be implemented “over time.”

Another Sanders proposal that was approved calls for the Department of Justice to investigate all shootings involving police officers. The Obama Justice Department has investigated a number of recent police killings of unarmed workers and youth and failed to indict a single killer cop. These token investigations are designed to contain popular anger over police violence and divert attention from the ongoing militarization of police departments across the country.

On those issues where even a token statement would have actual political consequences, such as criticism of Israel’s savage policy toward the Palestinians or opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the platform committee squelched amendments from the Sanders camp and the Vermont senator quickly acquiesced.

A Sanders proposal to include a statement in the platform calling for an end to Israel’s “occupation and illegal settlements” in Palestine was shot down by the Clinton-controlled committee. When Sanders supporters in the public galleries protested, the police were sent in to shut them up.

Even though such mild criticism of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land is standard fare for most European governments, the Democratic Party can brook no such gesture of disapproval. This in itself exposes the right-wing and militarist character of any administration headed by former secretary of state Clinton, who already has the blood of hundreds of thousands of victims of American imperialism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia on her hands.

Last March, Clinton delivered a bellicose speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where she pledged to increase military and economic aid to Israel and threatened war with Iran. She denounced Palestinian terror attacks on Israelis while defending Israeli invasions, bombings and targeted assassinations that have killed tens of thousands, including the 2014 invasion of Gaza. She equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and backed efforts by Zionist organizations to ban anti-Israel protests on US college campuses.

A Sanders amendment to block the Trans-Pacific Partnership from coming up for a vote in Congress was similarly rejected. Even though Clinton has come out against TPP, in an effort, like Sanders, to divert social anger over plant closings down the path of economic nationalism, the trade pact enjoys the consensus support of the corporate and financial elite and the Obama administration, and is seen as a means of advancing Washington’s economic and military offensive against China.

Sanders did not challenge other sections of the platform critical to the needs of American imperialism. The document hailed by Sanders as the most progressive in the party’s history states: “Democrats believe America must continue to have the strongest military in the world.” It calls for an escalation of the wars in Iraq and Syria, the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and further provocations against Russia and China. It sanctions the Obama policy of perpetual warfare as well as increasing domestic spying and repression in the name of the “war on terror.”

Sanders pointed to Clinton’s adoption of two proposals following backroom negotiations between the two camps as evidence that his “political revolution” was working and Clinton was moving to the left. One was a call for people over 55 to be given the option of buying into Medicare. Another was support for the addition of a “public option” to Obamacare, and a third was a proposal to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for students from families with annual incomes up to $125,000. These proposals, which would do nothing to halt the assault on working people’s health care and little to make college more affordable for working-class youth, would have virtually no chance of being passed by Congress and implemented.

The final act of the platform committee meeting revealed the widespread hatred of Clinton among Sanders supporters and workers and youth more generally, and the difficulties both Sanders and Clinton face in convincing those who rallied behind the supposedly “socialist” senator to vote for the Democratic nominee. The two camps had agreed in advance on an amendment naming Clinton as the Democratic candidate, but when the proposal was announced, the resulting uproar among Sanders backers in the audience forced the platform committee to withdraw it.

 Six Russian strategic bombers (Tupolev Tu-22M3) have conducted air strikes against a major ISIS camp and ammunition depots in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) reported on July 12.

The strategic bombers passed through Iranian and Iraqi airspace and delivered concentrated high-explosive ammunition airstrikes on targets east of the towns of Palmyra and As Sukhnah, and the village of Arak.

The MoD said a large militant field camp, three depots of arms and munitions, three tanks, four infantry combat vehicles and eight vehicles fitted with heavy machine guns were destroyed and a large number of ISIS fighters neutralized.

July 11 evening, joint forces of al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham launched fresh attacks in southern Hama, attempting to cut off the government controlled Hama-Salamiyah road at Tall Adara. However, the militant forces were not be able to break the defenses of pro-government forces.

Meanwhile, the militants have made a series of attempts to cut Aleppo Citadel off from the rest of the government-controlled areas of the city.

The Syrian army repelled all of them. In the area of Castello Road, the Syrian army has been advancing in Layramoun industrial area while the Kurdish YPG has tried again to seize Youth Housing and Jandoul, without any results yet.

According to ground sources, in and around Aleppo city, tactical and strategic planning is made by al Nusra while manpower is provided by Jaish al Fateh and Fatah Halab. This corresponds with earlier reports about Turkish military advisers in the Al Nusra general staff.

Amid clashes in the Aleppo city, the Syrian Army has launched a fresh advance in the militant stronghold of Darayya, southwest of Damascus. Pro-government forces already seized all farms surrounding Darayya and at least 15 buildings on the south-west side of Daraya.

In Manbij, the Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the US-led coalition airpower and special forces, almost cut the western part of the city from the rest of ISIS-controlled areas, surrounding Al Basel Hospital. The SDF also seized the school South of Sheik Ali district and advanced on Bakery near the city center and almost secured Hazawani Neighborhood. Clashes are ongoing.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Wednesday, two shocking videos of police officers fatally shooting civilians (Alton Sterling and Philando Castile) surfaced. The day before, many were appalled to hear the Director of the FBI announce that Hillary Clinton would not be charged for mishandling classified information. The two events may seem unrelated, but at bottom, they concern the same fundamental problem: impunity.

Impunity is the essence of power. What, after all, is power? Is it simply the capacity to exert unjust force? The ability to impress one’s will upon the flesh or belongings of another? No, it’s more than that.

Most anyone can wield unjust force. Anyone could walk out onto the street right now and exert their will on somebody weaker: say, pushing over an old lady or stealing candy from a baby. And the toughest, or most heavily-armed guy in town can strong-arm just about any other single person.

But isolated incidents of aggression do not constitute power. The “reign” of the rogue rampager is generally short-lived. It only lasts until the community recognizes him as the menace to society that he is and neutralizes him.

Power isn’t simply about the exertion of unjust force. It is about what happens next, after the exertion. Does the perpetrator generally get away with, or not? Systematically getting away with it – or impunity – is where power truly lies. And that is what makes agents of the State different from any other bully. State agents can violate rights with reliable impunity because a critical mass of the public considers the aggression of state agents to be exceptionally legitimate. Impunity is power, and as Lord Acton said, power corrupts.

State impunity is at the root of the problem of police violence. As agents of the exalted State, the police are seen as paladins of public order. The populace grants cops a special dispensation to commit violence that would be considered criminal if perpetrated by anybody else. This privilege is enshrined in law most clearly as the doctrine of “qualified immunity.” As Evan Bernick of the Institute for Justice wrote:

In the 1967 case of Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court held that police officers sued for constitutional violations can raise ‘qualified immunity’ as a defense, and thereby escape paying out of their own pockets, even if they violated a person’s constitutional rights.

When victims of police violence or their heirs seek redress and are awarded monetary payments, it is taxpayers, and not the cops, who pick up the tab. Police officers are rarely even prosecuted for violence inflicted while they’re on the clock. The worst that an offending officer can generally expect to face is getting fired, but he will more likely just get a paid suspension.

Thus insulated from responsibility, officer treatment of “mundanes” is predictably often grossly irresponsible. Confident in being sheltered from consequences by their “blue privilege,” officers are far more prone to indulge in lethal cowardice: to place “officer safety” so far above civilian rights that they are willing to gun down a stranger at the slightest whiff of potential danger. Alton Sterling and Philando Castile each carried a gun, as they have the natural right to do. Neither threatened the officers with his weapon, or even brandished it. Yet in both cases, merely becoming aware of the guns sent a cop into a murderous panic. Both Sterling and Castile were fatally shot multiple times in the chest.

The Impunity of High Office

State impunity not only corrupts the regime’s low-level enforcers, but its elite policy makers as well. The FBI let Hillary Clinton off the hook for secrecy violations she committed as Secretary of State, even though these were much more egregious than violations that have earned lower-level personnel decades in prison. She used technology that was more open to being compromised by spies and hackers, while at the same less open to legal and public scrutiny.

But the kinds of activities she was hiding are far more criminal than the fact that she hid them. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton played a key role in bringing war to such places as Libya, Syria, and Honduras, and in escalating the war in Afghanistan. She is complicit in causing untold death and misery.

Yet, thanks to her connections and her position in the state power apparatus, she faces no consequences for her crimes, and is free to acquire even more immunity and power as a likely President of the United States.

It is the “sovereign immunity” she enjoys as an officeholder that has made Hillary Clinton so reckless and cavalier about the havoc she has wreaked around the world. If she thought she might ever be held accountable for upending entire countries, she would have likely been far less warlike in her policies.

From policing to foreign policy, impunity corrupts, and absolute impunity corrupts absolutely.

Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring content for FEE.org, including articles and courses.

Obama attends summit in Warsaw amid a national outbreak of racial unrest in the United States

A meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member-states in Warsaw, Poland agreed to expand the presence of western-allied troops in the region further intensifying tensions with the Russian Federation. In addition to a broader presence in the European theater there was a decision to escalate the deployment of imperialist forces in Afghanistan after a nearly fifteen year occupation led by the United States.

During the course of the summit a string of police killings of African Americans in the U.S. forced President Barack Obama to address the situation in a press conference. While the administration made plans to escalate its military presence in Europe and other regions of the world, a war was escalating inside the founding country of NATO where tens of millions of African Americans, Latinos, and other people of color communities live under a virtual police-state.

These manifestations prompted by the brutal law-enforcement extrajudicial executions from Mississippi to Louisiana and Minnesota sparked protests and civil disobedience resulting in the closing down of major thoroughfares and expressways. The demonstrations were largely organized over social media where a storm of facebook postings and twitter feeds revealed that the masses of youth and workers were fed up with these unjustified acts of lethal force.

On July 7 five police officers were killed and seven wounded when they were struck by sniper fire in downtown Dallas, Texas. Subsequent reports of shootings involving civilians firing on law-enforcement agents took place in several states including Tennessee, Missouri, Georgia and Michigan. The alleged gunmen in Dallas, Micah Xavier Johnson, had expressed dismay and anger over the police killings of African Americans.

Johnson, a former U.S. army reservist, served in Afghanistan as part of the Pentagon-led NATO occupation which has continued for a decade-and-a-half. Over the period of time since the invasion of Afghanistan, thousands of U.S. and NATO troops have been killed on the battlefields of this country along with Iraq and the Horn of Africa nation of Somalia.

Pentagon and NATO forces bombed the North African state of Libya for seven months in 2011 killing an estimated 50,000-100,000 people and displacing at least two million. The infrastructure of Libya was destroyed during the 2011 war. Libya once the most prosperous state on the continent has been rendered to abject poverty becoming a principle source of instability and human trafficking throughout Africa, the Middle East, the Mediterranean region spreading into Southern, Central and Eastern Europe itself.

Even short-term prospects for a shift in U.S. imperialist policy are not apparent. The presidential campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders provided an alternative to voters who were alienated from both the racism of billionaire Donald Trump for the Republicans and the equally racist-militarist Wall Street legacy of former Secretary of Hillary Clinton. The previous New York Senator, and wife of the 1990s President Bill Clinton, advocated policies which escalated Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) destabilization efforts in Africa and other parts of the world. The administration of Obama enhanced and expanded the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) while the exponential growth in the prison industrial complex overseen by the Clinton administration of the 1990s, reinforced national oppression and imperialism domestically and internationally.

Nevertheless, with Sanders’ endorsing Clinton on July 12, millions of young, working class and nationally oppressed voters are left angry and disappointed that all of their efforts are being encouraged to enter a presidential campaign that will maintain the status-quo. Consequently, it is not surprising that so many people are marching through the streets and defying state law-enforcement agencies. There appears to be no alternative except taking to the streets in mass demonstrations against the racist and economically exploitative system.

NATO Plans Further War and Destabilization

In a press release issued by NATO it says: “On Friday (July 8), leaders decided to strengthen the Alliance’s military presence in the east, with four battalions in Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on a rotational basis – to be in place starting next year. They also agreed to develop a tailored forward presence in the south-eastern part of the Alliance. Allies also declared Initial Operational Capability of NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense, pledged to strengthen their own cyber defenses, and recognized cyberspace as a new operational domain.” (July 9)

Moreover, the press release says, “on Saturday, leaders took decisions on projecting stability through support for partners – including an agreement to start training and capacity building inside Iraq. Leaders also decided that NATO AWACS surveillance planes will provide information to the Global Coalition to counter ISIL, and agreed to an expanded maritime presence in the Mediterranean Sea….. Allies and partners contributing to NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan met with President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah. They agreed to continue the Resolute Support Mission beyond 2016, and confirmed funding commitments for the Afghan forces until 2020. The last session of the Summit was a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission, where Allied leaders reviewed the security situation with President Poroshenko, welcomed the government’s plans for reform, and endorsed a Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine.”

Nonetheless, in order for these projects to be effective the question of EU unity and functionality is essential. The current turmoil inside EU bloc with the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom on June 23 bringing to the fore mounting tensions over a number of fundamental issues including the mass migration of Africans, Middle Easterners, Asians and even East Europeans to Britain, has brought about a political crisis of leadership within both the ruling Conservative and opposition Labor Parties. Despite widespread propaganda to the contrary leading EU member-states including Britain, France, Italy and Germany are experiencing economic problems related to the persistence of unemployment and the rise in the rates of poverty.

The Brexit vote has plunged the British and western capitalist ruling circles into fears of another major recession perhaps even of greater magnitude than the events of 2007-2009, where millions were thrown out of work. In addition to job losses, there was the crisis of home foreclosures and evictions dislocating millions more mainly within the U.S. however not limited to the world largest economy. Low-wage employment has become the norm for many youth and older workers with no program by the ruling class to raise salaries and provide security to working families and communities.

France has been the scene of weeks of labor unrest with clashes between protesters and security forces. Garbage has piled up in the streets of Paris while the European Parliament is attempting to figure a way to minimize the political and financial damage caused by the divisions in Britain along with the growth in right-wing governments and political parties from France to Hungary and Poland.

On July 11, the fractured Conservative Party of Britain announced that Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will take over the leadership of the ruling group hastening the exit of David Cameron who announced that he will step down on July 13. Although May says she will hasten the exit from the EU and unify the Conservative Party, the road to her ascendancy was muddled by a five-way factional struggle for the leadership of the Tories.

The opposition Labor Party is also split with the leader Jeremy Corbyn ignoring a vote of no-confidence by an overwhelming majority of parliamentarians demanding his resignation. Corbyn, who is considered to be to the left of many Members of Parliament (MPs), labeled as Blairites, has pledged to call a membership vote in order to maintain his position.

An article published over the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on the split within the Labor Party, by political correspondent Chris Mason says: “Here is the row for Labor over the next few days: The rules for leadership elections. And here is the row for Labor after that: What does its future look like? Crucially, one could determine the other, but there are no easy answers whatever happens. If Jeremy Corbyn wins again, what do the 80% of Labor MPs who think he is a loser do? If Mr. Corbyn is beaten, or not able to stand, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Labor supporters will feel cheated, even robbed. That is why there is now open talk of Labor splitting in two: A party whose history can be traced back to the dawn of the 20th Century, ceasing to exist as we have long known it to.” (July 10)

Adding to the tensions within the Labor Party, Corbyn’s challenger Angela Eagle had her office vandalized. Corbyn in a public statement called for calm. Eagle suggested that Corbyn should restrain his supporters implying that they were involved in the breaking of her office window.

Corbyn’s statement stressed in regard to the “attack on Eagle’s office, ‘It is extremely concerning that Angela Eagle has been the victim of a threatening act and that other MPs are receiving abuse and threats. As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labor Party members and supporters to act with calm and treat each other with respect and dignity, even where there is disagreement. I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.’”

In specific reference to the role of the EU in the forward going plans of NATO this same press release notes that “In the margins of the meeting, the Secretary General signed a Joint Declaration with the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, taking partnership between NATO and the European Union to an ambitious new level. The Declaration sets out areas where NATO and the EU will step up cooperation – including maritime security and countering hybrid threats.”

The Use of “International Law” to Rationalize Imperialist Expansion in Asia-Pacific

Beyond the provocations and military encirclement of the Russian Federation, the Pentagon and State Department “pivot to Asia” is a major aspect of imperialist foreign policy. The July 11 decision by an International Tribunal in Holland at The Hague, which rejected all claims by the People’s Republic of China to sovereignty over the South Seas, provides a pseudo-legal cover for further military intervention in the Asia-Pacific region. This purported impartial court system has always been biased in favor of the United States and its imperialist and neo-colonialist allies around the world.

The Chinese leadership responded immediately to the decision saying that it was not bound by this court. Although the imperialist system claims the decision is legally binding, there is no mechanism for enforcing it, and Beijing, which declined to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, said again on July 12 that it would refuse to abide by its arbitrary claims.

New York Times coverage of the Netherlands decision and China’s position, notes that Beijing’s leader

“Speaking at a meeting with European leaders, President Xi Jinping was defiant, reasserting China’s claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea ‘since ancient times,’ the state-run People’s Daily reported. His remarks echoed a statement from the Foreign Ministry. The tribunal’s decision ‘is invalid and has no binding force,’ the ministry said. ‘China does not accept or recognize it.’”

Beijing also said in the full statement:

“China is always firmly opposed to the invasion and illegal occupation by certain states of some islands and reefs of China’ s Nansha Qundao, and activities infringing upon China’ s rights and interests in relevant maritime areas under China’ s jurisdiction. China stands ready to continue to resolve the relevant disputes peacefully through negotiation and consultation with the states directly concerned on the basis of respecting historical facts and in accordance with international law. Pending final settlement, China is also ready to make every effort with the states directly concerned to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature, including joint development in relevant maritime areas, in order to achieve win-win results and jointly maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea.

China respects and upholds the freedom of navigation and overflight enjoyed by all states under international law in the South China Sea, and stays ready to work with other coastal states and the international community to ensure the safety of and the unimpeded access to the international shipping lanes in the South China Sea.”

(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-07/12/c_135507754.htm)

“Thank you very much. It’s a great honor and pleasure for us to have a man I’ve admired – most of us have admired – for many years, a man who – U.S. Naval, served in Vietnam, won the Purple Heart – I mean, three Purple Hearts, the bronze medal, the silver medal, has been a senator, candidate for president, and now our Secretary of State.”

These accolades were the opening salvo from Walter Isaacson in a conversation with US Secretary of State, John Kerry.  A conversation held in front of an audience, June 28th 2016, at the Aspen Ideas Festival held in Colorado and recorded by the US State Department.

What John Kerry said in this conversation effectively demolishes the foundations of US “regime change” policy in Syria and its support of the so called “moderate rebels”.

Background on Ahrar al Sham ~ The Favourite US Terrorists

Many of you may remember the 21st Century article US Smoke and Mirrors to Protect Terrorist Proxies in Syria.  In this article Yalla la Barra explained the US State Department policy of shielding their “moderate rebel” gangs under the Ahrar al Sham umbrella which served to detach them from the Al Nusra/Al Qaeda body of terrorism and to designate them a branch of US friendly “opposition” conveniently “intermingled” with Al Nusra thus prohibiting Russian targeting of Al Nusra just in case they hit one of the moderates in the process.

Throughout the two and a half months that have passed since the start of the Cessation of Hostilities (CoH), the State Department has refused to acknowledge that the US backed rebel factions  are fighting in Aleppo and elsewhere alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria.

There has not been a single press briefing where the spokesman has not accused Russia and Syria of targeting US backed rebel factions and civilians.

Whether it’s John Kirby or Mark Toner, the spokesman keeps talking about intermingling between the “moderates” and the Al-Qaeda affiliate and that the Russians/Syrians need to be able to separate the two. At the the press briefing of April 25, 2016 Mr Kirby said:

So again, I go back to what I said before. We want to see the cessation observed by all parties. As I said in my answer to Said, we’re not blind to the fact that it’s a very dynamic situation in Aleppo and that there is intermingling. We’ve said that for a while now… ~ US Smoke and Mirrors to Protect Terrorist Proxies in Syria

As a further reminder here is the video of Mark Toner’s painful explanation of the “intermingling” of terrorist factions:

In July 2015, former US Ambassador to Syria and suspected death squad creator, Robert Fordhad this to say about Ahrar al Sham in an article penned by Ford and Ali el Yassir, entitled appropriately, Yes, Talk with Syria’s Ahrar al Sham.

Moreover, lumping Ahrar and Nusra together is intellectually sloppy, especially when they exhibit ideological and political differences…. Our refusal even to talk with groups like Ahrar further reduces the little influence Americans still have in Syria. As the Assad regime steadily weakens, the administration keeps trying to lead the opposition from behind, hoping for an opposition white knight to appear. Instead, because Islamist groups like Ahrar strongly influence decisions about the fate of Syria, Washington will be left behind.

Ford insisted on dialogue with Ahrar al Sham, he also attempted to divorce them from Al Nusra/Al Qaeda, somehow whitewashing their brutality by highlighting their nationalism, a claim that is bizarre in the extreme when one considers how few Syrians, if any, actually belong to the group which consists predominantly of foreign mercenaries as do 90% of the “armed opposition” inside Syria.

UK educated leader of Ahrar al Sham, Labib Al Nahhas, has even been given a platform on theWashington Post:

The group to which I belong, Ahrar al-Sham, is one example. Our name means “Free Men of Syria.” We consider ourselves a mainstream Sunni Islamic group that is led by Syrians and fights for Syrians. We are fighting for justice for the Syrian people. Yet we have been falsely accused of having organizational links to al-Qaeda and of espousing al-Qaeda’s ideology.

The Telegraph:

By Labib Al Nahhas, Foreign Affairs Director at Ahrar Al Sham: Ahrar Al-Sham, as a mainstream Sunni Islamist group deeply rooted in the revolutionary landscape, is forging that alternative. But those expecting a “perfect” Sunni alternative according to Western liberal standard are sure to be disappointed.

As we should all know by now, political systems and models of government cannot be imported into the Middle East and expected to flourish where historical experiences, political cultures and social structures are so radically different. There needs to be a major role for religion and local custom in any political arrangement that emerges out of the debris of conflict, and it should be one that corresponds with the prevailing beliefs of the majority of Syrians.

The Guardian:

A Spanish citizen who studied in Birmingham and headed a tech company based in a London suburb is leading efforts to rebrand one of Syria’s most prominent armed Islamist opposition groups. Labib al-Nahhas is the “foreign affairs minister” for Ahrar al-Sham, agroup that has fought in alliances with al-Qaida’s Syrian franchise, and aims to establish a Sunni theocracy in Syria.

One of its original leaders also had personal connections with Osama bin Laden. After graduating he spent time in France, the Netherlands and the US, as well as the UK, where official documents list him as director of a company based in a west London suburb. But in 2010 he moved back to Syria, finding a job in the telecoms industry.

Ahrar al Sham as a group have had their virtues extolled by other prominent mainstream media outfits.

BBC:

“The Ahrar al Sham is part of a broad coalition of Syrian opposition groups, the Islamic Front. And it is among the most powerful force and better organized,” says the BBC’s Middle East correspondent, Jim Muir.

Professor Scott Lucas at EA Worldview:

Recent efforts by Ahrar al-Sham to portray itself as a moderate group may be linked to the increasing number of assassination attacks. According to Syrian journalist Akil Housain, the movement is in the process of purging its traditional leadership, which is considered more radical, and replacing it with younger leaders. This process has apparently angered Ahrar al-Sham ally and Al Qa’eda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

Charles Lister: Supreme “Moderate” Myth Creator:

The editorial’s author was someone I have come to know very well personally amid Syria’s conflict. Labib al-Nahhas is Ahrar al-Sham’s “head of foreign political relations.” Better known as Abu Ezzeddine, Nahhas is an ordinarily clean-shaven young man from Syria’s central city of Homs. Originally a political official in the Homs-based faction Liwa al-Haq, Nahhas has risen in stature since his group merged with Ahrar al-Sham in December 2014.

A fluent English speaker and a seat-holder on the Executive Council of Syria’s Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), his ability to combine an understanding of both Western (he has spent time in both the United States and Europe) and Syrian mindsets has demonstrated a level of political capacity often lacking in Syrian armed revolutionary circles. ~ writing for the Qatarifunded Brookings Institute

Al Nahhas was even allowed to enter the US on a European passport in May 2016 even though the US State Department claimed it “didnt know”.

Labib al Nahhas, who calls himself “a chief of Foreign Political Relations at Ahrar al-Sham,” arrived in the US capital for a visit lasting a few days in December, according to McClatchy DC news. The report cites “four people with direct knowledge of the trip.

As one of them told the network’s reporter, Nahhas arrived in the US to speak with “third parties” even though he would not elaborate further. The other speakers revealed a few more details about the visit, saying that Nahhas had been in Washington to meet with lobbyists and Middle East researchers.”~ RT

Ahrar Al Sham the bloodthirsty “moderates”

Ahrar al Sham as a stand-alone “moderate” US backed group has been responsible for some of the most hideous ethnic cleansing of Syria’s minorities.  It has mercilessly and brutally terrorised the Shia villages of Kafarya and Foua, placing them under partial siege since 2011 and full siege since March 2015.

Over 1700 civilians, many women and children, have been massacred by these self-proclaimed “free men of the Levant” and Kafarya and Foua continues to suffer daily shelling and sniping.  I was told by a resident of al Foua that Ahrar al Sham do not even behave like Muslims, the bodies of their own dead are put on display to drive fear into the hearts of the villagers already starving and imprisoned.

The UN has failed to deliver humanitarian aid to Kafarya and Foua on numerous occasions deterred by the threat of the Ahrar al Sham checkpoints which are considered too serious a security risk.

Read more on Kafarya and Foua:  The 21st Century Wire Syria Files

In May 2016, Ahrar al Sham massacred scores of Alawite villagers in Al Zara and kidnapped others.  Claims that they did not harm anyone who did not resist were cited by Reuters and other western media outlets but witness and survivor statements told a different story. One photo that circulated after this horrifying mass murder showed Ahrar al Sham fighters standing over the dismembered and bloodied corpses of women.

Ahrar al Sham made no effort to deny this image, they merely stated that these women had taken up arms and as such were legitimate victims of their bloodlust, a claim seemingly endorsed by western media pundits who staunchly stood by their “moderate” killers.

“Strangers came to our village. Most of them were foreigners, we understood that they weren’t from Syria from the way they looked. They attacked our village, many were killed. My brother is among the dead, his children were wounded. They killed entire families,” said Ahmad Muhammad al Qasem.

“They perpetrated a massacre,” said another villager, Munzer Qasem. “I heard of two or three entire families killed. Abu Naval’s family was killed. He was an old man and was killed together with his daughters. They were slaughtered in their own house.” ~ Syrian Free Press

Ahrar al Sham were also implicated in the mass suicide bombing, May 2016,  that claimed the lives of over a hundred civilians and severely injured many more in the coastal towns of Jableh and Tartous that are also refuge to huge numbers of internally displaced Syrian refugees.  The western and gulf media was quick to claim ISIS responsibility for the attacks but local residents and TV Channels informed us that Ahrar al Sham had already taken responsibility.

The western protection of its assets was again demonstrated by its eagerness to distance these crimes and mass murder of civilians from its terrorist forces operating under the Ahrar al Sham umbrella.

Ahrar al Sham has been complicit in a multitude of crimes against humanity in Syria, according to many it is actually even more brutal than ISIS in its extremism and targeting and ethnic cleansing of minorities such as the Alawites and Shia muslims.  The US defense of Ahrar al Sham as a “moderate opposition” and its platforming of Ahrar al Shams desire for an Islamic state has underpinned their “regime change” policy in Syria.

The John Kerry Grenade

Lets now return to the discourse between Walter Isaacson and John Kerry.  During this conversation, Kerry makes two astounding statements that completely overturn the US dialectic regarding Ahrar al Sham.

1: “Everybody knows the threat. We’ve all awakened to the news that I just announced to you. How many times have you awakened to it? Vicious attacks perpetrated by a lone wolf or by a group, inspired on the internet or otherwise. From Orlando to San Bernardino to the Philippines and Bali, we’ve seen pictures and we’ve heard testimony of shocking crimes committed by al-Qaida, by Boko Haram, by Jaysh al-Islam, by Ahrar al-Sham, by al-Shabaab, Daesh, other groups against innocent civilians, against journalists, and against teachers particularly.”

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/kerry-cock-up-2.mp4?_=1

2: “But the most important thing, frankly, is seeing if we can reach an understanding with the Russians about how to, number one, deal with Daesh and al-Nusrah. Al-Nusrah is the other group there – Jabhat al-Nusrah. They are a designated terrorist group by the United Nations. And there are a couple of subgroups underneath the two designated – Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusrah – Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham particularly – who brush off and fight with that – alongside these other two sometimes to fight the Assad regime.”

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Kerry-cock-up.mp4?_=2

Thanks to @Walid970721 for the videos.

In one fell swoop, Kerry has demolished the US State Department argument for not targeting their pet killers in Syria. Is this a deliberate shoe in the face of the US and by default, Saudi interests and operatives in the region? Was it a genuine moment of honesty for the usually duplicitous and hypocritical Kerry?

The Washington Post reaction certainly seems to point to the latter as they swung into damage limitation mode:

But then Kerry, perhaps accidentally, threw two other Syrian rebel groups under the bus by calling them “subgroups” of the terrorists.

“There are a couple of subgroups underneath the two designated — Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra — Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham particularly — who brush off and fight with that — alongside these other two sometimes to fight the Assad regime,” he said, referring to two rebel groups that the United States has not named as terrorist groups until now…..

Two administration officials who work on Syria told me that Kerry’s naming of the Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham as “subgroups” of the terrorist organizations was not only inaccurate but potentially harmful to U.S. government efforts to convince the Russians and the Syrian government not to attack them.

“For months, we’ve been arguing to make sure the Russians and the Syrian regime don’t equate these groups with the terrorists,” one senior administration official told me. “Kerry’s line yields that point.

Another U.S. official simply emailed, “Baffled. SMH[Shaking my head]. ~ Washington Post

Probably unwittingly the author Josh Rogin ends the article on a comedic note:

“Kerry muddied the waters. That’s typically Moscow’s job.”

Perhaps we are seeing a genuine face saving exercise on behalf of the Americans under Russia’s tutelage and the Washington Post has not been informed?

Undeniably, among those responsible for muddying the water on the Syrian narrative and advocating the murder of its people are the western media who have formed a battalion of war harpies and sectarian propagandists intent upon facilitating the mass slaughter of the Syrian people in service of NATO’s oil and geo-political interests in Syria and the region.

Certainly Kerry’s “slip of the tongue” should not go unnoticed and should be used to remind the media of their accessory to murder when they are finally brought to justice for their role in the “dirty war on Syria”.

Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her personal blog The Wall Will Fall.

Syrian rebel groups backed by the U.S. and its allies “have committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including abductions, torture and summary killings,” according to Amnesty International.

A report by the leading human rights organization details how extremist rebel groups have taken over large parts of major Syrian cities, in which they have created repressive theocratic regimes where critics are violently silenced and where religious and ethnic minority groups fear for their lives.

“‘Torture Was My Punishment’: Abductions, Torture and Summary Killings Under Armed Group Rule in Aleppo and Idleb, Syria” shows how the Syrian people have been caught between a rock and a hard place — with extremist rebels on one side and a brutal regime on the other.

The report focuses primarily on the governorates of Aleppo and Idlib, in the north of the country. Aleppo is Syria’s largest city, and the Aleppo governorate is the most populous.

Amnesty documented abuses committed by five armed groups that have controlled parts of Aleppo and Idlib since 2012. These rebels have been supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the U.S.

In Aleppo, Amnesty investigated the actions of the Levant Front, the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement and Division 16, factions in the Aleppo Conquest rebel coalition.

In Idlib, it looked at the crimes of the rebel groups Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, both of which are extremist Islamist militias that are party of the Army of Conquest coalition.

Jabhat al-Nusra is Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate. The U.S. officially considers it a terrorist group, although Western allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar have supported it.

Amnesty noted that al-Nusra “has a significant presence” throughout the Idlib governorate. Ahrar al-Sham is present in the major cities Idlib, Aleppo, Damascus and Hama.

Executions and strict Shari’a

Armed groups have repressed many Syrians who were themselves once supportive of the rebels.

“I was happy to be free from the Syrian government’s unjust rule but now the situation is worse,” a Syrian lawyer told Amnesty.

Rebel groups have established “courts” (the report uses the term in scare quotes) in Aleppo and Idlib based on strict interpretations of Shari’a (Islamic law).

Extremist Islamist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham have harshly punished Syrians who disobey their theocratic laws, the report notes.

It cites numerous cases of summary killings carried out by Jabhat al-Nusra, the Levant Front and rebel “courts.” Some have been “execution-style killings in front of crowds.”

Jabhat al-Nusra has publicly executed civilian men it accused of homosexuality and civilian women it accused of adultery.

In Aleppo, the “Supreme Judicial Council” run by the Levant Front told Amnesty that the punishment for apostasy is execution. “Death sentences are carried out in the detention center according to Shari’a principles,” the deputy director said.

According to the Carnegie Endowment, most of the rebel groups in the Levant Front coalition likely receive support from the Military Operations Center, a Turkey-based rebel facility that the U.S. helps operate with its allies.

Most of the “courts” run by these rebel groups, Amnesty says, are based on the Unified Arab Code, a set of Shari’a-based legal codes that were endorsed by the Arab League between 1988 and 1996 but were never implemented anywhere.

This legal code demands harsh corporal punishments for hudud crimes (violations of Islamic law), including stoning, amputations and flogging.

“I publicly criticized Jabhat al-Nusra on Facebook accusing them of committing worse human rights abuses than those perpetrated by the government. The next morning, Jabhat al-Nusra forces took me from my home,” a Syrian lawyer told Amnesty.

An interrogator told him he was not a real lawyer because he did not know Islamic law. The Syrian rebel threatened him, telling him he had to give up his profession or his family wold never see me again. After 10 days of abduction, hearing men screaming from torture, the lawyer agreed.

“I left Syria as soon as I was released,” he added.

A female activist who had just been released from detention by the Syrian government told Amnesty she was subsequently arrested and interrogated by Ahrar al-Sham rebels for not wearing a veil.

“They forced me to wear a veil and cover my face. They brought a religious man who made me kneel to confess my wrongdoings. The interrogator repeatedly threatened to conduct a virginity test,” she recalled.

Torture

Amnesty documented cases of armed factions torturing journalists, activists and other civilians who do not share their ideologies.

“I heard and read about the government security forces’ torture techniques. I thought I would be safe from that now that I am living in an opposition-held area. I was wrong. I was subjected to the same torture techniques but at the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra,” explained a Syrian man who was abducted by the extremist rebel group.

Syrian lawyers who have spoken out against rebel groups’ use of torture have themselves been abducted and threatened.

In several of the cases of abduction, journalists, political activists and a humanitarian worker told Amnesty that they were tortured by either Jabhat al-Nusra or the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement. Some were violently forced to sign a statement of confession.

“The methods of torture described are disturbingly similar to some of the ones used by the Syrian government,” Amnesty wrote.

Numerous journalists and activists were kidnapped and tortured by al-Nusra for “promoting secular beliefs,” the rights group reported.

One journalist who works for an international media outlet was tortured by al-Nusra rebels for “offending the jihad and mujahidin [rebel fighters] and for working with a media channel that opposes al-Qa’ida.”

The release form given to the tortured journalist by his interrogator said that he had been “acquitted of the charges after pledging that he would only report on issues that support the Islamic faith.”

Another activist was told he was being tortured for being secular.

Even groups Syrian activists described as “moderate” have abducted and tortured Syrians. Activists told Amnesty the Levant Front, the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement and the 16th Division also tortured and mistreated detainees.

A humanitarian worker was abducted and tortured by the Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement for complaining about the misuse of funds in a hospital in Aleppo.

The Nour al-Din al-Zenki Movement is a CIA-approved rebel group that has received TOW anti-tank missiles.

Amnesty said Syrian lawyers and activists told it of cases of abduction and torture carried out by other rebel groups in Aleppo and Idlib, but it was unable to independently verify these claims.

Targeting of minority groups

The Amnesty report also shows how rebel groups have targeted ethnic and religious minorities.

Like prestidigitation, while we’re all watching the media circus that is our presidential election, the House of Representatives is being usurped using the most sophisticated mapping and digital software.

It’s a process the Republicans started back in 2010 with only 30 million dollars. The net result has been to lock up congressional control for at least a decade. The Democrats are now trying, perhaps too little too late, to compete. If they can’t, control may be locked up until at least 2031.  The goal set by the GOP was a landside-proof House and we may soon see if they succeeded.

In this week’s WhoWhatWhy Podcast, David Daley, the digital media fellow for the Wilson Center for the Humanities and the Arts at the Grady School of Journalism at the University of Georgia, and the author of Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy, talks to Jeff Schectman about this powerful new tool that has dramatically undercut the electoral process — the very foundation of democracy itself.

Click HERE to Download Mp3

Full Text Transcript:

Jeff Schechtman: Welcome to Radio Whowhatwhy. I’m Jeff Schechtman.

We all know that magic is about misdirection. Look here while I do something else over there that you’re not looking at. In some ways, politics is the same way. While we’re all busy watching the media circus that is our presidential elections, political operatives, particularly Republicans have been working hard for many years to gain control of statehouses, and in turn have the legislature draw the Congressional District boundaries, enhancing and securing their control of the House. The way they’ve done this, the money they’ve spent doing it, and the insidious way they’ve taken the practice of gerrymandering to new levels has resulted in both a secure Republican Congress, but also in many ways lies at the heart of the polarization that has paralyzed our politics. My guest today on Radio Whowhatwhy David Daley gives us an overview on what’s going on.

David Daley is the digital media fellow for the Wilson Center for Humanities and the Arts. He’s also the author of the new book Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy. David Daley, thanks so much for joining us here on Radio Whowhatwhy.

David Daley: A real pleasure, Jeff. Thanks for having me.

Jeff Schechtman: It’s great to have you here. First of all, explain what it is that Republicans set out to do, when they decided to do it, and what they were trying to accomplish.

David Daley: Absolutely. I think Democrats celebrated in 2008, after Barack Obama wins the presidency and it takes a super majority in the Senate. Republican operatives however realized that the more important election was coming up the following year in 2010. And they set their sights on a really aggressive and audacious plan centered around the next census and redistricting. We redraw every district in the country every ten years after the census, so elections in years that end in zero have a little more power and can reverberate throughout the next decade. Republicans raised 30 million bucks, which is all it took, and they spent that money targeting control of state legislative chambers across the country, and very carefully strategized to be sure that they would control every seat at the table when it came to redistricting the following year. So in blue states and purple states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, they take control of the entire state legislative process. They draw in amazingly tilted maps favoring their side, and in 2012, when the first elections are held on these maps, it’s another Democratic year, but the Republicans have built themselves a firewall in the House so stout that 1.4 million more voters go for Democratic House candidates than Republicans, and yet the House stays under Republican control. It’s the first time in 40 years, only the second time in about 100 that the party with the most votes does not win the most number of seats; it’s a real crisis of democracy.

Jeff Schechtman: In doing that though, weren’t they doing something that harkens back even to the founders, even to Hamilton and Madison and to Patrick Henry in terms of drawing congressional districts to serve the purposes of one particular party or another?

David Daley: You’re absolutely right. I mean gerrymandering in some ways is the oldest political trick in the book. It goes back to Patrick Henry in 1788, to Elbridge Gerry who takes the historical shame of having a name for him in 1790. But from 1788 through save in 2000, that is the horse and buggy era of gerrymandering. That is the pen and parchment paper and maybe primitive computers, but in 2010, the technology has changed to such an extent that you can draw lines that you know exactly how they will respond. They use a program called Maptitude, which comes preloaded with all the census information, so it’s amazing demographic detail on ethnicity and economics and religion, everything you might imagine. And then you can add all the public record datasets into this; so voter registration numbers, voter turnout numbers, election results, precinct by precinct, census block by census block, when you see these maps and they look really strange and they turn in odd ways, all of those lines have a reason because they know who lives there, they know who these people are and they know how to draw maps now that can remain in a district and keep a party in control for the entire decade.

Jeff Schechtman: Of course one of the things you point out is to a certain extent, this has backfired even on some Republicans because the districts have become too pure and in many cases, too extreme as Eric Cantor might attest to.

David Daley: Well, John Boehner would probably tell you the same thing, even someone as conservative as Renee Ellmers lost her seat in North Carolina. She was a real Tea Party favorite not that long ago, now she’s not even pure enough. But I think what has happened is we’ve created so many uncompetitive seats; about 400 or 435 seats are non-competitive, and when that happens, the only election that matters is the party primary, and that is a race for purity between “I’m crazy” and “Oh no, no, no, no. Let me tell you how much crazier I am than you!” And the Republicans as a result, have pushed out any of the moderate voices, there aren’t many of them left, and it makes our politics extreme. It sends a different kind of legislator to Washington. One who’s not interested in compromise. One who in fact knows that compromise is the one thing that might actually earn a primary challenge, and it empowers the angriest piece of the base, and it creates the conditions, not only under which we don’t have to actually talk and persuade each other about the correctness of our cause anymore because you don’t need the other side to win in these districts, but it creates the conditions under which a strongman type like Donald Trump can step in and take control of the party.

Jeff Schechtman: What do we learn from looking at the antithesis of this? When we look at California today which, one: has open primaries, two: is looking at ways to draw district lines outside of the party structure, really is rebelling in many ways to these ideas that we’re talking about, what do we learn in your view from that experience?

David Daley: Well, I think that the California experience has made elections here more competitive. You have certainly seen more turnover in your congressional delegation as a result of this. I mean I believe the numbers are between 2002 and 2010. There was exactly one incumbent who lost, something like 500 House races over that time. When you draw new lines, you immediately see 14, 15 incumbents departing or losing. So it matters. Commissions have mixed results across the country, in part because it’s hard to take all of the politics out of something that’s inherently political as drawing lines. I mean even in California, you see how there’s secret efforts behind the scenes by party leaders, here on the Democratic side too; trying to influence the members of the commission. If you look at Arizona, it’s the same thing. In Florida, where voters insist on a constitutional amendment in 2010 on nonpartisan redistricting. Republicans actually go to the effort of setting up a shadow sham redistricting process and have some of their smartest consultants designing maps any way and feeding them into the system under phony email addresses set up under the names of former interns. It goes to show how important these lines are and all of us think of gerrymandering as politics as usual, or we think of it as something that made our eyes glaze over in eighth grade civics class, but the politicians spend this much time on it because they know it is the essence of control and if we as citizens don’t step back in and take back the basic building blocks of our democracy here, it’s going to be a dangerous problem for a long time.

Jeff Schechtman: And finally, talk about what Democrats are doing about this with an eye towards the next census in 2020.

David Daley: Sure. The Democrats really got their clocks cleaned in 2010. They were not ready for this play. It was different than any one that had been run before, they didn’t have the vision to come up with it themselves. It was really a catastrophic strategic failure and it’s locked in the public control of the House for the rest of the decade and also state legislatures around the country, which in some ways is just as important. The Democrats are trying to run a play called Advantage 2020, and they’re trying to get ready to do the same thing that the Republicans did with the red map plan in 2010 as far as trying to win in state legislative races. The problem is they’re already underfunded compared to what the Republicans are doing. They’re not going to have the same element of surprise, and they still have to win on these tilted maps. Until the Democrats can figure out how to win on these maps that have been designed to withstand a landslide, they’re going to lose and if they can’t figure this out before 2020, you’ll have another redistricting in 2021. The technology has only gotten better, and the Republicans could lock in control of the House for another decade then, and then you’re talking about the 2030 one.

Jeff Schechtman: Has there been a lesson though in something that we were talking about before in terms of the purity that is required; what’s happened to Cantor and Boehner, what’s happened with Trump and the impact that it’s had on the traditional Republican establishment?

David Daley: It certainly hasn’t changed the fact that Republicans are putting 125 million into a new red map 2020 program, and they’re going after the states they didn’t pick up last time. They’re going after Colorado and New Mexico, and they’re going after Kentucky and they’re trying to tip the districts in these states. I think that they have probably not quite learned their lesson. They still believe that they’re a different party, but when you empower the extreme base, that’s who you are.

Jeff Schechtman: David Daley, the book is Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Planto Steal America’s Democracy. David, I thank you so much for spending time with us here on Radio Whowhatwhy.

David Daley: I really appreciate it, thanks again.

Jeff Schechtman: Thank you. And thank you for listening and joining us here on Radio Whowhatwhy. I hope you join us next week for another Radio Whowhatwhy podcast. I’m Jeff Schechtman.

There can be few examples of political cynicism as naked as yesterday’s launch of Angela Eagle’s challenge for leadership of the Labour Party.

Eagle is the candidate chosen by Labour’s right wing to front its efforts to depose Jeremy Corbyn, who was elected by 60 percent of the party’s membership and supporters last September.

The campaign to remove him by 172 MPs pits the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), unelected grandees such as former leader Neil Kinnock, and above all former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his inner coterie of war criminals, against the vast majority of the party and those who vote for it.

Supposedly acting in order to make the party electable, they are intent on either a putsch to insulate it from any popular pressure and a takeover of its assets, or its destruction in order to give birth to a new right-wing formation. Even as Eagle was declaring her candidacy, the media was filled with reports of high-level discussions with senior Tories on a potential new party of the “centre” and a yet more likely possibility of a merger with the Liberal Democrats to provide Labour’s 170 plus anti-Corbyn MPs with a party machine to share with the eight Lib Dems.

Eagle is a typical representative of the forces involved in this attempt at political engineering. Her launch meeting made great play of her being a woman and a lesbian, with a gaudy pink backdrop consisting of the word’s “Angela” super-imposed on a union flag that was also cast in pink hues in an appeal to identity politics and patriotism at the same time.

She said of herself, “I’m not a Blairite. I’m not a [former labour leader Gordon] Brownite. I’m not a Corbynista. I am my own woman. A strong Labour woman.”

“I can bring our Party together again,” she concluded.

Eagle has voted in favour of the party’s right-wing, pro-business and militarist agenda on every central issue. She famously voted in favour of the Iraq war in 2003. But in addition, according to the They Work For You website, she has “consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq war,” in September 2014 voted in favour of air strikes in Iraq, in December 2015 voted in favour of air strikes in Syria, supports the retention of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, has “generally voted for a stricter asylum system,” voted in favour of increased university tuition fees, supported the Blair government’s 2006 plan to detain terrorism suspects for up to 90 days without charge, and abstained on the vote on the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s 2013 workfare programme and on the vote for the 2015 Welfare Bill.

Her candidacy was planned in secret by the Blairites and Brownites weeks before it was announced. She had even commissioned a website, “Angela for leader”, days before she announced her resignation from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet with tears in her eyes for the cameras.

She spoke of uniting the party just one day before Labour’s National Executive Committee rules on whether Corbyn will even be allowed on the ballot. Corbyn insists that he should automatically appear on the ballot, but his opponents are marshalling a legal case that he needs the support of 20 percent of the PLP, 51 MPs—knowing that he only has the support of 40.

Eagle’s claim is that ditching Corbyn and electing her will enable Labour to win a general election. However, just six minutes before she was accepted as a leadership challenger, Jon Trickett, Labour’s election coordinator and a member of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, greeted news that pro-Brexit Tory Andrea Leadsom had abandoned her own leadership challenge to Theresa May by stating, “It now looks likely that we are about to have the coronation of a new Conservative prime minister. It is crucial, given the instability caused by the Brexit vote, that the country has a democratically elected prime minister. I am now putting the whole of the party on a general election footing.”

The Blairites have no intention of challenging the Tories at such a time of national emergency. In the Daily Telegraph, one Labour MP described Corbyn’s demanding a snap election as equivalent to “running full pelt off the edge of a cliff.” Once again they hid their collusion with the Tories behind claims that Corbyn had made Labour unelectable, even portraying calls for an election as an attempt to “exploit the instability in Westminster to cling to power” by sacrificing up to 100 Labour MPs who would lose their seats!

Corbyn is still determinedly opposing any struggle to drive these forces out of the party, which he would have to do if he were to honour a single one of his pledges to oppose austerity and militarism. Speaking on his behalf, Diane Abbott MP told the BBC’s “Today” programme that the “best hope” of getting a good result at the general election was for people to unite and “get on with taking the fight to the Tories.”

She reassured Labour MPs that, “There will be no split.”

Len McCluskey, leader of the Unite trade union, again urged Labour to step back from what he described as a “squalid coup” that has “snowballed into a wrecking operation against the Labour Party itself, destroying it at least temporarily as a parliamentary force.” After which he urged, “There needs to be reconciliation with the Parliamentary Labour Party. We must re-establish mutual respect and unity and address real concerns over campaigning, policy, image and the rest. That is what I was working for over the last week—to try and hold our party together, as the trade unions have done so many times in the past when politicians have let us down.”

Some fear that the best efforts of Corbyn’s supporters and the trade unions will not be enough to save Labour as a vital instrument for policing the working class and defending the interests of British imperialism—under conditions in which Eagle herself faces a vote of no confidence in her local Wallasey Constituency Labour Party, which has swelled from 900 members before June 24 to 1,200 today.

The Daily Mirror’s Kevin Maguire warned that his experience at last week’s Durham Miners Gala convinced him that “The masses of decent Labour voters I met in Durham, enthused by Jezza’s [Corbyn’s] anti-austerity alternative platform, would feel cheated by a procedural fix. And that would strengthen, rather than weaken, the Cult of Corbyn. It would also leave the party ungovernable and a split certain.”

Writing in the Independent in support of Corbyn’s removal, Louis Staples wrote that it was “unfortunate that Eagle isn’t up to the job… In the aftermath of Chilcot, rallying around Eagle as a potential leader shows how deeply out of touch Labour MPs are with their membership and the public mood.”

Staples suggest that someone who is not widely seen as “Blairite scum” should stand.

Also in the Telegraph, Tony Blair’s former director of political operations, John McTernan, indicated that Eagle is viewed by at least some Blairites as little more than a stalking horse. “We should expect the NEC to confirm that Corbyn needs nominations,” he said. “Angela Eagle’s challenge will force the clarification of the rules—for which she should be praised—but if Corbyn is off the ballot she will not be standing alone for long… Expect Owen Smith to mount a serious challenge.”

Last night, Politics Home announced that Smith, the former shadow work and pensions secretary, would stand, and announce his candidacy as early as today.

A British parliamentary report released on Tuesday has concluded there is “historical evidence” the Islamic State (IS) group received funding from within Arab Gulf states.

In evidence submitted to the foreign affairs select committee, the Ministry of Defence said: “[There] is historical evidence of financial donations to Daesh [IS] from within Gulf states. Furthermore, it is understood that family donations are being made to Daesh, through the unregulated Alternative Value Transfer Systems (AVTS).”

AVTS include ways of globally transferring money that includes little information about the individuals involved in the transaction – examples include the open source online currency Bitcoin.

The MoD cited as evidence an incident in September 2014 when an IS official was sanctioned by the US Treasury Department after receiving a $2m donation “emanating from the Gulf”.

The MoD also said in its evidence that private donations to IS are “minimal” compared to its other revenue streams, which include oil and taxation.

The committee said in an assessment of IS finances that Britain should be able to “ask hard questions of close friends” when discussing how donations have reached the Syria-Iraq based militant group.

The report concluded that IS has been put under severe financial pressure after a sustained international campaign that has forced the group to turn to “gangsterism and protection rackets” for money.

The report argued that plunging oil prices and air strikes on IS in Syria and Iraq have reduced the group’s ability to operate, however, the most controversial part is undoubtedly the section on donations to IS.

While the government told the committee that it had no evidence any country had provided funding to IS as a “matter of policy,” concerns were raised in the report about how Gulf states responded to the group’s initial rise to prominence, before and around the time of its seizing of the Iraqi city Mosul in June 2014.

The MoD said Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have played an “important role” in the anti-IS coalition, but officials from the Foreign Office said “some governments in the region may have failed to prevent donations reaching ISIL (IS) from their citizens”.

Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood told the committee that after IS “first caught international attention,” the group “may have been perceived as a defender of Sunni Muslims in the wars in Iraq and Syria”.

Former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki – who was in office between 2006 and 2014 – was repeatedly accused of favouring his Shia Muslim sect and oppressing Iraqi Sunni Muslims.

In Syria, where a brutal civil war has raged since early 2011, President Bashar al-Assad has also been repeatedly accused of specifically targeting Sunni Muslims who desire his overthrow.

Ellwood said that the period of IS being viewed as a defender of Sunnis was “before 2014”. Dan Chugg, head of the Foreign Office’s ISIL Task Force, told the committee that “around two years ago” IS “may have been able to attract donations from sympathetic Sunnis, with the wealthiest states in the region – the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf – being the subject of particular concern”.

“[It] was certainly a problem in the early days of the Daesh organisation that there was funding coming in from Gulf countries and other places,” Chugg said, using an alternative acronym for IS.

The committee asked Ellwood for his opinion on reports speculating that donations may have been sent to IS by individuals close to royal families in the Gulf.

Ellwood said: “It is very opaque, it has to be said. When somebody who is close to the top of a royal family is a very rich individual donor and chooses to do so, that is very likely to happen.”

On the same issue of the royal families being somehow involved – either directly or indirectly – in the funding of IS, Chugg told the committee: “It is difficult with some of these countries to know exactly what is government funding and what is not when you are dealing with royal families, wealthy princes and those kind of things.

“Our strategy was not to try to ascertain whose problem and whose fault it was, but to stop the funding going to Daesh. That was what was important. And that is what our efforts have been focused on.”

Turkey, Gulf deny funding IS

The Gulf states and Turkey have repeatedly denied allegations of funding IS and defended their actions by pointing to their role in the international coalition which is attempting to defeat the group.

However, Chugg said that while he is “not aware of hard evidence that those countries were funding Daesh” two years ago, there “was a lot of speculation that those countries were not playing a terribly helpful role” in taking on the group.

The report did say that regional states have since established legal and institutional infrastructure to stop the ability of IS to raise funds. But it added that some regional states have been “slow” to implement these measures.

The report cited the fact Saudi Arabia only made it illegal for its citizens to fund IS in March 2015, while Britain had designated the group terrorist by June 2014.

The report concluded its section on donations to IS by calling for Britain to work with its regional allies “to ensure that they have the capacity and resolve to rigorously enforce local laws to prevent the funding of ISIL, so that the group cannot benefit from donations in the future”.

FBI Director James Comey got Hillary off the hook but wants to put you on it.  He is pushing hard for warrantless access to all of your Internet activity, tells Congress that the United States is not safe unless the FBI knows when every American goes online, to whom they are sending emails and from whom they are receiving emails, and knows every website visited by every American.

In other words, Comey wants to render null and void the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and completely destroy your privacy rights.

The reason Washington wants to know everything about everyone is so that Washington can embarrass, blackmail, and frame on felony charges patriots who stand up in defense of the US Constitution and the rule of law, and dissidents who criticize Washington’s illegal wars, reckless foreign policies, and oppression of American citizens.

Washington’s demand for power has nothing to do with our security. It has to do with destroying the security that the US Constitution gives us.

The security that Comey wants to protect is not our security or the national security of the United States.  Comey’s intent is to make Washington secure despite its violations of statutory law and the US Constitution.  The way Comey intends to do this is by intimidating, harassing, and arresting Washington’s critics.

Comey wants the unconstitutional power to demand from the providers of telephone and Internet services all records and information about you. These demands are not to be subject to oversight by courts, and the communication companies that serve you are prohibited from telling you that all of your information has been given to the FBI.

US Senators rushed to stick their swords into the Fourth Amendment. John Cornyn slapped an FBI-written amendment on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015. This caused the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International to withdraw their support for the act, which caused the act to be withdrawn.

Senator John McCain rushed to the aid of the FBI.  This Constitution-hating senator proposed an amendment to a criminal justice appropriations bill that would use a provision in the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act to grant the unlimited unaccountable power to the FBI to totally destroy your privacy.

McCain’s amendment failed, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R,KY) changed his vote so that he could negate the Senate’s vote with a vote to reconsider.

The FBI’s senators will continue with amendments to legislation, related or not, until they deliver to the FBI the power it wants.

Unfortunately, most Americans today, unlike their forebears, are too ignorant and uneducated to know the value of the privacy rights that our Founding Fathers put in the US Constitution. The imbeciles say nonsense such as: “I haven’t done anything wrong. I have nothing to fear.”  God help the imbeciles.

If the American people were sufficiently sophisticated, they perhaps would wonder why such a large chunk of the US Senate had rather represent the FBI than the American people, their constituents who elected them to represent the people in the state, not a police power in Washington.

Why are so many US senators more responsive to the FBI’s desire for Gestapo police power than they are to the civil liberties embodied in the US Constitution?

As the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Defending Dissent Foundation show, the Orlando shootings, the Dallas shootings and whatever shootings, real or staged, next occur have nothing to do with the FBI’s demand to completely destroy all privacy rights of the American people.

http://bordc.org/news/senate-rejects-amendment-expanding-fbi-surveillance-powers-by-narrow-margin/

What’s that I hear?  You say you knew nothing about this?  Little wonder. Your media consist of people well paid to deceive you and to deliver you into a Police State. To strip you of all constitutional protection and deliver you unprotected to a police state is the function of the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox “News,” CNN, the rest of the presstitute print and TV media and many Internet sites.

Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the United States, and he is fast rising to power.

The “liberal” party establishments in the U.S. and UK, within the Democrats and Labour, are united in their distaste for party member opinions. They alone want to decide which positions the party has to take. They want to make sure that there is no alternative to their rule. It is elitism at its worst which no longer bothers with the pretense of democracy. Does it count as “shared values”?

Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters’ opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him.

Trump’s attack lines on this are spot on:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump – 7:01pm · 12 Jul 2016
Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.

and

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump – 7:03pm · 12 Jul 2016
Bernie sanders has abandoned his supporters by endorsing pro-war pro-TPP pro-Wall Street Crooked Hillary Clinton.

Those are valid statements. I find it hard to to argue with these.

Abstaining from any endorsement or running as independent or Green party candidate would have been more honorable ways for Sanders to admit defeat. It would have pressed the Democratic party to stop its movement to the right of the Republican party.

I expect the “Not Hillary” protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the polls will recover when the media return to the “close race” mantra that makes them money. He still has a decent chance to win.

Then again – its the first time now that I have to concede that Clinton may well win. But that would be with a record low turnout, and record low legitimacy. There would be no wins for the Democrats in the Senate and House. She would be another Republican President who would represent only a record small slice of the electorate.

The election shambles on the other side of the Atlantic are no less depressing. “Corbyn can not win votes,” is the claim of the anti-Corbyn Blairites. That is why they have to resort to dirty tricks to disenfranchise Corbyn voters. His supporters are not allowed to count in a Labour leadership election because they support him. How can such “logic” and this step be legal?

Jeremy Corbyn was jubilant after the party’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) decided his name should automatically appear on the ballot paper in the leadership contest triggered by Angela Eagle.
…
However, in a separate decision taken after Corbyn had left the room, the NEC ruled that only those who have been members for more than six months will be allowed to vote – while new supporters will be given two days to sign up as registered supporters to vote in the race, but only if they are willing to pay £25 – far higher than the £3 fee many Corbyn backers paid in the contest last year.

If that ruling stands nearly 100,000 new party members who have joined in support of Corbyn will either have to immediately pay a poll-tax of £25, or will not be allowed to vote. Here is what the Labour website promised them when they joined:

Corbyn may need some lawyers to set the NEC straight.

One can only hope that he wins the new Labour leadership election. The Labour establishment stinks like an Augias stable and the party needs a thorough house cleaning.

President Obama and NATO leaders signed on to the false narrative of a minding-its-own-business West getting sucker-punched by a bunch of Russian meanies, a storyline that suggests insanity or lies, reports Robert Parry.

It’s unnerving to realize that the NATO alliance – bristling with an unprecedented array of weapons including a vast nuclear arsenal – has lost its collective mind. Perhaps it’s more reassuring to think that NATO simply feels compelled to publicly embrace its deceptive “strategic communications” so gullible Western citizens will be kept believing its lies are truth.

But here were the leaders of major Western “democracies” lining up to endorse a Warsaw Summit Communiqué condemning “Russia’s aggressive actions” while knowing that these claims were unsupported by their own intelligence agencies.

President Barack Obama walks from Marine One on arrival on the White House’s South Lawn, July 5, 2016, a few days before leaving to attend the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland. Official White House photo by Lawrence Jackson

The leaders – at least the key ones – know that there is no credible intelligence that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked the Ukraine crisis in 2014 or that he has any plans to invade the Baltic states, despite the fact that nearly every “important person” in Official Washington and other Western capitals declares the opposite of this to be reality.

But there have been a few moments when the truth has surfaced. For instance, in the days leading up to the just-completed NATO summit in Warsaw, General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, divulged that the deployment of NATO military battalions in the Baltic states was a political, rather than military, act.

“It is not the aim of NATO to create a military barrier against broad-scale Russian aggression, because such aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing,” Pavel told a news conference.

What Pavel blurted out was what I have been told by intelligence sources over the past two-plus years – that the endless drumbeat of Western media reports about “Russian aggression” results from a clever demonization campaign against Putin and a classic Washington “group think” rather than from a careful intelligence analysis.

Ironically, however, just days after the release of the British Chilcot report documenting how a similar propaganda campaign led the world into the disastrous Iraq War – with its deadly consequences still reverberating through a destabilized Mideast and into an unnerved Europe – NATO reenacts the basic failure of that earlier catastrophe, except now upping the ante into a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

The Warsaw communiqué – signed by leaders including President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and British Prime Minister David Cameron – ignores the reality of what happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 and thus generates an inside-out narrative.

Instead of reprising the West’s vacuous propaganda themes, Obama and the other leaders could have done something novel and told the truth, but that apparently is outside their operating capabilities. So they all signed on to the dangerous lie.

What Really Happened

The real narrative based on actual facts would have acknowledged that it was the West, not Russia, that instigated the Ukraine crisis by engineering the violent overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych and the imposition of a new Western-oriented regime hostile to Moscow and Ukraine’s ethnic Russians.

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses a crowd on May 9, 2014, celebrating the 69th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Crimean port city of Sevastopol from the Nazis. (Russian government photo)

In late 2013, it was the European Union that was pushing an economic association agreement with Ukraine, which included the International Monetary Fund’s demands for imposing harsh austerity on Ukraine’s already suffering population. Political and propaganda support for the E.U. plan was financed, in part, by the U.S. government through such agencies as the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

When Yanukovych recoiled at the IMF’s terms and opted for a more generous $15 billion aid package from Putin, the U.S. government threw its public support behind mass demonstrations aimed at overthrowing Yanukovych and replacing him with a new regime that would sign the E.U. agreement and accept the IMF’s demands.

As the crisis deepened in early 2014, Putin was focused on the Sochi Winter Olympics, particularly the threat of terrorist attacks on the games. No evidence has been presented that Putin was secretly trying to foment the Ukraine crisis. Indeed, all the evidence is that Putin was trying to protect the status quo, support the elected president and avert a worse crisis.

It would be insane to suggest that Putin somehow orchestrated the E.U.’s destabilizing attempt to pull Ukraine into the association agreement, that he then stage-managed the anti-Yanukovych violence of the Maidan protests, that he collaborated with neo-Nazi and other ultra-nationalist militias to kill Ukrainian police and chase Yanukovych from Kiev, and that he then arranged for Yanukovych to be replaced by a wildly anti-Russian regime – all while pretending to do the opposite of all these things.

In the real world, the narrative was quite different: Moscow supported Yanukovych’s efforts to reach a political compromise, including a European-brokered agreement for early elections and reduced presidential powers. Yet, despite those concessions, neo-Nazi militias surged to the front of the U.S.-backed protests on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and many of his officials to run for their lives. The U.S. State Department quickly recognized the coup regime as “legitimate” as did other NATO allies.

On a personal note, I am sometimes criticized by conspiracy theorists for not accepting their fact-free claims about nefarious schemes supposedly dreamed up by U.S. officials, but frankly as baseless as some of those wacky stories can be, they sound sensible when compared with the West’s loony conspiracy theory about Putin choreographing the Ukraine coup.

Yet, that baseless conspiracy theory roped in supposedly serious thinkers, such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who conjured up the notion that Putin stirred up this trouble so he could pull off a land grab and/or distract Russians from their economic problems.

“Delusions of easy winnings still happen,” Krugman wrote in a 2014 column. “It’s only a guess, but it seems likely that Vladimir Putin thought that he could overthrow Ukraine’s government, or at least seize a large chunk of its territory, on the cheap, a bit of deniable aid to the rebels, and it would fall into his lap. …

Recently Justin Fox of the Harvard Business Review suggested that the roots of the Ukraine crisis may lie in the faltering performance of the Russian economy. As he noted, Mr. Putin’s hold on power partly reflects a long run of rapid economic growth. But Russian growth has been sputtering, and you could argue that the Putin regime needed a distraction.

Midwifing This Thing

Or, rather than “a guess,” Krugman could have looked at the actual facts, such as the work of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland conspiring to organize a coup that would put her hand-picked Ukrainians in charge of Russia’s neighbor. Several weeks before the putsch, Nuland was caught plotting the “regime change” in an intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.

Regarding who should replace Yanukovych, Nuland’s choice was Arseniy “Yats is the guy” Yatsenyuk. The phone call went on to muse about how they could “glue this thing” and “midwife this thing.” After the coup was glued or midwifed on Feb. 22, 2014, Yatsenyuk emerged as the new prime minister and then shepherded through the IMF austerity plan.

Since the coup regime in Kiev also took provocative steps against the ethnic Russians, such as the parliament voting to ban Russian as an official language and allowing neo-Nazi extremists to slaughter anti-coup protesters, ethnic Russian resistance arose in the east and south. That shouldn’t have been much of a surprise since eastern Ukraine had been Yanukovych’s political base and stood to lose the most from Ukraine’s economic orientation toward Europe and reduced economic ties to Russia.

Yet, instead of recognizing the understandable concerns of the eastern Ukrainians, the Western media portrayed the ethnic Russians as simply Putin’s pawns with no minds of their own. The U.S.-backed regime in Kiev launched what was called an “Anti-Terrorist Operation” against them, spearheaded by the neo-Nazi militias.

In Crimea – another area heavily populated with ethnic Russians and with a long history of association with Russia – voters opted by 96 percent in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a process supported by Russian troops stationed in Crimea under a prior agreement with Ukraine’s government.

There was no Russian “invasion,” as The New York Times and other mainstream U.S. news outlets claimed. The Russian troops were already in Crimea assigned to Russia’s historic Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol. Putin agreed to Crimea’s annexation partly out of fear that the naval base would otherwise fall into NATO’s hands and pose a strategic threat to Russia.

But the key point regarding the crazy Western conspiracy theory about Putin provoking the crisis so he could seize territory or distract Russians from economic troubles is that Putin only annexed Crimea because of the ouster of Yanukovych and the installation of a Russia-hating regime in Kiev. If Yanukovych had not been overthrown, there is no reason to think that Putin would have done anything regarding Crimea or Ukraine.

Yet, once the false narrative got rolling, there was no stopping it. The New York Times, The Washington Post and other leading Western publications played the same role that they did during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, accepting the U.S. government’s propaganda as fact and marginalizing the few independent journalists who dared go against the grain.

Though Obama, Merkel and other key leaders know how deceptive the Western propaganda has been, they have become captives to their governments’ own lies. For them to deviate substantially from the Official Story would open them to harsh criticism from the powerful neoconservatives and their allied media outlets.

Even a slight contradiction to NATO’s “strategic communications” brought down harsh criticism on German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after he said: “What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering. … Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken.”

Excoriating Russia

So, at the Warsaw conference, the false NATO narrative had to be reaffirmed — and it was. The communiqué declared, “Russia’s aggressive actions, including provocative military activities in the periphery of NATO territory and its demonstrated willingness to attain political goals by the threat and use of force, are a source of regional instability, fundamentally challenge the Alliance, have damaged Euro-Atlantic security, and threaten our long-standing goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. …

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg opens the NATO Warsaw Summit in Poland, July 8, 2016. NATO heads of state agreed to send reinforced, multinational battalions to the eastern part of the alliance’s border with Russia. “These battalions will be robust and multinational,” Stoltenberg said. (NATO photo)

Russia’s destabilising actions and policies include: the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine; large-scale snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and underlying posture; and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace.

In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security of Allies and others.

In the up-is-down world that NATO and other Western agencies now inhabit, Russia’s military maneuvers within it own borders in reaction to NATO maneuvers along Russia’s borders are “provocative.” So, too, is Russia’s support for the internationally recognized government of Syria, which is under attack from Islamic terrorists and other armed rebels supported by the West’s Mideast allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO member Turkey.

In other words, it is entirely all right for NATO and its members to invade countries at will, including Iraq, Libya and Syria, and subvert others as happened in Ukraine and is still happening in Syria. But it is impermissible for any government outside of NATO to respond or even defend itself. To do so amounts to a provocation against NATO – and such hypocrisy is accepted by the West’s mainstream news media as the way that the world was meant to be.

And those of us who dare point out the lies and double standards must be “Moscow stooges,” just as those of us who dared question the Iraq WMD tales were dismissed as “Saddam apologists” in 2003.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon andbarnesandnoble.com).

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

The decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague on the China- Philippines territorial dispute announced on the 12^th of July 2016 may well emerge as a turning-point in the long-standing wrangles over islands in the South China Sea.

China expectedly has rejected the decision. It has reaffirmed its claim of territorial sovereignty and maritime rights over almost all of the South China Sea (SCS) particularly the contested Spratly Islands. It argues that its claim is rooted in history. Nonetheless, China has once again reiterated that it is committed to a peaceful resolution of all territorial squabbles pertaining to the SCS that involve, apart from the Philippines, three other ASEAN states, namely, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam, and Taiwan.

The new Philippines government has lauded the Arbitration Court’s decision as an important contribution to ongoing efforts in addressing disputes in the SCS. Foreign Secretary, Perfecto Yasay, has expressed his government’s determination to “pursue the peaceful resolution and management of disputes with a view to promoting and enhancing peace and stability in the region.” He asserted that the decision upheld international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.(UNCLOS)

This is what is commendable about the Court’s decision. By spelling out clearly that China has violated the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by interfering with its petroleum exploration in the zone, by constructing artificial islands and by allowing its fishermen to fish in the zone, the Court has emphasized the significance of upholding the UNCLOS. In an increasingly globalised world where trade among nations, the quest for natural resources and the pursuit of economic activities that transcend boundaries will lead inevitably to inter-state disputes and tensions, a law such as the UNCLOS is indispensable. This is why all governments especially in ASEAN should express publicly their support for a decision that has underlined the significance of international law.

The Court’s decision also repudiates China’s 1947 “nine-dash line” argument that since China has historical records to show that its navigators had explored the islands in the SCS for centuries it could exercise proprietary rights over them. As I had pointed out in an article on the 29^th May 2012, “for hundreds of years before the 13^th century the ancestors of present-day Filipinos, Indonesians and Malaysians, known for their superb maritime skills were in fact the masters of the seas in the entire region, including what is now known as the South China Sea.”  The Court rightly reminds the Chinese that “there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources.”

In light of the Court’s decision it would be in China’s own interest to put aside the “nine-dash line “argument and begin negotiations with all the other claimants to the SCS. The new Philippines government under President Rodrigo Duterte has expressed its willingness to talk to the Chinese authorities. The governments of Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei are also positively inclined towards negotiations. Negotiations could be bilateral or multilateral. There is perhaps a basis for multilateral discussions since some of the territorial claims are overlapping. Whatever it is, China’s sweeping claim to the whole of the SCS enshrined in its “nine-dash line” theory was a huge barrier to any quest for a just and equitable solution. Now that it has been unambiguously rejected in international law, the Chinese should move ahead and try to re-energise relations with its neighbours on a stronger foundation.

What that stronger foundation could be has already been hinted by China itself and some of its neighbours in recent remarks. China and ASEAN as a whole could collectively explore the purportedly huge wealth that the South China Sea offers. It is established that the SCS has abundant fisheries and could be one of the major sources of protein for the world in the decades to come. It is believed that it also contains vast quantities of oil, gas and other minerals. Agreements could be forged among ASEAN states and China that would enable them to work together on harnessing this wealth for the good of the millions of people who live in this region.

At the same time, if China and ASEAN are prepared to work together they could also protect the freedom of navigation in one of the most important shipping lanes in the world. The South China Sea is vital to world trade and will become even more important in the future as global economic power shifts from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

To put it in a nutshell, let the Arbitration Court’s decision in The Hague yesterday set the stage for a new era in China-ASEAN cooperation for a better tomorrow.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Militarization And Police Violence in America

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, July 12 2016

Hardly a day goes by without news of a police killing.  And each time we hear from scholars and observers that the police is too militarized.   No doubt!

US Racist Repression Exposed, Nationwide Protests against Police Brutality and Killings

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 12 2016

Police killings of African Americans fuel urban unrest Five law-enforcement officers were killed and 7 others were wounded when they were ambushed in downtown Dallas on July 6.

“Genocide by Prescription”: Drug Induced Death in America

By Prof. James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya, July 12 2016

The white working class in the US has been decimated through an epidemic of ‘premature deaths’ – a bland term to cover-up the drop in life expectancy in this historically important demographic.

Britain’s Iron Lady 2.0?

By Stephen Lendman, July 12 2016

Described by a former associate as “hard as nails,” perhaps Theresa May is the second “iron lady of the Western World” designate, what former prime minister Margaret Thatcher once called herself.

“Washington, the War Criminal Capital of the World is Driving the World to Nuclear War”: Paul Craig Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 12 2016

A Reuters news report by Robin Emmott and Sabine Siebold shows how devoid the West is of honest, intelligent and responsible journalists and government officials. First we will examine the dishonesty or incompetence of the reporters and then that of Western government officials.

Police killings of African Americans fuel urban unrest

Five law-enforcement officers were killed and 7 others were wounded when they were ambushed in downtown Dallas on July 6. The shooting took place during the course of nationwide demonstrations against a rash of police killings in various regions of the United States.

Marches have been held in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and across the U.S. In Dallas thousands have taken to the streets in solidarity with the struggle to end police brutality against African Americans.

During the evening of July 6 shots rang out in the downtown area of Dallas resulting in the multiple deaths of both transit police and patrolmen. The corporate media attempted to take this incident and use it against the burgeoning movement against racist violence. These demonstrations and other protest actions are representative of the rising intolerance and commitment to eradicate the use of racial profiling leading to lethal force against African Americans.

The following morning in Dallas there were hundreds of people who marched through the streets maintaining their position against police brutality chanting slogans in support of the victims of these forms of state violence. It was announced that as of early July 11 some 312 people had been arrested in demonstrations around the U.S. (CNN)

Over the weekend of July 8-11 thousands of people demonstrated around Baton Rouge demanding justice in the death of Alton Sterling who posthumously has been charged by corporate media with engaging in some form of “illegal commerce” as an alleged street vendor of CDs. Even if this was to be substantiated, and it has not, does this warrant extrajudicial execution by the police?

Protests continue as well in Minnesota where a local newspaper emphasized that “What began as a peaceful protest in St. Paul Saturday over the police killing of Philando Castile in Falcon Heights turned into a riot, officials said Sunday (July 10). Demonstrators shut down Interstate 94 for about six hours. People threw rocks, fireworks and other objects at officers, leaving 21 injured, according to the St. Paul police chief. Between the highway protest and a march that followed on St. Paul’s Grand Avenue early Sunday, police arrested 102 people. The protests were spurred by the killing on Wednesday of Castile, of St. Paul, but also encompassed other officer-involved shootings of African-American men. In the Castile case his girlfriend livestreamed on Facebook the aftermath of his shooting by a St. Anthony police officer.”

The Jackson Sun in southwest Tennessee said of demonstrations and civil disobedience activities in Memphis that “A crowd of more than 1,000 shut down the Interstate 40 Bridge for several hours Sunday (July 10) night as part of a protest over recent killings of black men by police officers. Traffic finally began moving again about 10:30 p.m. Traffic was backed up for miles in both Tennessee and Arkansas as drivers sat idling on the bridge, wondering what was going on. This has become a common tactic with some Black Lives Matter movements around the country. In response to two fatal police shootings of black men this past week in Louisiana and Minnesota, groups in both those states have attempted similar shutdowns.” (July 11)

Police in response to some of the demonstrations carried out repressive tactics to clear activists from the streets and expressways. The British Daily Mail noted “Black Lives Matter protesters have been sprayed with tear gas in Phoenix after a march against police brutality spiraled out of control. Police also fired bean bag rounds and pepper spray at the protesters, who were seen running away and shielding their eyes. One image showed a white man holding a Donald Trump ‘Make America Great Again’ placard interrupting the protest on Friday night. Less than three hours after the demonstration began at 8pm, police declared the protest an ‘unlawful assembly’ and ordered people to leave after objects were thrown at officers, the Arizona Republic reported. In Rochester, New York, the SWAT team arrived and police arrested 74 protesters who were blocking the streets. One organizer, Ashley Gantt, said they sat down because they did not want any movement to be misinterpreted as violence after the shootings in Dallas. Other protests were calmer, with an estimated 5,000 people marching peacefully along a highway in Atlanta as they demanded justice for black men killed by police officers in recent days. There was a heavy police presence at the Atlanta rally as protesters halted traffic, with officers on high alert following Thursday’s massacre in Dallas.” (July 9)

These manifestations forced U.S. President Barack Obama to make a statement while attending a NATO conference in Warsaw, Poland where discussions were held aimed at expanding the European and North American military presence in Eastern Europe. In addition, the Pentagon occupation of the Central Asian state of Afghanistan will continue to be a focus of Washington’s foreign policy. The successive administrations inside the U.S. have all supported this militarism despite its repeated failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Palestine and other geo-political regions.

The resources both human and material which have been wasted during the course of the last quarter-century of invasions, bombings, occupations and blatant interference in the internal affairs of other nation-states could very well have been utilized to maintain quality housing, the stabilization of communities, educational reform, universal healthcare for all residents of the U.S. along with a concerted campaign to halt and dismantle the repressive law-enforcement apparatus which systematically targets African Americans, Latinos and other oppressed peoples as well as the elimination of the racist prison industrial complex that houses millions of inmates along with those who are under judicial and law-enforcement supervision.

Over the last three years anti-racist demonstrations have accelerated. The vigilante killing of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida in 2012 gained attention exposing the fact that the lives of African Americans mean very little in a country that professes to be a paragon of human rights globally.

Killings That Drew National Attention

In Baton Rouge, Louisiana on July 5, 2016, Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old African American, was shot numerous times even after he was tackled to the street by two white Baton Rouge Police Department officers. Police claim they were there in response to a report that a man dressed in red and selling CDs used a gun to threaten someone outside a convenience store.

This police shooting was captured on video by multiple people at the scene. These videos illustrate the police attack and shooting done at very close range. The killing immediately sparked demonstrations in Baton Rouge. Consciousness around this killing prompted other demonstrations in the region and nationally.

After a second shooting in Minnesota the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would conduct a federal investigation. Nonetheless, several probes conducted by the DOJ in recent years have not resulted in civil rights or criminal charges being filed against the police and racist gunmen.

Later on July 7, 32-year-old Philando Castile was shot to death sitting in his automobile by an as yet unidentified police officer in Falcon Heights, Minnesota. His companion Diamond Reynolds live streamed the entire incident over Facebook. This was a major contribution to the struggle against police brutality. Reynolds and her daughter remained calm despite the traumatic and outrageous attack.

Even though it was reported that the video was soon taken down from Facebook it had already been downloaded and then shared on scores of other sites. In a matter of minutes and hours, Reynolds figuratively became the Ida B. Wells-Barnett of her day. Wells-Barnett, a school teacher and journalist, in the 1880s and 1890s, through her newspaper publications exposed the hypocrisy of the white racist rationales for the mass lynching of African American men.

In the 21st century these assumptions about the African American people remain intact. Police agencies obviously train their personnel to view the oppressed African nation in the U.S. as a threat to the supremacy of American capitalism and imperialism. These killings are by no means isolated incidents but occur on a frequent basis.

Varying reports related to police use of lethal force in 2015, indicates that anywhere between 975 and 1100 or more people died at the hands of law-enforcement in the U.S. Many others were injured and wounded as well as cited and taken into custody without probable cause.

Earlier in the month of June, the New York Times reported that “The blue lights flashed in the rearview mirror of the Ford Focus. The man behind the wheel, a 37-year-old African-American, pulled over, opened the door and sprinted into the Mississippi night. Soon, a white police officer was giving chase on foot, accompanied by his police dog. The officer would eventually find and fatally shoot the man, Antwun Shumpert, here on the evening of June 18, plunging this small city — famous globally as the birthplace of Elvis Presley, but known regionally as a beacon of relatively progressive racial attitudes — into what has become a tragically common American morass of anger, racial division and hard questions about the treatment of black men at the hands of the police. “(July 4)

The police killing of Antwun Shumpert initially did not attract as much national attention as the violent acts committed against Sterling and Castile in Louisiana and Minnesota respectively. Nonetheless, in light of the protests sweeping hundreds of cities, more people have become aware of this development.

African American advocates for Shumpert, particularly his family and attorney, linked the police killing to the history of racist violence in Mississippi. This southern state was considered one of the most notorious in regard to the highly exploitative system of slavery and the extra-judicial executions of Black men during the 19th and 20th centuries.

This same New York Times article says that the attorney for the Shumpert family, Carolos Moore, “last week displayed photos of Mr. Shumpert’s corpse in a news conference, including one that appeared to show a yawning tear where his scrotum met his inner thigh. Mr. Moore invoked the lynching of Emmett Till and the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan, and criticized the city for not taking down the Mississippi state flag, which incorporates the Confederate battle flag.”

“They have declared open season on us, and they are killing us with impunity,” Moore declared. Moore is African American and also asked “the question is: Are you going to sit there and allow them to do it?”

This is War Being Waged on the African American People by the Capitalist-racist State

Of course this statement by Atty. Moore echoes the mass sentiment of African Americans and others who are militantly opposing police brutality. The rapid wave of significant protests merely reflects the “tip of the iceberg” in regard to the groundswell of frustration and anger so prevalent among broad sections of people.

There are trends within the political sentiment and demonstrations which suggest a renewal of the struggle for national liberation and self-determination. The re-emerge of hundreds of people waving the flag of the African American liberation movement (the red, black and green), suggests a rise in national consciousness which has revolutionary potential.

No genuine transformation of U.S. society can effectively take hold without the acquisition of full equality and self-determination for the oppressed nations. Attempts to obscure this question by the ruling class through the presidency of Obama have not been successful.

The lack of enthusiasm among African Americans during the Democratic primary and caucus process is a reflection of a mounting disenchantment among many with the two-party capitalist political system. Both the Democrats and the Republicans perpetuate the exploitative systems of national oppression and economic exploitation.

In order for a broader and deeper movement against racist violence to solidify in the U.S. independent political organizations must emerge which challenge the ruling class right to rule over the working class and the oppressed throughout the country. Political change must not be merely cosmetic but real and the material force of this revolutionary movement must manifest a level of force and ideological orientation that has the capacity attract millions committed fundamental change.

The ISIS terrorist group has downed a military helicopter in the province of Homs, killing 2 Russian pilots onboard. The initial reports that Mi-25 crashed east of Palmyra late on July 8 were denied by the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD).

However, on July 9, the Russian MoD reported that Russian military pilot-instructors Evgeny Dolgin and Ryafagat Khabibulin were conducting a calibration flight on a Syrian Mi-25 when they received a request from the Syrian command group to help defeat the advancing terrorists and fire for effect. The MoD said that due to the skillful actions of the crew the terrorist attack had been thwarted. However, their helicopter was shot down by terrorists as it was turning to head back to the base. Russia’s Interfax news agency reported, citing a source in the MoD, that the helicopter had been downed with the aid of an American TOW antitank missile system. The both pilots will posthumously receive state awards.

The joint militant forces, led by Al Nusra, have been conducting mass shelling of the Aleppo city neighborhoods since late June 8. According to reports, only in al-Furqan and al-Sukan up to 100 civilians were killed and 300 others injured. In turn, pro-militant source blame the Syrian government and the Russian air force for civilians casualties in militant-controlled areas of the city. No numbers have been provided yet.

Separately, on July 11, the joint militant forces launched a fresh offensive, targeting the Police Headquarters and Souq Al-Hal area in Old Aleppo. Militants detonated a tunnel bomb near Aqabeh. Clashes are ongoing.

Controversial reports are appearing about the situation at the strategic Castello Road, heading to the militant-held areas of Aleppo city. On July 7, the Syrian Army’s Tiger Forces set a fire control of the road after taking control of the Mallah Farms and during next few days pro-government forces seized Tell Jabenia and Al Jurf Al Sagheer, deploying in only 400 meters from the road. Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG launched an offensive on Youth Housing Complex, assisting the Syrian army. In turn, the united militant forces launched a series of counter-attacks in the area, repelling the Kurdish advance and trying to push the Syrian army back from the areas near the Castello Road. Pro-militant sources claim that Tell Jabenia has been re-sized and clashes are ongoing in the Mallah Farms. However, the recent video evidences show that the army still in control of the Mallah Farms and the Castello Road is hit by the government artillery.

The situation for militant groups is critical. If they are unable to draw the Syrian army attention to other frontlines and re-open the supply line to Aleppo, the Syrian government will continue steady gains in Aleppo, purging a major part of the militant chances to play any crucial role in the post war Syria.

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

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

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Below is the June 2016 interview in English published by Oriental Review of Hybrid Warfare expert Andrew Korybko with the Macedonian media “Vecer”  (Evening). Korybko addresses the US R-TOR (Regime Tweaking – Regime Change – Regime Reboot) strategy  in the Balkans, and efforts by Russia and China to stabilize Eurasia.

You’re in Skopje at the moment, where the so-called “Colorful Revolution” has been ongoing for two months already. What are the real reasons and the goals behind this in the context of the geopolitical constellations in the region?

The “Colorful Revolution” that’s presently ongoing in the Republic of Macedonia is nothing more than a Color Revolution masquerading as a “legitimate” civil society movement. It’s really a foreign-supported regime change attempt that employs state-of-art political technologies inspired by the teachings of Gene Sharp, the godfather of this stratagem. Some participants and international observers genuinely believe that what’s happening in Skopje is an organic initiative, but others are aware of its artificial nature and pursuit of ulterior motives. It doesn’t take much effort for any neutral observer to find out which forces are pulling the protesters’ strings, since much information has already been publicly released by the patriotic elements of the Macedonian media about thebinvolvement of the Soros OSI Foundation and the close coordination between the protesters and the US Embassy. Soros and his multitude of affiliated organizations provided the “seed funding” for organizing the wide assortment of “NGOs” that are leading the anti-government movement, and the billionaire philanthropist controls the finances that allow SDSM to pay protesters and bus them into Skopje from all across the country. These protesters, of course, are either “useful idiots” or willing conspirators like was already mentioned. They participate in these events for a few reasons, all of which could potentially overlap depending on the particular individual involved:

* the “Liberal-Democratic” ideology that Zaev and his handlers have been trying to brainwash people with through their control of various media apparatuses has succeeded in misleading a minority of the masses, a few of whom are attracted to the “romantic” idea of taking part in a “revolution” and egotistically relish the potential mainstream and social media attention that they could receive;

* some people have an immediate financial incentive to get paid a day’s wages for only doing a few hours of active or passive work, such as “protesting” or attending “workshops”, “training seminars”, etc., respectively, and see their paid participation in the Color Revolution as an easy job that could go on indefinitely;

* and others are simply career opportunists that want to capitalize on what they believe will be a successful regime change operation and use this chance to ingratiate themselves with the forthcoming powers-to-be, angling to ascend to the halls of power on the backs of the misguided fools and paid “protesters” that they hope will help them get there.

It’s important to point out at this moment that the US is pursuing three interlinked strategic objectives through its support of the Color Revolution. From the relatively mildest to the most extreme, these are:

*Regime Tweaking, or the enactment of governmental concessions without immediately changing the head of state and/or the ruling party;

* Regime Change, or the overthrow of the democratically elected and legitimate authorities through either “constitutional” (Brazil) or unconstitutional (Ukraine) means;

* and a Regime Reboot, or changing the constitution (such as through “Identity Federalism”, functioning in many current cases as an internal partition) in order to completely rewrite the ‘rules of the game’.

A Budapest-Belgrade-Skopje-Athens line would complement the EU’s TEN-T plan.

Beside Macedonia, we can see protests in Serbia, Montenegro, R.Srpska, Croatia… There are turmoils in the Balkan states precisely in the period when Moscow and Bejing promoted the two major economic projects the Turkish stream and the Chinese Railway from Budapest to Athens. What is the connection between the destabilizations and this projects?

Of course, the US’ ultimate fallback plan is to devastate the Balkans with another regional war if it can’t seize control of the geostrategic territory through which Russia’s Balkan Stream and China’s Balkan Silk Road are expected to pass, but if it could be led to believe that it could further its objective through the relatively inexpensive investment in long-term Regime Tweaking and “constitutional” Regime Change, then it will usually opt for this scenario. Repeating the earlier order from the relatively mildest to the most extreme goals, and understanding that in this particular context of prospectively unfolding violence that one step would simply phase into the other according to a predetermined timeframe, it can be expected that the US will try to promote:

* Regime Tweaking by ordering SDSM back into the government on Washington’s terms so that it can dismantle VMRO’s domestic and international achievements and gain control of key state institutions (judicial, intelligence, military, etc.), which in turn would help SDSM steal a future election as a means of “legitimizing” its ‘soft coup’;

* Regime Change by getting rid of VMRO completely and consequently instigating a civil conflict between the patriots and the SDSM coup supporters, predictably expanding into a multisided war that evokes strong shades of an externally manufactured “clash of civilizations’ by involving the terrorist supporters of “Greater Albania”;

* and a total Regime Reboot by forcing a “federal solution” onto the Republic of Macedonia that divides the country between Orthodox Macedonians and Muslim Albanians and leads to the eventual erosion of Macedonian identity, foreseeably culminating in the constitutional name being changed and the “federal” halves being internationally partitioned between Greater Albania and Greater Bulgaria.

This three-step approach is being pushed by the US out of the strong determination that its strategists have in disrupting, influencing, or controlling Russia’s (currently suspended) Balkan Stream gas pipeline and China’s Balkan Silk Road high-speed rail project from Budapest to the Greek port of Piraeus (and potentially one day as far afield as Warsaw, Riga, and Saint Petersburg).

A subservient VMRO government, which has now proven itself totally impossible for the US to achieve, was envisioned to act as an influencing proxy on giving the US an indirect presence along the vital chokepoint through which these two projects are expected to pass, potentially even allowing it to one day cancel or outright control these initiatives. Since this option is no longer feasible for the US, it instead wants to carry out direct Regime Change via a Color Revolution or phased Regime Change via pressured Regime Tinkering (brought about by the Color Revolution or potential Hybrid War) which would result in its SDSM agents taking control of the state on behalf of Washington. If this fallback plan can’t succeed, then the US might likely resort to instigating a “clash of civilizations” between Orthodox Macedonians and Muslim Albanians (whether as a coordinated part of the Regime Change operation or conducted separately thereof) in order to radically push through its Regime Reboot agenda in totally reconfiguring the Macedonian state and preparing for its eventual dismantlement by Albania and Bulgaria.

As for what’s presently being seen in the other Balkan states, that’s also very closely connected with the formula I spoke about earlier as regards to Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, and a Regime Reboot. In connection to Republika Srpska, the aim is to overthrow Milorad Dodik and install a compliant pro-Western surrogate who would go along with the dismantlement of the autonomous republic’s sovereignty and its neo-imperial absorption into a Brussels-dominated Bosnia. The confusing situation in Serbia is similar – what started off as patriotic anti-NATO protests designed to constructively pressure the government into reversing its pro-Western course were quickly diverted into suspicious manifestations that nowadays could be weaponized to do more in pressuring Serbia away from Russia and China than from the EU and the US. It’s beginning to look like the US’ hijacked the positive “Regime Tweaking” purposes of the anti-NATO protests and replaced them with its own pro-Western “Liberal-Democratic” proxies designed to be a “bottom-up” complement to the top-down coercion that Washington is now imposing upon Belgrade.

Serbia is a very desirable target for the US because of its position alongside Russia and China’s Balkan Megaprojects. Although further inland that the Republic of Macedonia, it still occupies a very important space, and in the event that Macedonia once more succeeds in repelling the Hybrid War threat against it, then it’s forecast that the US will redirect its destabilization efforts further down the line, in this case, towards Serbia. Therefore, what’s happening there nowadays is a sort of strategic ‘insurance policy’ that the US is preparing for just in case it needs to move forward with this scenario. Moreover, Serbia’s interest in joining the Russian-led Eurasian Union trading bloc scares the US and the EU, both of which understand that the most practical way for the non-contiguous states to interact with one another is via China’s forthcoming Balkan Silk Road, which in this case would take goods from Belgrade to Piraeus via rail and then ship them to Russia by sea. This further emphasizes the paramount importance that the multipolar world is placing on employing this high-speed rail route as its preferred access point into the continental hinterlands, beginning with Serbia and then extending throughout the rest of Central and Eastern Europe, though such a vision also conversely ‘justifies’ why the US could be interested in destabilizing Serbia once more in order to offset this project’s viability.

Additionally, there’s talk that Russia might build the so-called Poseidon Pipeline across the Black Sea and then through Bulgaria, Greece, and across the Adriatic Sea to Italy. Should this project ever see the light of day, then it’s likely that a branch would follow the South Stream blueprint and extend into Serbia, the envisioned hub of the original project. Assuming that there’s at least a potential that this could happen, then even if the Balkan Stream project remains indefinitely frozen, then Serbia would still be able to bring together the Chinese and Russian Megaprojects, thereby making it an irresistible target for the US. To complement the prospective internal destabilization of Serbia, the US looks ready to lure it into an international crisis in Bosnia, which is why it’s so adamant about creating turmoil in Republika Srpska. Washington knows that Belgrade’s security is directly connected to the stability of Banja Luka, and if its brotherly entity in Bosnia comes under threat, then all of Serbia indirectly affected by extent. Strategizing in advance of the fact that the internal disruptions in Serbia might fizzle out, the US is already preparing for the “Plan B” of focusing on Republika Srpska as a means of attracting Serbian attention and possible involvement, with the American-anticipated outcome being that this could disastrously entangle Belgrade in yet another regional conflict that ends up leading to large-scale strategic reversals.

Russian President Putin visited Serbia in 2015 and recently sat on the Byzantine throne in Athos, while Chinese President Xi Jinping also visited Belgrade one week ago. What’s your view on these events and what are the future political implications for the Balkan states?

It’s highly symbolic that both the Russian and Chinese leaders would find the Balkans worthy of their personal attention, and this just goes to reinforce the region’s strategic importance that I’ve emphasized in multiple interviews across the past year. The two nodes of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership are actively cooperating in courting the Balkan states, with each side recognizing that they need the other in order to fulfill their joint vision of promoting multipolarity in the region and then further afield throughout the rest of Europe. Russia has the civilizational heritage and energy supplies necessary for gaining the goodwill of most of the region’s people and powering their industries, while China has the investment capital needed for large-scale development projects. Russia is also seeking to invest in the region and certainly has the capability to do so, but it’s just that China has the recent experience in constructing the type of trade corridors that would greatly benefit both Moscow and Beijing.

Russian and Chinese cooperative involvement in the Balkans shouldn’t be seen as a competition (though that’s precisely how unipolar-affiliated media outlets and NGOs will try to mischievously portray it), but rather as one hand washing the other. Other than Central Asia, there is no other region in the world that has as much of a potential for bringing these two Great Powers together than the Balkans, and there’s no doubt that the region will see a lot more Russian and Chinese involvement in the coming years.

In this sense, how important are the Balkans for the multipolar world and how does Macedonia fit into all of this?

The Balkans are the geostrategic ‘backdoor’ to Europe, or in other words, the access point that the leading multipolar powers of Russia and China want to use in avoiding the “cordon sanitaire” that the US and NATO are setting up in Eastern Europe and gaining direct access to the heart of the continent. The Balkan Megaprojects – Russia’s Balkan Stream and China’s Balkan Silk Road – are compatible plans that will power the region and make it the focal point of an entirely unprecedented north-south economic corridor linking together Central and Eastern Europe. With the passing of time and the proper planning, this could foreseeably liberate the region from unipolar institutional influence and steadily replace it with its multipolar counterpart, ideally a supercontinental free trade area between Lisbon and Vladivostok.

President Putin’s announcement during the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is still interested in reaching a trade deal with the EU should be linked with Prime Minister Medvedev’s late-2015 proposal for multilateral integration between the Eurasian Union, the SCO, and ASEAN. Taken together, this hemispheric strategy amounts to what I at the time called the “Grand Eurasian Free Trade Area”, or GEFTA, but key to ensuring Europe’s participation in this revolutionary structure is to actualize the Balkan Megaprojects as a means of demonstrating the connective infrastructural viability of this plan.

It’s here where the Republic of Macedonia has an irreplaceable role in linking the East (Russia, China) and West (EU) just like Alexander did millennia ago, although in a completely different way of course. While Russia’s Balkan Stream project is indefinitely suspended for the time being and the recently discussed Poseidon Pipeline might bypass the country in favor of directly connecting to South Stream’s envisioned Serbian hub instead, Macedonia is still the bottleneck chokepoint through which China’s Balkan Silk Road high-speed rail project must pass, and it’s this component of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership’s Balkan policy that’s the most substantially transformative in bringing multipolarity into Europe. After all, for as important as energy corridors are, they’re always trumped by developmental ones when it comes to the real-sector economy, which is what China’s project is aspiring to accomplish. In order for the Balkan Silk Road to evolve into a transregional north-south corridor connecting the broad space between Piraeus and St. Petersburg and facilitating Europe’s eventual accession into GEFTA, it must first go through Macedonia, thus making the tiny country disproportionately important in global strategic affairs and explaining why the US has dedicated so much time to destabilizing it.

If Macedonia can beat back this asymmetrical aggression and remain stable, then it would serve as the geographic foundation for the Balkan Silk Road and become the strategic cornerstone for bringing together the rest of Eurasia via the positive effect that it would have in attracting the EU to GEFTA. While this is a long-term strategy, it shouldn’t be forgotten that every far-reaching plan starts off humbly enough. Even though some observers may not yet recognize the global strategic significance of the Republic of Macedonia in the framework of the New Cold War and GEFTA, that doesn’t make it any less important in actuality, and the lack of awareness merely serves as a cover for distracting the public’s attention from the true intention behind the latest destabilizations.

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

A Reuters news report by Robin Emmott and Sabine Siebold shows how devoid the West is of honest, intelligent and responsible journalists and government officials.

First we will examine the dishonesty or incompetence of the reporters and then that of Western government officials.

Emmott and Siebold describe NATO as a “Western defense alliance.” Since the Clinton regime NATO has been an alliance for waging offensive war, a war crime under the Nuremberg rules established by the United States. Under the NATO banner a number of countries have been bombed, invaded, and had their governments overthrown by Washington acting under the cover of NATO.

These destroyed countries posed no threat whatsoever to the countries of the NATO alliance and undertook no aggressive actions against NATO members. How is it possible that Reuters’ reporters and editors are not aware of this?

Why do they call an instrument of Washington’s aggression a “defense alliance”?

Emmott and Siebold report that “Russian aggression” is the reason NATO is deploying 3,000 to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and Poland. In other words, something that does not exist–Russian aggression toward the Baltics and Poland–is assumed to be a fact that must be countered with military deployments.

The reporters do not question whether this insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes a defense or a provocation. The number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then is the purpose of the 3,000 or 4,000 NATO troops?

Every informed person knows that there is no need of a defense force against Russia in the Baltics and Poland. Aside from this fact, only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army.

In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa (image right) hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history, excepting only the Spartans. By the time that the Americans and British got around to the Normandy invasion, the Russian Army had chewed up the Wehrmacht. There were only a few divisions at 40% strength to resist the Normandy invasion. By the time the Russian Army got to Berlin, the German resistance consisted of armed children.

The Reuters reporters raise no question about President Obama’s statement that 1,000 of this insignificant force will be Americans in order “to enhance our forward presence in central and eastern Europe.” Why does the United States need a “forward presence” in central and eastern Europe? What does a US “forward presence” in central and eastern Europe represent except an insane recklessness? One thousand US troops are good for nothing except a provocation.

Emmott and Siebold report with a straight face without laughter or question unverifiable accusations of Russian aggression by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, President Obama, and head of NATO’s military committee, Czech General Petr Pavel.

Gen. Pavel “said Russia was attempting to restore its status as a world power, an effort that included using its military.”

Obama said it is necessary to “keep sanctions on Moscow in place until it fully complies with the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine.”

Waszczykowski said:

“We have to reject any type of wishful thinking with regard to pragmatic cooperation with Russia as long as Russia keeps on invading its neighbors.”

Rhodes threatened Russia with a NATO response to Russia’s “continued aggression.”

These statements are propagandistic. If those who made the statements actually believe them, they are too imbecilic to be trusted with public offices.

Is it possible that the Czech general does not know that Russia has used its military only to repel a Washington-inspired Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and against ISIS in Syria, which the US, UK, and France also claim to be doing? After repelling the Georgian invasion, Russia withdrew its forces. After dealing ISIS a setback in Syria, Russia withdrew and was forced to return by Washington’s resupply of ISIS.

Can the Polish Foreign Minister identify the countries that “Russia keeps on invading”?

Does the President of the United States really not know that Russia is not a party to the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine? This is an agreement between the breakaway republics and the government in Kiev. Washington has done everything possible to discourage Kiev from keeping the agreement Kiev signed.

Can National Security Adviser Rhodes tell us where “continued aggression by Russia” is occurring? What countries are being invaded and overrun?

How can there be so much Russian aggression and no evidence of it?

Recently, President Putin dressed down to their faces the Western media whores who are fanning the flames of World War III by repeating without question Washington’s propagandistic lies. These lies are reckless. They endanger all life on planet Earth.

During my lifetime, American presidents worked to reduce tensions between the two major nuclear powers. JFK worked with Khrushchev to defuse the dangerous situation arising from the placement of US missiles in Turkey and, in response, the placement of Russian missiles in Cuba.

President Nixon brought forth SALT I, the strategic arms limitation treaty, and the ABM Treaty.

President Carter crafted SALT II.

President Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev the end of the Cold War, the most promising achievement of the 20th century.

The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have done everything possible to raise the tensions between nuclear powers to heights beyond those of the most dangerous days of the Cold War.

The evil Clinton regime broke the word of the government of the United States, thereby destroying the honor of the US government, by taking NATO to Russia’s borders.

The evil George W. Bush regime pulled the US out of the ABM Treaty and rewrote US war doctrine in order to elevate nuclear weapons from a retaliatory weapon to a first strike weapon. This insane act put the Russians on notice.

The evil Obama regime intends to place nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders in Poland and Romania and engineered a coup in Ukraine with the intent of depriving Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, Russia’s only warm water port.

Faced with a Russophobic Washington-installed government in Ukraine, the Russian population in Crimea, a Russian province since the 1700s, voted practically unanimously to rejoin Russia, where Crimea had resided until Khrushchev reassigned the Russian province to Ukraine in the mid 20th century. The Russian government’s acceptance of the wishes of its own people were propagandistically misrepresented by Washington and the presstitutes as “Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea.” This lie is where the myth of “Russian invasion” came from. Russian military forces were already present in Crimea, because when Russia granted independence to Ukraine, Russia retained a long-term lease on the Russian naval base in Crimea. As all international observers testified, the vote was independent of the Russian military presence.

The White House Fool said that the vote in Crimea was meaningless because all of Ukraine did not get to vote. The Fool was too ignorant to know that by this laughable charge he discredited the American Revolution because the British people didn’t get to vote. For the precise same reason that The Fool wants Crimea returned to Kiev, the US must be returned to Britain. I doubt that the British would have us. Who wants a war criminal nation drowning in its own hubris?

The world is now faced with the prospect that insouciant Americans will elect a crazed and incompetent criminal or semi-criminal as their president, a person who has declared the President of Russia to be “the new Hitler.” The stupid bitch’s statement is a declaration of nuclear war, and this dangerous, reckless, incompetent, careless person has been selected by the Democratic Party as the next POTUS !!!

The ignorance and stupidity of the American people will destroy the world.

Little wonder that Vladimir Putin, the only responsible world leader other than the president of China, is desperate that the Western media understand that their irresponsible negligence to the truth is helping Washington drive the world to nuclear war.

Putin does not want war. He is doing everything in his power to avoid it. But Putin is not going to surrender Russia to Washington. The trip-point of World War III will be the installation of Washington’s missiles in Poland and Romania. As Putin recently made clear to the imbecilic Western journalists, these missiles can easily and secretly be changed from anti-ballistic missiles to nuclear attack missiles that can strike their Russian targets within 5 or fewer minutes of launch, thus depriving Russia of its retaliatory deterrent. Once these missiles are in place, Washington can issue orders to Russia.

Whatever the evil men and women in Washington who are gambling with the life of the planet think, Russia is not going to accept these missiles.

Where does world leadership reside? In Washington, the war criminal capital of the world that is driving the world to nuclear war, or in Russia whose leadership accepts countless affronts and provocations in an effort to avoid war?

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.

Political scientists could work out the correlation between the downright hostile media coverage and official measures by the U.S. and allied governments.

Some Hillary Clinton backers now downplay the then-Secretary of State’s role in what has become a disastrous “regime change” war in Libya, but that was not what her sycophants were saying four years ago, recalls Larry C. Johnson.

I am going to share with you four devastating emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton on the subject of Libya. You can find these posted at Wikileaks. It is clear in reading these exchanges that, in the glow of the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Hillary embraced the call to spike the football and clearly was planning to use Libya as evidence of her leadership and skill that qualified her to become President.

The attack on our diplomats and CIA officers in Benghazi on 11 September 2012 however, destroyed that dream. The dream became a nightmare and Hillary has scrambled to pretend that she was not the mover-and-shaker that destabilized Libya and made it a safe haven for ISIS, aka radical Islamists.

Let me take you through these chronologically. First up is an email from James “Jamie” Rubin, the husband of CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. (You might want to have an air sickness bag handy.) Jaime wrote on 18 July 2011:

Again, congratulations are in order for Friday’s recognition of the Transitional National Council in Istanbul. It is a pleasure to see the State Department again leading the administration on this. Syria, too, but that is a subject for another. day.

I suspect that you have been pushing very hard within the administration on Libya. From the outside, the White House doesn’t seem like it cares very much. In general, the NSC seems uncomfortable with creative applications of American power and influence. And we all know the military and the Pentagon resist limited military operations, especially airpower-only engagements. So, it must be you and your colleagues at State. Well done. . . .

First and foremost, this is winnable. The killing of Bin Ladin aside, the administration really needs a solid, substantial success. . . .

Second, unlike in the Balkans or Afghanistan, Paris and London are fully committed, as are most Europeans, with the exception of Germany, which is a disgrace but not really relevant in the end. . . .

Third, beyond the moral component of preventing a slaughter, defeating Qaddafi is one of the few concrete and unique ways the West can contribute to the Arab Spring. . . .

Fourth, even a small success like the one that is coming in Libya will turn around the steady decline in American influence in the region and around the world. I suspect that you know this, but European elites, Gulf elites, East Europeans and many others regard the Administration as weak.

What you need is a rationale for a new strategy and an internal argument for the Pentagon to change its position. If the Pentagon moves and a new rationale alters the politics on Capitol Hill, the White House will have to go along. . . . But I would suggest the following strategy:

First, without acknowledging that it was a mistake to let the British and French lead the operation to begin with, you can simply argue that circumstances have changed to the extent that leaving Qaddafi in power is now a national security risk. . . .

Second, for civilians in the Pentagon and the military, you can simply state that the U.S. and NATO’s deterrent power is now at risk. . .

Third, the threat of Qaddafi organizing terrorist threats against Europe and possibly the United States is an argument that most Republicans will be forced to accept. (At a private meeting with Tim Pawlenty, he put forward the idea that framed as a threat from a former terrorist leader, most Republicans would change their view.) McCain and Lindsey Graham are already there and with this new rationale it should be possible to win political support from Republicans that would not support the moral case alone.”

I am sure you picked up the themes here – Obama is weak ass, U.S. policy needs to shift to get on board with the Europeans and Hillary is the one to do it. Hillary loved this note from Jamie. She directed her staff to print it.

A little more than one month later (in fact, the day after rebels entered Tripoli), Hillary’s old friend and confidant, Sid Blumenthal, weighed in (barf bag suggestion still recommended):

First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it. When Qaddafi himself is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras wherever you are, even in the driveway of your vacation house. You must go on camera. You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment. The most important phrase is: ‘successful strategy.’

Just a few points: *The US has pursued a successful strategy in Libya. We did not know how long it would take, but we knew it would not be easy, and that it would require steadiness and persistence. This was the right course, based on our interests and principles. And it has worked.

Do not skimp on the reasons in the US interest behind the successful strategy: We prevented a humanitarian tragedy on a vast scale. Qaddafi, who had already killed 2,000 people in April, threatened to massacre the residents of Benghazi, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. We worked closely with our NATO allies, proving that cooperation within the Western alliance can achieve our mutual goals.

The US has demonstrated its principled belief in the rule of law and acted on the basis of the United Nations resolution. We have supported the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people for democracy and freedom. We have ousted a murderous dictator who has been a source of terrorism, civil war throughout Africa and a prop for dictators elsewhere. By acting in Libya we have helped advance the cause of democracy and freedom throughout the Arab world. We have provided an important support for neighboring Egypt. We have put Assad on notice that the sands of time have run out for him as well. Our successful strategy in Libya stands as a warning that our strategy will work again. Etc.

 

Be aware that some may attempt to justify the flamingly stupid ‘leading from behind’ phrase, junior types on the NSC imagining their cleverness. To refute this passive construction on US policy and help remove it as an albatross from the administration as it enters the election year, do not be defensive but rather simply explain that the US had a clear strategy from the start, stuck with it and has succeeded.

Then you can say whatever on future policy — but only after asserting the historic success and explaining the reasons why. *This is a very big moment historically and for you. History will tell your part in it. You are vindicated. But don’t wait, help Clio now.” (Blumenthal’s reference to “Clio” is to the Greek muse of history.)

Yes sir. “Big moment” indeed. Hillary helped thousands die but, as Sid emphasized, the glory, at least part of it, belonged to her. This was not because of anything that the weak-ass President Obama did. Nope. It was Hillary’s baby.

On 3 September 2011, Hillary directed her staff – Jake Sullivan in particular–to document the case of Hillary’s “brilliance.” Remember. This is how Hillary and her staff were taking credit for what transpired in Libya:

Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

February 25 — HRC announces the suspension of operations of the Libyan embassy in Washington.

February 26 — HRC directs efforts to evacuate all U.S. embassy personnel from Tripoli and orders the closing of the embassy.

February 26 HRC made a series of calls to her counterparts to help secure passage of UNSC 1970, which imposes sanctions on Gaddafi and his family and refers Qadhafi and his cronies to the ICC

February 28 — HRC travels to Geneva, Switzerland for consultations with European partners on Libya. She gives a major address in which she says: ‘Colonel Qadhafi and those around him must be held accountable for these acts, which violate international legal obligations and common decency. Through their actions, they have lost the legitimacy to govern. And the people of Libya have made themselves clear: It is time for Qadhafi to go — now, without further violence or delay.’ She also works to secure the suspension of Libya from membership in the Human Rights Council.

Early March — HRC appoints Special Envoy Chris Stevens to be the U.S. representative to Benghazi

March 14 — HRC travels to Paris for the G8 foreign minister’s meeting. She meets with TNC representative Jibril and consults with her colleagues on further UN Security Council action. She notes that a no-fly zone will not be adequate.

March 14-16 — HRC participates in a series of high-level video- and teleconferences B5 She is a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NA TO civilian protection mission.

March 17— HRC secures Russian abstention and Portuguese and African support for UNSC 1973, ensuring that it passes. 1973 authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya and ‘all necessary measures’ – code for military action – to protect civilians against Gaddafts army.

March 24 — HRC engages with allies and secures the transition of command and control of the civilian protection mission to NATO. She announces the transition in a statement.

March 18-30— HRC engages with UAE, Qatar, and Jordan to seek their participation in coalition operations. Over the course of several days, all three devote aircraft to the mission.

March 19— HRC travels to Paris to meet with European and Arab leaders to prepare for military action to protect civilians. That night, the first U.S. air strikes halt the advance of Gaddafi’s forces on Benghazi and target Libya’s air defenses.

March 29—HRCt ravels to London for a conference on Libya, where she is a driving force behind the creation of a Contact Group comprising 20-plus countries to coordinate efforts to protect civilians and plan for a post-Qadhafi Libya. She is instrumental in setting up a rotating chair system to ensure regional buy-in.

April 14—HRC travels to Berlin for NATO meetings. She is the driving force behind NATOadopting a communique that calls for Qadhafi’sdeparture as a political objective, and lays out three clear military objectives: end of attacks and threat of attacks on civilians; the removal of Qadhafi forces from cities they forcibly entered; and the unfettered provision of humanitarian access.

May 5 — HRC travels to Rome for a Contact Group meeting. The Contact Group establishes a coordination system and a temporary financial mechanism to funnel money to the TNC.

June 8 — HRC travels to Abu Dhabi for another Contact Group meeting and holds a series of intense discussions with rebel leaders.

June 12 — HRC travels to Addis for consultations and a speech before the African Union, pressing the case for a democratic transition in Libya.

July 15 — HRC travels to Istanbul and announces that the U.S. recognizes the TNC as the legitimate government of Libya. She also secures recognition from the other members of the Contact Group. Late June — HRC meets with House Democrats and Senate Republicans to persuade them not to de-fund the Libya operation.

July 16 — HRC sends Feltman, Cretz, and Chollet to Tunis to meet with Qadhafi envoys ‘to deliver a clear and firm message that the only way to move forward, is for Qadhafi to step down’.

Early August — HRC works to construct a $1.5 billion assets package to be approved by the Security Council and sent to the TNC. That package is working through its last hurdles.

Early August — After military chief Abdel Fattah Younes is killed, S sends a personal message to TNC head Jalil to press for a responsible investigation and a careful and inclusive approach to creating a new executive council

Early August — HRC secures written pledges from the TNC to an inclusive, pluralistic democratic transition. She continues to consult with European and Arab colleagues on the evolving situation.”

Hillary and her posse were not content to sit back and hope that others would recognize here “brilliant leadership.” Nope. They embarked on a full propaganda campaign to ensure that the media and the public got that message. Sid Blumenthal helped coordinate this effort and turned to fellow Hillary sycophant, Jamie Rubin, to help push the meme. His email to Hillary is dated 10 September 2011.

Jamie, using his position as an editor at Bloomberg News, published the following op-ed. Please note the shrewd and deceptive use of the media. Nowhere in this piece does Jamie disclose that he is a friend of Hillary’s and had provided previous encouragement to pursue this policy. I am sure that Jamie was feeling very smug about his insider role. The average reader, however, had no clue. They simply assumed that this was an objective journalist taking note of the magnificence of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In an email, Blumenthal passed on word to Clinton: ” Subject: H: Per our conversation. Jamie writes editorial… Sid

“http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-09-o8/hillary-clinton-deseryes-credit-for-the- positive-u-s-role-in-libya-yiew.html

Hillary Clinton Deserves Credit for U.S. Role in Libya:

View By the Editors –

Sep 7,2011

The unsung hero of the Libya drama in the U.S. is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s actions were critical for several reasons. Most important, she overcame Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s caution about using military force in Libya and his reluctance to support an operation led by France and Britain. Clinton also personally managed the unorthodox partnership with French President Nicolas Sarkozy that proved so crucial to joint action to defeat the Qaddafi regime.

Despite the unusual arrangement in which the U.S. was a supporter rather than a leader of NATO’s military operation, she defended intervention before a skeptical Congress and performed the hard slog of daily diplomacy around the world, helping Arab countries, the Europeans and the U.S. work together with a minimum of friction and a maximum of determination.

Aside from the killing of Osama bin Laden, the decision to support NATO military action in Libya is probably the Obama administration’s most important achievement in international affairs. Although Muammar Qaddafi is still at large and the country is a long way from having a stable, representative government, there is little doubt that the Qaddafi regime has been defeated as a result of an internal revolt led by the Transitional National Council.

History will surely judge that, by intervening on the side of the rebellion, the West — primarily the governments of France, the U.K. and the U.S. — made a unique and invaluable contribution to the democratic aspirations of the people of the Middle East. That said, the Obama administration’s decision-making process remains opaque. The veteran journalist Bob Woodward’s next book, due out in the fall 2012, may shed some light on the question of whose voices were decisive this past March, when President Barack Obama decided to support a United Nations resolution and a NATO military operation for Libya.

Based on our discussions with administration officials, as well as the public record, some preliminary conclusions about the decision are possible. First, while we argued for a more active U.S. military role in NATO’s operation, it is now clear that Obama’s unprecedented approach — in which Washington supported, rather than led, a NATO operation — was successful in the end.

Second, by breaking with Gates, Clinton tipped the balance within the administration in favor of action. Without her strong argument to support the Europeans’ call for American help, Washington probably would not have acted. The president’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, was declaring freedom in Libya to be outside the U.S. national interest, and both military and civilian officials in the Pentagon were reluctant to endorse or even opposed U.S. intervention. But Clinton’s push for the U.S. to act in support of Britain and France appears to have been decisive.

In retrospect, the fears of Gates and other military officials that action in Libya would be a slippery slope, perhaps leading to U.S. involvement on the ground in a third war in the Middle East, seem wildly overblown. Obama said the U.S. would play a limited role by offering unique military assets, such as aerial refueling and air-defense suppression capabilities. Congress not only opposed sending in ground troops but mostly opposed any U.S. involvement. Obama wisely resisted.

For better or worse, the Libya model is not likely to be repeated anytime soon. This is not, as some say, because NATO will never again intervene in a situation like Libya’s. After the Kosovo war, many also said NATO would never again act against a dictator to save lives.

The Libya model is no guide for the future because such a unique set of circumstances in favor of military action is not likely to happen again. Think about the conditions: A despised dictator threatened mass murder; an open desert provided a decisive advantage for air power; a rebel army on the ground sought democratic change and espoused Western values; the UN at least loosely endorsed NATO air operations; the Arab League called for the West to intervene militarily in an Arab country; and U.S. allies prepared to do all the heavy lifting. Given those circumstances, it is still hard to explain why there were determined opponents, primarily in the Republican Party, to this mission in the first place.

Throughout most of Obama’s term in office, only a few administration officials have commanded respect and political power on national security matters: Clinton, Gates and General David Petraeus, the most decorated and admired officer of recent times. With Gates now gone and Petraeus in a non-policy role as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton’s power will only increase as the president’s re-election campaign heats up. We hope she recognizes her opportunity and uses it well.”

Hillary told Sid the following in her email response to this op-ed: “It was very welcome and gave me reason to sit down and talk w Jamie who is such a good friend. Hope to talk soon–H”

This is how propaganda, press manipulation and lying to the public is manufactured in Washington, DC. Hillary and her crew, with the help of Jamie Rubin, pushed the meme that Hillary, not Obama, deserved the credit for the “success” in Libya.

Absolutely. Let her have it. Hang this festering turd of a policy around Hillary’s neck. To do so is only just. She is a power hungry thug who helped cause the deaths of thousands just to advance her own vile political ambitions.

Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department. [This article originally appeared at Larry Johnson’s blog No Quarter, http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79194/hillarys-responsibility-libyan-disaster/]

L’una soluzione negoziata tra Repubblica Popolare Cinese e Repubblica e Filippine sulla disputa territoriale per il possesso delle isole Spratly (conosciute come isole Nansha in Cina) appare possibile con il cambio di governo a Manila. Il presidente filippino uscente Benigno Aquino III e il segretario degli Esteri filippino Albert del Rosario, che hanno respinto i colloqui bilaterali con Pechino, terminavano il mandato il 30 giugno 2016 venendo sostituiti rispettivamente da Rodrigo Duterte a Palazzo Malacanhan e da Perfecto Yasay Jr. al dipartimento degli Esteri. Il nuovo governo filippino ha fatto diverse aperture sui colloqui bilaterali con Pechino e il ministro degli Esteri Yasay annunciava che un inviato speciale sarà nominato per i negoziati con la Cina.

I rapporti tra Filippine e Cina divennero tesi sotto il governo di Aquino III, riaprendo la disputa territoriale con la Cina e con entusiasmo rivitalizzando la presenza militare degli Stati Uniti nel sud-est asiatico. Nel 2011 fu deciso da Benigno Aquino d’indicare il Mar Cinese Meridionale come Mar delle Filippine occidentale per sottolineare le pretese delle Filippine. Il governo Aquino III avrebbe anche ridenominato il Mar Cinese Meridionale per legge con un ordine amministrativo nel 2012. Aggregando ulteriori relazioni l’amministrazione Aquino III avviava un’azione legale sulla controversia territoriale con la Cina alla Corte permanente di arbitrato olandese il 29 ottobre 2015.

Il 5 luglio 2016, la settimana prima della sentenza della Corte permanente di arbitrato del 12 luglio 2016, il presidente Duterte avanzava l’offerta di colloqui con la Cina. Mentre sicuramente utilizzerà la Corte permanente di arbitrato come leva nei colloqui bilaterali sino-filippini, Duterte sembra deciso a un accordo con la Cina. Queste proposte rientrano nelle promesse elettorali del 2016 nelle Filippine.

Durante la campagna presidenziale, il discorso di Duterte sulla Cina inviava segnali contrastanti, passando da linguaggio antagonista a conciliante. Indubbiamente era una tattica da politicante del presidente Duterte; alterare il discorso sulla Cina era una tattica politica volta ad avere sia il supporto dei filippini con atteggiamenti nazionalistici sulle isole Spratly, che degli influenti affaristi filippini, anche di etnia cinese, che vogliono pace, cooperazione economica e commerciale con una Cina in ascesa.

A livello internazionale, Duterte potrebbe aver inviato tatticamente segnali contrastanti per soddisfare Stati Uniti e Cina. Le sue osservazioni antagoniste compiacevano Washington mentre quelle concilianti avevano lo scopo di non alienarsi Pechino e di segnalare la disponibilità a colloqui. Nonostante le critiche a Pechino, ha sempre indicato di volere dialogare con la Cina. È interessante notare che Duterte è anche l’unico politico che nelle elezioni generali filippine del 2016 ha ammesso pubblicamente di aver parlato delle Isole Spratly con l’ambasciata USA a Manila.

Durante la campagna elettorale Duterte osservò che avrebbe cercato aiuto dai cinesi per costruire la rete ferroviaria filippina che colleghi Luzon e Mindanao, e che se la Cina accettava di sostenere il gigantesco progetto avrebbe posto fine alle critiche sulla disputa territoriale di Manila con Pechino. In altre parole, Duterte diceva che un suo futuro governo filippino avrebbe negoziato con la Cina in cambio di concessioni economiche o aiuti da Pechino.

Dopo che Duterte ha vinto le elezioni presidenziali, il tono verso la Cina è cambiato divenendo molto più temperato e cordiale. Prima ancora che Duterte diventasse ufficialmente presidente, ebbe un incontro con Zhao Jianhua, l’ambasciatore cinese nelle Filippine, il 16 maggio 2016. L’incontro fu simbolico perché l’ambasciatore Zhao era uno dei tre soli ambasciatori, gli altri due erano i rappresentanti diplomatici di Israele e Giappone, che Duterte aveva incontrato da aspirante presidente delle Filippine. Da quel momento Rodrigo Duterte avrebbe incontrato l’ambasciatore Zhao altre tre volte, anche il 7 luglio, qualche giorno prima della sentenza della Corte permanente di arbitrato.

Le rivendicazione di Pechino sul Mar Cinese Meridionale

Pechino sostiene che la Cina aveva la sovranità sulla zona da migliaia di anni. L’impero cinese della dinastia Ming controllava le coste occidentali adiacenti alla zona, quando il Vietnam faceva parte della Cina. Anche il Vietnam avanza richieste sulle isole Spratly (note come Quan Dao Truong Sa dai vietnamiti) e le isole Paracel (note come Xisha dai cinesi e come Hoàng Sa dai vietnamiti).

A sostegno della richiesta cinese vi è il fatto che il Giappone annesse l’area nel 1938 acquisendo Taiwan dalla Cina e che la Cina continentale governata dal Kuomintang rivendicò l’area nel 1947, in virtù della demarcazione della “linea tratteggiata undici,” mentre Malaysia e Brunei erano ancora colonie inglesi e il Vietnam colonia francese. Le Filippine ufficialmente divennero indipendenti dagli USA un anno prima della pretesa del Kuomintang nel 1946.

Vi sono importanti fatti storici e giuridici che dovrebbero essere considerati. Prima che gli Stati Uniti entrassero in guerra con i giapponesi, non fu mai messa in discussione l’annessione giapponese della zona come occupazione del territorio delle Filippine, quando erano controllate dagli Stati Uniti. Né le isole del Mar Cinese Meridionale furono incluse nel territorio filippino preso alla Spagna dagli Stati Uniti nel 1898. Fu solo con l’appoggio degli Stati Uniti nel 1970 che le Filippine avanzarono le prime rivendicazioni sulla zona.

Washington: terzo intruso

La Cina è interessata a stabilire ciò che Xi Jinping chiama “comunità di destino”. Pechino vuole cooperazione e commercio, non guerra o conflitto con le Filippine o qualsiasi altro Stato dell’Associazione delle Nazioni del Sudest Asiatico (ASEAN). Suo scopo principale è espandere la Via della Seta, via terra e via mare, sostenendo l’integrazione regionale e la prosperità economica. A questo proposito ha in più occasioni concesso un trattamento di favore e offerto condizioni commerciali vantaggiose ai Paesi aderenti all’ASEAN.

Come il presidente Duterte, il governo cinese ha indicato di essere pronto a negoziati diretti sulla disputa territoriale nel Mar Cinese Meridionale. La Cina ha anche dichiarato di essere disposta a condividere ricchezze e risorse dell’area con progetti di sviluppo comuni. Questo è ciò che Pechino ha descritto come “approccio sostenibile.” In cambio Pechino ha chiesto che Manila rifiuti la sentenza della Corte permanente di arbitrato, che influenzerà anche le rivendicazioni territoriali di Brunei, Malesia e Vietnam.

Nello scenario in cui le Filippine ottenessero il controllo del territorio conteso nel Mar Cinese Meridionale, Manila si volgerebbe a USA e alleati, come Giappone, Corea del Sud e Australia, per sviluppare la regione. Le Filippine non possono sviluppare o estrarre le risorse energetiche del territorio da sole. Le compagnie energetiche provenienti da Stati Uniti ed alleati otterrebbero trattamento preferenziale e profitto da petrolio e gas. In cambio le Filippine ne avrebbero uno scarso ritorno economico.

Ma anche in tale scenario, se non principale consumatore, la Cina sarebbe ancora uno dei principali consumatori di eventuali risorse energetiche estratte dal Mar Cinese Meridionale. Alla Cina potrebbe anche anche essere chiesto dalle Filippine di sviluppare le riserve di energia regionali. Dato che Pechino sarà il principale cliente, nelle Filippine ci si rende conto che sarebbe effettivamente più redditizio collaborare con la Cina allo sviluppo congiunto delle riserve energetiche regionali. Perciò alcuni nelle Filippine preferiscono i colloqui bilaterali. L’ostacolo principale ai colloqui tra Pechino e Manila, però, sono gli Stati Uniti.

Ciò che è in gioco nella zona contesa non sono solo le grandi quantità di idrocarburi in quello che in Cina chiamano “secondo Golfo Persico” energetico, la pesca e uno dei più importanti corridoi marittimi e rotte commerciali del mondo. Ma anche gli interessi per la sicurezza nazionale cinese sono fortemente legati al territorio. I rifornimenti commerciali ed energetici cinesi verrebbero interrotti se il traffico marittimo venisse bloccato nel Mar Cinese Meridionale, motivo per cui le forze armate statunitensi si sono fortemente dedicate ad essere presenti nella zona. In parte, ciò rientra nel “Pivot in Asia” di Washington.

Washington, che (a differenza di Pechino) si è rifiutata di firmare anche la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare, utilizza le Filippine come pretesto per un gioco sporco contro la Cina, solo perché vede Pechino come rivale strategico. Gli Stati Uniti intenzionalmente acuiscono le tensioni nel Mar Cinese Meridionale per giustificare la presenza navale statunitense a largo delle coste cinesi e la creazione di una rete di alleanze militari per circondare e fare pressione su Pechino. Usando diplomazia coercitiva, guerra economica, strategia della tensione e un duplice approccio confronto e cooperazione, gli Stati Uniti cercano di ridimensionare la Cina. Gli Stati Uniti fanno di tutto per creare un cuneo in Eurasia tra Cina e Federazione Russa.

Ironia della sorte, mentre demonizza la Cina come minaccia regionale, Washington invia messaggi contraddittori agli alleati regionali. Gli Stati Uniti diffamano Pechino mentre ordinano allo stesso tempo ai militari statunitensi di tenere esercitazioni militari multilaterali o bilaterali con i militari cinesi, come ad esempio l’esercitazione Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) (giugno-luglio 2016), l’esercitazione virtuale per il soccorso e l’assistenza umanitaria congiunta Cina-USA (novembre 2012) e l’esercitazione Cina-USA contro la pirateria nel Golfo di Aden (settembre 2012).

I leader regionali dovrebbero prendere atto del modus operandi degli Stati Uniti. I capi degli Stati Uniti non sono disposti a confrontarsi direttamente in Cina. Invece usano Paesi come le Filippine come pedine e gettoni per negoziar un patto od ostacolare una Cina sempre più assertiva ed economicamente prospera

Il professor Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya è sociologo e ricercatore associato del Centro per la Ricerca sulla Globalizzazione (CRG).

La ripubblicazione è gradita in riferimento alla rivista Strategic Culture Foundation, 11 luglio 2016.

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio.

Hardly a day goes by without news of a police killing.  And each time we hear from scholars and observers that the police is too militarized.   No doubt!

In 2014, I was flattered to have been approached by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Shasta Chapter to be their keynote speaker to address Government Secrecy, Drones, and Militarization.  After each police involved death, I would revisit my notes and wonder why I never published them.   After watching this video clip on my FB page on July 10, 2016, I decided to share an excerpt from the ACLU address of April 13, 2014.

(Of note, at the time of the talk, “Black Lives Matter” had not appeared on the national stage, nor had the training of police in Israel been fully exposed; as such, these very important factors were not included in the talk/excerpt below.  The following is simply talking points stringed together and lacks the flow and flare of academic writing.)

Historians and political scientists have warned us about  dangerous war fever sweeping the United States. Today we have gone beyond that.

The “Global War on Terror”, a war indefinite in duration, against an ill-defined and shifting enemy, al-Qaeda, [ISIS did not exist in the official narrative at the time] is now being armed in Syria [“moderates”] without a clear explanation of American strategy or a specific definition of victory, or even a way to measure progress in the struggle has taken its toll on civil liberty.  The problem of militarization poses a danger to the very character of American government and society.

In his first public interview after retiring from active duty in 2003, General Tommy Franks identified the single most dangerous possibility offered by an endless war on terrorism: An attack with weapons of mass destruction “just to create casualties … to terrify” could lead “the western world, the free world” to forfeit its “freedom and liberty,” to lose its democracy, and “begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty event, … to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”

Over half a century ago,  Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson concluded that  “by giving way to the passion, intolerance and suspicions of wartime, it is easy to reduce our liberties to a shadow, often in answer to exaggerated claims of security.”.

That day is here.  Not only are we under constant surveillance, but  take for example the kill list.  A list which began under the Bush administration as a rationale for murdering suspect citizens of countries with which the United States was not at war has become Obama’s kill list and the scope of the list has been expanded to include the execution, without due process of law, of U.S. citizens accused, without evidence presented in court, of association with terrorism. And this is accepted by the people. No protests.

The Framers of the Constitution recognized such dangers when they carefully subordinated the military to civilian authority and attempted to limit the power of the President to initiate war.

Gregory Foster, a former Army officer and West Point graduate who now teaches national security studies at the National Defense University in Washington said that principle of civilian control of the military—an early building block of American democracy-  has become the  civilian subjugation to the military.

Today, the degree to which  society’s institutions, policies, behavior, thought, and values are devoted to military power and shaped by war are alarming.

The incursion of military recruiters and teachings into the public school system is well known.  Presidents favor speaking to captive audiences at military bases, defense bases, and on aircraft carriers.  Lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending.   TV programs and video games like “NCIS,” “Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” demonstrate that Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas

Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged publicly in an October 24, 2003, interview in the Washington Times: “We are in a war of ideas, as well as a global war on terror. Ideas are important, and they need to be marshaled, and they need to be communicated in ways that are persuasive to the listeners.”

This was part of his Information Operations Roadmap.   As part of the plan,  public affairs officers were given the task of briefing journalists.  In 2005 it came to light that the Pentagon paid the Lincoln Group (a private company) to plant ‘hundreds of stories’ in Iraqi papers in support of U.S. Policies

But now, we see that this war has been internalized, whether you look at drones, kill list, or militarization of the police force.

During the Clinton administration, Congress passed what’s now known as the “1033 Program,” which formalized  Reagan administration’s directive to the Pentagon to share surplus military gear with domestic police agencies. Since then, millions of pieces of military equipment designed for use on a battlefield have been transferred to local cops—SWAT teams and others—including machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc.

The Pentagon’s 1033 program has exploded under Obama.

Bill Clinton also created the “Troops to Cops” program which offered grants to police departments who hired soldiers returning from battle, contributing even further to the militarization of the police force.

In a 2005 PBS documentary, David Grossman, a retired US Army Lt. Colonel spoke of training law enforcement groups worldwise to kill: “most of what I do is I train military and law enforcement in what I call the bulletproof mind.” “Prior preparation is that one variable in the equation that we can control ahead of time, and one of the key things is embracing the responsibility to kill.  So when I teach, one of the things I believe we need to do is embrace this word “kill.””

Is it any wonder that [Mayor] Bloomberg proudly bragged of “hav(ing) my own army in the NYPD” and who used that army to spy on peaceful Occupy Wall Street protestors?

And what of “to protect and to serve”?

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.  

We’ve noted for more than 5 years that the European crisis would spread in the following order … more or less:

Greece → Ireland → Portugal → Spain → Italy → UK

We also warned that the EU’s approach to economic problems in the periphery would lead the cancer to spread to the core. For example, we’ve repeatedly warned that:

• Bailing out the big European banks would just transfer the risk to the people

• Propping up stocks and asset prices won’t get Europe out of the crisis

• Covering up fraud by the European banks would sink the economy

Now, the IMF is forecasting that Italy could be in recession for two decades … and that it’s weakness could spread to the rest of the system.

Britain is – of course -in trouble.  But it’s not just Brexit …

Europe has been stuck in a downturn worse than the Great Depression for years.  The former Bank of England head Mervyn King said recently that the “depression” in Europe “has happened almost as a deliberate act of policy”. Specifically, King said that the formation of the European Union has doomed Europe to economic malaise.

He points out that Greece is experiencing “a depression deeper than the United States experienced in the 1930s”.

(Indeed, some say that the UK was smart to get out while it could.)

Even Germany’s largest bank, and the bank with the highest exposure to derivatives anywhere in the world – Deutsche Bank – is in big trouble.

Here’s its stock price:

And here’s its market capitalization:

In May, Moody’s downgraded Deutsche to a mere 2 notches above junk.

And credit default swaps – bets that a company is in risk of failing – against Deutsche have absolutely skyrocketed:

Deutsche Bank’s chief economist just said:

Europe is extremely sick and must start dealing with its problems extremely quickly, or else there may be an accident.

He’s calling for a $166 billion dollar bailout of European banks.

Similarly:

BlackRock Inc. Vice Chairman Philipp Hildebrand said earlier this month the European Commission should allow governments to take temporary equity stakes in their banks, similar to what the U.S. did with its Troubled Asset Relief Program during the 2008 crisis.

Europe has made bad choices since the 2008 crisis … so Europe’s economic crisis has spread from the periphery to the core.

That’s the first thing that comes to my mind when I remember my week on Kos earlier this summer. One week is clearly not a long time, but it was more than enough time to see that there has been no let up in the authority’s on going cruel behaviour towards all the refugees and migrants on the island. I read in the online newsnet of a popular swiss newspaper „Tagesanzeiger“ (Tagensanzeiger.ch/newsnet vom 30.10.2015), that even a middle-right-wing politician from Switzerland was able to recognise that the circumstances on the Greek island of Kos are deliberately made and wanted by the local politicians and state authorities. Deterrence, as they keep saying is necessary… it is the endless mantra you hear from the Greek state.

The Hotspot 

The hotspot on Kos is located outside of a small village called Pili which is about 15km out of Kos town. From the village there is a dusty road to the Camp. It is out in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by a high fence with a lot of nato-barbed wire…that’s the type with the razor blades…The people inside the Hotspot are allowed to go out, but no one besides UNCHR and Praksis ( a Greek NGO) have permission to enter the camp.

For the refugees and migrants it is unusual for a family to make a walk to the village for example, because they don’t have keys for their cabins and so they can not lock the doors. A friend from Syria who we met on the road to the camp, told us, that one day she asked one of the police guards at the entrance to give her the key for her family’s cabin, because there had been some thefts. Her family wanted go out of the camp together, like families do but they were scared to leave their belongings in an unlocked cabin. The answer of the policeman was no. And the reason for the no, was that he said ‘you will loose the key, and than I will have to pay 50 Euros to get another’. It was not enough that the policeman was treating her like a small kid. For even when our friend offered to sign an official paper that she would take full responsibility in case she lost the key, the answer was still no.

We wanted to visit this friend in the camp or at least in front of the entrance so that we could talk together. Our journey to the hotspot started with us asking locals where it is and how we can get there. They looked at us like we came from a different planet. Like why for god’s sake do you want to go there? Anyway, when we arrived at the camp, there was a policeman who told us to wait. He left and when he didn’t come back after 10 minutes one of us walked further up the road to ask at the main entrance. When my friend got to about 50 metres before the gates to the camp, there was a policeman who asked her not who she is, but what she is, thinking she has permission to come there. She replied that she is a human being and that she wants to visit a friend who was inside the camp. This was reason enough for another policeman to start shouting at her: ‘Go! Go away!’ My friend was coming back to us and the shouting policeman followed her in a car. In the meantime another friend and I, were just standing around in front of the fence. When the policeman saw this he continued shouting ‘go away’. I told him in a friendly way that it would be nice, if he could speak more kindly to us. Unfortunately this appeared to be impossible for him and he began to shout out his orders to me like ‘show me your passport! Tell me where you are from? What is your name?’ And so on. I decided not to show him my passport, because his only reason for this demand was ‘because I am a policeman“. I told him in a friendly way that this was not a good reason. Inevitably he then began to yell at one of my friends who was standing next to me. He is a refugee, and that’s why we needed to leave after I had told the policeman that it would be better for him if he looked for another job as he seemed unable to deal calmly with situations like this.

We finally met our friend from Syria in the middle of the route back to the town out in middle of nowhere.

The Food Situation 

The refugees and migrants inside of the hotspot are not allowed to handle any food by themselves. There is one woman, hired by the authorities, who is running the kitchen of the camp. As our friend told us, the food is often burnt and unfit for human consumption. Now, during Ramadan, the kitchen is not making any kind of arrangements for the people fasting. They distribute the food only once and when the sun is going down it is all cold, every day. One day, someone from Pili brought some special food for the fasting people to eat after sunset. The woman who runs the kitchen took all of it and our Syrian friend was complaining again and again, that it is not OK to steal the food which was specially brought for Ramadan. It was 2 days before she gave some of this food to the residents of the camp. Our friend also told us, that it is completely arbitrary who gets clothes or shoes from the hotspot warehouse. In the warehouse they have a lot of donated hygiene products, but the residents only get given a small bottle of shampoo, lotion or whatever which is needed for personal hygiene. Of course, people can buy their own stuff, if they have any money at all…

Painting from a Syrian refugee in the Kos hotspot, June 2016

Medical Care 

If you look from outside of the village to the hotspot you can see a huge white caravan inside the camp, on a hill. It is a real eye catcher, because there is a huge red cross on it. When I ask my Syrian friend how the medical care is working, she responded with a sad smile, ‘it is only a caravan, there is no medical-staff working at all…’.

If someone needs medical care, they must go to a doctor in Kos town. If it turns out, that they need special medical care, the doctor writes a medical certificate recommending that they need to go to Athens. It was like that, our Syrian friend told us, with a little child in the camp. The parents went to the police with the medical certificate, to be told by the police, that they are not allowed to travel, and anyway that the kid is fine. Do policeman in Greece have a high medical education as well? Or is it just more negligence which characterises the whole system?

Women and child protection 

In the hotspot all the residents are mixed. That means, that unaccompanied women, families, kids and single men are not separated. For all the refugees and migrants coming from Muslim majority societies where gender separation informs much of daily life and arrangements this is problematic. Women in particular, but also men find this mixing uncomfortable. But when we consider the situation inside the camp it poses a huge problem. People are bored, people don’t have any idea about their future life, they are not allowed to do anything, most of them don’t have any money left, are often traumatized from their escape or by war, and so on and so on. When we are aware of all these circumstances, it is not that hard to guess, that it could be difficult. Our friends in the camp were especially alarmed when some of the men started drinking alcohol which led to really inappropriate behaviour or even worse against women and children. Some of the family members went to the police, who are always around in the camp, to ask them for help in this situation. The answer of the police was: ‘Not our problem’. Abandoned and ignored yet again.

Our friend was not even allowed to take her young niece outside the camp, even when she showed the police, that she has the same family name as her niece. It was only possible, when the father and her brother, came to the gate, to prove that she is his sister and the kid’s aunt. The policeman said that he will allow it for one time only, but in the future, only her father can take her outside of the camp…

Our Syrian friend told us, that her only wish she has for her, her family and all the other refugees is, that someone is telling the world what is happening on Kos and on many of the other Greek islands at this time.

Police station in Kos Town

We came to Kos from Switzerland to help a refugee from Syria who was in prison there because he had been caught trying to travel without papers. We had met him earlier in Samos and then in Athens and he had become a friend. We wanted to support him with a lawyer and to get him out of prison. By the time we arrived, the police in the main police station in Kos town had finally decided to let him out. They told him to leave the island quickly, but how this could happen when he did not have papers nor money? As ever the police told him that this was not their problem.

We also wanted to visit the other refugees and migrants in the cell in the main police station in Kos town. When I walked into the station to request that I would like to see the prisoners, the police woman at the desk told me that ‘there are no prisoners here’. It was clear that she was lying straight in to my face. Even when I asked her again, that I wanted to visit the prisoners inside and that I know that there are some including a few who had already been in for month, she told me the same lie. The police woman then started yelling at me and asked me if I don’t understand. She said that people are held in the cell for just one day, then they are transferred to the hotspot. It was a very weird situation, because our friend who had just got out from prison had told us a lot about the horrible conditions inside and how many were held for weeks at a time. There are between 5 to 10 men in a cell with one hole in the floor as a toilet. He said they were not allowed their mobile phones, they had no privacy, the food was disgusting and they experienced inhumane and disparaging treatment by the police. For example, our friend told us that the most of the police address the prisoners inside only as « malacca » which means asshole.

The second time we went to the police station to visit the inmates, at least the policeman behind the desk did not lie, but he told us to leave in rough way. Two of us went behind the building to see the window where the people are in the cell and where some of them were waving and shouting. The policeman jumped up from his chair very quickly so we needed to leave, so not to put our Syrian friend in danger.

Our experiences have been very clear; that the actions by the police on Kos are totally arbitrary and their only concern is to show their power. They are rude, unfriendly and seem to deal with any attempt to show solidarity by shouting and yelling.

A Hotel for refugees and migrants 

In the centre of Kos town there is a hotel, run by UNHCR for refugees and migrants. People with special needs, illness, trauma or unaccompanied pregnant women with small kids are housed in this hotel. We met many wonderful refugees there and the hospitality they showed us in their small hotel rooms was really overwhelming. We spent a few hours with two families from Syria and a funny 17 year old boy.

One of the women who had escaped from Syria with her sister and her husband told us, that her sister has epilepsy. She and her husband are taking care of her, but a few days ago her sister tried to jump from the balcony on the 3rd floor of the hotel. It was clear to see that the woman was desperate and really afraid about what happened to her sister. She went to he UNHCR to ask for psychological support for her sister, but the only thing they told her was: ‘sorry, but we cannot do anything for you’. Seriously? The refugee agency of the UN cannot do anything? If not them, then who?

Conclusions

We came for a week but in those 7 days we yet again confronted the same cruelties we had seen before in Samos and in Athens. We saw police who were totally unsuited for working with vulnerable people, we saw agencies like UNCHR whose contributions were so limited and seemed incapable of offering what was needed. And we met refugees and migrants who despite all these humiliations struggled to stay sane and human and who showed us kindness and friendship which stood in the starkest contrast to the authorities. They knew they could expect little or nothing from the system and placed much hope in ordinary people who they thought could help if only they knew what was going on. Sadly, we are not so sure…….

Luisa Weber is a refugee activist based in Switzerland and worked  in the ‘Open Eyes Balkan Route Kitchen in Samos in 2016.

A quick Google news search for “Theresa May and “Abu Qatada” reveals over 2,000 mainstream media articles in the last three days combining both. This is hardly surprising, as in her speech announcing her candidacy for Tory leader (and thus PM) May dwelt on her deportation of Abu Qatada as evidence she was qualified for the job. The May supporting Tory MP who was put up for Sky to interview immediately afterwards managed to say “Abu Qatada” three times in a two minute interview.

Abu Qatada should indeed be a powerful symbol – but not the symbol he has become, a hate figure. He should rather be a symbol of the hate-filled and intolerant place Britain has become, and the dreadful injustice meted out to individuals both by the state and the media.

Abu Qatada spent, over a thirteen year period, a total of nine years in jail in England despite never being charged with any crime. It is not just that he was not convicted. He was never charged. Nine years, think about it. In all that time, neither he nor his lawyers were ever permitted to see the accusations or evidence against him.

Britain has draconian anti-terrorism laws that would make a dictatorship blush. It is an offence to “glorify” terrorism. It is specifically “terrorism” for me to write, here and now, that Nelson Mandela was justified in supporting the bombing campaign that got him arrested. I just knowingly committed “glorifying terrorism” under British law. It is specifically “terrorism” to deface the property in the UK of a foreign state with a political motive. If I spray “Gay Pride” on the Saudi embassy, that is terrorism. We also have secret courts, where “terrorists” can be convicted without ever seeing the “intelligence-based” evidence against them. We have convicted young idiots for discussing terror fantasies online. We have convicted a wife who “must have known” what her husband was doing (at least that one was overturned on appeal).

Yet even with the bar so low it is resting on the ground, from his first arrest in 2001 to his deportation in 2013, through innumerable arrests, police interviews, wiretaps, computer seizures and searches, no evidence against Abu Qatada was ever found which would stand up in court. It is worth noting that if almost any of the vast number of accusations the tabloids made against him had been true, for example if he had actually said in sermons the things he was stated to have said in the UK press, he could have been charged and convicted. But investigation by the police and security services found every single one of these claims to be false.

It is true that Theresa May did succeed in deporting him. To Jordan, where he faced charges of association with terrorist groups. In two trials, one before a military tribunal, Abu Qatada was found not guilty of association with terrorism and all other charges. It should be very plainly understood that the Jordanian monarchy is no friend at all to Palestinian salafist clerics like Abu Qatada, and he had good reason to fear being deported there. But even they found that the evidence Abu Qatada is a terrorist does not exist.

Now I have never met him, though I have met his lawyers and doctor. Abu Qatada holds views with which I do not agree; I dislike the bigoted in any religion. But his main crime appears to have been to be a Palestinian cleric with a perfect comic opera appearance for the right wing media to make up quotes and hate stories around.

This picture is taken from a hilarious Daily Telegraph article in which that author complains that Abu Qatada had “fooled us again” – by the dastardly expedient of not actually committing any crimes.

So if you are proud of a world in which people against whom there is not one shred of court-worthy evidence, who have never been charged, can be detained for nine years and then deported, vote for Theresa May as PM. I expect the Tories will, happily.

Abu Qatada should indeed be a symbol. He should be a symbol of the deepest national disgrace of unjustified imprisonment and of the foul place the United Kingdom has become under successive far right Labour and Tory governments. And I say far right with deliberation. In what other kind of country could the story of Abu Qatada happen?

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and was critical of intelligence linking the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan to al-Qaeda and stated it was unreliable, immoral and illegal, as it was thought to have been obtained through torture. He described this as “selling our souls for dross”. He was subsequently removed from his ambassadorial post. Go to Craig’s website HERE

If you’ve ever wondered why corporations seem to hold so much sway over our government, look no further than who’s making all the decisions in Washington – and more importantly, where many of these people worked before being handed comfy, high-level positions at top government agencies.

You might be surprised at the number of senior advisors, chiefs of staff, judges, commissioners and others employed at agencies like the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who all have one thing in common: they used to hold executive-level positions at multinational corporations like Monsanto.The infographic below depicts a revolving-door relationship between Monsanto and the federal government that dates back many decades. You’ll probably recognize many of the names on the list, but chances are you had no idea these folks used to work for Monsanto or advocate for its interests before taking key positions of power on the taxpayer dime.

Both conservative and liberal politicians share history of affiliation with Monsanto

Donald Rumsfeld is one of the more prominent names that probably jumps out at you, as this former Secretary of Defense under both Gerald Ford and George W. Bush is remembered as one of the key Bush administration warmongers who helped propel forward the “War on Terror” following 9/11. Rumsfeld also just so happens to have been a former CEO for G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company that has since merged with Monsanto.

Another prominent, and probably surprising, name on the list is Clarence Thomas, a U.S. Supreme Court justice who many conservatives respect for his supposedly far-right stances on most issues. Thomas is a former lawyer for Monsanto who cast the deciding vote to hand the contested 2000 election over to George W. Bush.

Michael Taylor, who recently resigned from his position as deputy commissioner of the FDA, is another former attorney for Monsanto who fought on behalf of the company’s interests for seven years. Taylor also served as head of Monsanto’s Washington, D.C., office, an obvious conflict of interest considering the FDA’s job is to regulate the activities of corporations like Monsanto.

The very first Chief Administrator for the EPA, William D. Ruckelshaus, is another Monsanto hack who served on the company’s Board of Directors. Ruckelshaus, who was appointed back in 1970, later went on to become the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and even held the position of Deputy U.S. Attorney General.

The EPA, as you probably already know, has a reputation for being lax in regulating chemicals manufactured by large corporations, and now you know why – from the beginning, the agency was steered by Monsanto operatives to push a very different agenda than environmental protection.

Described by a former associate as “hard as nails,” perhaps Theresa May is the second “iron lady of the Western World” designate, what former prime minister Margaret Thatcher once called herself.

Separately, she defiantly said

“(t)o those waiting with bated breath for that favorite media catchphrase, the ‘U’ turn, I have only one thing to say. You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”

On Monday, Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation effective Wednesday, saying it’s “clear (Home Secretary) Theresa May overwhelming (has Tory) support (to become Britain’s) next prime minister.”

“And so…(o)n Wednesday, I will…go to the Palace and offer my resignation, so we will have a new prime minister…by Wednesday evening” – a change of heart after Cameron earlier announced he’d step down at the party’s October convention.

May now becomes UK prime minister designate – current home secretary since 2010, Maidenhead MP since 1997, former Conservative party chairman, House of Commons shadow leader, as well as active in other shadow ministerial roles.

After leading candidate to succeed Cameron, former London mayor Boris Johnson, pulled out of contention, May emerged as Tory leadership frontrunner.

From 1977 to 1983, she worked for the Bank of England – from 1985 to 1997 serving as an Association for Payment Clearing Services International Affairs financial consultant and senior advisor.

On Wednesday, she’ll become Britain’s second female prime minister, Binoy Kampmark earlier remarking she did “her invaluable bit to undermine privacy on the pretext of protecting security.”

She’s tough on immigration, favoring closed, not open borders – certain to continue partnering with Washington’s imperial wars.

Portraying herself as a unity leader stands in stark contrast to Labour MP Angela Eagle describing the political scene as “dangerous times for our country.”

Watch what May does, not what she says. Be dubious about her blustering “Brexit means Brexit, and we’re going to make a success of it.”

“There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU. There will be no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, no second referendum.”

“I will make sure that we leave the European Union.” What monied interests on both sides of the Atlantic want she’ll deliver, likely manipulating public sentiment to reject what was previously approved.

Delaying initiating the Brexit process by invoking Lisbon Treaty Article 50 until yearend begins the manipulative process to exert political over popular will.

It remains to be seen how May governs overall. Given Britain’s deplorable history since 1980s Thatcherism, reason for encouragement is absent. Dirty business as usual remains triumphant.

By mid-week, Britain will have a new prime minister, likely no different from the deplorable current one.

The Great Barrier Reef was a key talking point in the run up to Australia’s federal election as politicians promised billions to improve water quality, whilst talking down coral bleaching and report rigging. Ecologist writer, Maxine Newlands, reports…

Anyone planning a visit to Kuwait later this year may be in for a shock when they find they’ll have to give the government not just their passport, but also their DNA. A 2015 law requiring all citizens, residents and visitors to provide DNA to the government’s database will go into effect later this summer, according to Kuwaiti officials, making the small Gulf nation the first country in the world to legislate mandatory DNA collection.

The $400 million database will store the DNA samples of at least 3.3 million people—a mandate that international privacy and legal analysts are concerned is excessively broad.

“No other country in the world wants to include everyone,” said Barbara Prainsack, a professor of social science at King’s College London and an expert in bioethics and genetics. “This is a very significant step that has never been taken before.”

Almost everywhere else in the world, those who aren’t suspected criminals, terrorists or government employees are generally excepted from biometric data collection of this nature.

“A universal database would not hold in the case of human rights litigation because the idea that you could at some point commit a terrorist act would not be seen as proportional to the right to privacy,” Prainsack said.

Such indiscriminate collection violates the international standards for privacy established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Kuwait ratified. The covenant requires DNA databases to be extensively regulated and proportionately narrow in scope.

In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that broad collections of non-criminal DNA likewise violated an individual’s right to privacy. The decision affected collection procedures in the United Kingdom, which had previously retained fingerprints and DNA from suspects not charged of any crime indefinitely.

Helen Wallace, the director of GeneWatch, a U.K.-based advocacy group, called the database “out of step” with an emerging human rights consensus that has emphasized narrowing DNA collections. The U.K. government, Wallace noted, destroyed millions of samples in its database after the 2008 ruling.

Kuwaiti authorities have not clarified the details of how they plan to implement the DNA database, according to several human rights advocates. The law forbids refusing or falsifying one’s DNA sample, but safeguards about how individual samples will be shared, stored and processed have not been made public.

“The law says that for anyone working with DNA improperly there will be criminal fines and potential prosecution,” Belkis Wille, Human Rights Watch’s Kuwait researcher, explained. “But that doesn’t get at the heart of the bigger issues, which are who gets access to the data and why. Judicial oversight is also currently not in the law as it been written.”

In response to a May 2015 ISIS suicide bombing in the country’s capital, the Kuwait National Assembly passed the mandatory DNA collection legislation as a counterterrorism measure that June. Kuwaiti officials told the Kuwait Times that the database would not only solve crimes more quickly in the case of terrorist acts, but also help to identify bodies in natural disasters.

But genetic experts, researchers and civil rights advocates fear that the government might expand the uses of the database beyond its original purpose—a concern known as “function creep.” In response to fears that the database might be used to reveal sensitive information about health or paternity, senior officials said that “the test is not done to diagnose any disease or obtain medical information because such information is part of individuals’ privacy and the law bans access to it.”

Bioethics advocacy organizations like GeneWatch have also raised concerns that DNA databases could be used to track individuals at scenes of protest, especially in regimes where freedom of speech is restricted. “Totalitarian regimes have often tried to build databases on all citizens to develop targets that they’d like to discriminate against,” Wallace said.

Wafa Ben Hassine, a legal analyst and former fellow with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the information revealed by DNA could further be “used to discriminate against people who are non-citizens.” In particular, human rights advocates fear that the database could be used to exclude the country’s stateless Bidoon population, which numbers around 100,000. Nationwide DNA testing could be used to establish genealogical markers of ancestry that would exclude Bidoon claims to citizenship. “People are worried this law is being said to fight terrorism, but is actually trying to eliminate as many bids for nationality as possible,” Willes explained.

The unprecedented scope of Kuwait’s plans, however, may make their implementation difficult. As databases increase in size, so do the potentials for false matches. Massive databases may actually prove less efficient in the case of terrorism, by increasing the amount of time spent on an investigation and possibly resulting in miscarriages of justice, according to Wallace.

Building such a massive database also takes time. Willes said that it appears “unlikely” that the program will be implemented in the summer timeframe suggested by authorities.

When Humans Rights Watch officials met with Kuwaiti officials in February, delegates from Kuwait had just returned from Washington where they had discussed managing their database with the FBI, Willes said. “The result of that trip,” she said, “was U.S. officials telling this Kuwaiti delegation they had no idea how you would manage something like this on a national level.”

The U.S. government has no doubt set an example: the FBI currently houses the world’s largest biometric database, storing DNA, fingerprints and other identifiers from a range of criminal and civilian settings. The U.S. also collects biometric information from travelers at national and international customs, which can be shared across federal and state law enforcement agencies.

Kuwaiti officials, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment, told the Kuwait Times in January that their database would be “at par” with those in the U.S. and the U.K. If all goes as planned, they may even exceed the FBI’s capacious precedent.

The Warsaw NATO summit brought us many things. From another Obama hotel workout, including some nifty pink headphones, to more Russia is evil fear mongering, as NATO members continued to echo their undying support for a bankrupt, neo-nazi infested Ukraine…that no one really wants to touch.

What the NATO summit did bring the world, more than anything else, was the admission that NATO and the European Union will become one and the same.

OK so it was not exactly stated in such a fashion, but we all got the hint. It was telegraphed to us by Mr. NATO himself, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, when he said,

“It is a very successful summit because it is a summit with a lot of substance, and it is historic because it is a summit that takes place at a decisive time for our security…This summit is important because…[it] reflects that we are bringing the NATO-EU cooperation to a new level, and that is important for NATO, it’s important for the European Union and it’s important for all the people living in Europe and North America.”

The two behemoth super structures will begin their honeymoon period focusing on two issues together…cyber threats and EU migration.

The European Union and Nato said in a joint declaration that they will seek to expand their co-operation in responding to cyber threats and organise parallel and co-ordinated exercises starting early next year.

Remember that NATO, just a few months back, declared that a cyber attack on one member state would be seen as an attack on the alliance, and warrant a military response. All of this was later followed by a never ending media blitz on how Russian hackers were stealing everything under the sun (and in Hillary’s server basement), up until Guccifer 2.0 debunked the entire charade.

Likewise NATO declared that it is ready to use its military capabilities to help the European Union cope with the migrant influx.

Sputnik News has more on NATO’s migrant helping hand…

The European Union is currently struggling to manage a massive refugee crisis with hundreds of thousands of people leaving conflict-torn countries in the Middle East and North Africa to escape violence and poverty and seek asylum in Europe.

“What can NATO do about migration? Migration is a big challenge for the European Union and the European society. What is NATO as a military alliance has to contribute to that? And I think we have large military capabilities that could be applied alongside mainly the EU, which has the lead here, not supplant the EU, not to take over the job, but simply compliment the EU. And I think on Saturday you will hear some announcements of how NATO can get into that effort alongside the EU as a complimentary force,” Doug E. Lute said at the 2016 NATO Future Leaders Summit in Warsaw.

NATO is set to help remedy a migrant issue that they so handily created in the Middle East and North Africa, with their bombs, away no-fly zones, that removed stable leaders of stable countries, in exchange for chaos and tribal state conflicts.

We are sure that the NATO – EU super state will be a success. How could it not be…with the track record these two organisations have going for them.

In the wake of the NATO summit in Warsaw, western once again misinforms and mischaracterizes in the public forum. One headline speaks for all, “The Nato summit might just make Vladimir Putin think again”, via The Telegraph is all wrong, a partial truth to observe.

US President Barack Obama has put European satraps to good use once again. Acting tough, putting forth a supposed “united front” against the every mythical aggression of Putin, this hyperbole has been with us now some years. Only this time Mr. Obama and his little EU puppets betrayed the reality of America’s and Britain’s war on Russia. The Telegraph article, by Charles Crawford, one of Her Majesty’s former diplomats, is emblematic of the west’s psychotic drumbeating. The former diplomat, who now pecks out diatribe for the likes of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and other obviously subversive media, sums up Warsaw with this:

“If you want to play tough, we Nato folks can play tough too. We’re not as confused and divided as we look! Therefore what? Why not get back to all that dull dialogue?”

I am not sure I have ever heard anyone (even the criminally disturbed) refer to themselves as “NATO folks”. This slippage reminds me of something Barack Obama would chide over the teleprompter. No doubt Crawford must have identified with “We had to torture some folks”, back when Her Majesty was interested in busting up Yugoslavia. But that is another tale worth telling later on. The focus today should be on what really took place in Warsaw. And Putin and Russia running scared in the face of a notoriously inept NATO is not the moral of this story.

If Vladimir Putin is scared at all, if Russians have the slightest concern over NATO’s new battalions stationed in Estonia and elsewhere. Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg called the Warsaw decisions the “biggest reinforcement of Nato’s collective defense since the Cold War,” and with some idiotic pride, I might add. For those of you out there thinking though, Putin and Russia are afraid for the hapless soldiers Obama and the Brussels idiots have painted targets onto! Are you reading me now?

Romania has a big, red, bullseye painted onto the Aegis land based ABM system Obama just installed there. Poland gets one too, and Putin warned of consequences to these omni-strike weapons systems. But the real tragedy in all this misguidance from Washington is laser sighted onto those men and women in combat boots, on the ground at the borders of Russia. For the obtuse among you, Putin’s worry now is being forced to kill soldiers from tiny nations that might not even present a danger to Russia at all. NATO is putting hostages in front of the second most powerful military in the world, and daring the Russians to retaliate at all. This is the act of cowards, and I speak for veterans of a score of wars. Putin is accused of perpetuating “asymmetric warfare” on Eastern Europe already, but it is Washington and Brussels actually engaged in unconventional attacks.

American citizens, or even those in France and Germany, sit comfortably far away from Moscow. Comfortably, that is, as long as Russia does not mobilize fully as in World War II. Four battalions, under the leadership of US, UK, and German commands will reinforce Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on a rotational basis. Romanian and Bulgarian troops will lead Black Sea contingencies, and nations from Canada to the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have pledged token forces. Given the capabilities of the Russian military at present, one can only envision these forces as I have suggested, as multinational hostages of America, held out in front of an increasingly desperate new imperialism.

Lastly, the official NATO announcement from these Warsaw meetings absolutely brands leadership as liars. This is strong language, I know, but look at how the Romania ABM site was billed initially. Supposedly, the land based Aegis facility was sold to the Romanians and the world as a deterrent to non-existent Iranian ballistic missiles! According to the NATO pages, leaders also decided to declare Initial Operational Capability of NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defence. Stoltenberg bills the ABM capability now, as a package deal with the Baltics capabilities:

“This means that the US ships based in Spain, the radar in Turkey, and the interceptor site in Romania are now able to work together under NATO command and NATO control.”

The victims of any mix-up in western geo-strategy now in place, now we all see the warmongering psychopaths emerge triumphant. The war of wit versus the witless edges closer, to a real cataclysm only a sociopath could welcome. The west pokes steel bayonets disguised as the flowers of democracy at Moscow, and Putin’s rescue of Crimea is used as the rationale for war. America invades the world, twists arms, detains and snuffs out anyone in the way, and then pretends to ride the white horse.

The reality of this Warsaw summit is ludicrous. The people of Europe duped and betrayed again, but fascists and imperialists reincarnated. I hope when the war starts, some alien on another planet remembers some Earthlings tried to stop it. I know God knows.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

A recent report from the National Academy of Science of The United States, titled “Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values,” warns:

One possible goal of release of a gene-drive modified organism is to cause the extinction of the target species or a drastic reduction in its abundance.

Gene Drives have been called “mutagenic chain reactions,” and are to the biological world what chain reactions are to the nuclear world. The Guardian describes Gene Drives as the “gene bomb.”

The project of deliberately exterminating species is a crime against nature and humanity.

Kevin Esvelt of MIT exclaims “a release anywhere is likely to be a release everywhere,” and asks “Do you really have the right to run an experiment where if you screw up, it affects the whole world.” The NAS report cites the case of wiping out amaranth as an example of “potential benefit.” Yet, the “magical technology” of Gene Drives remains a Ghost, or the Department of Defense of the United States Government’s secret “weapon” to continue its War on Amaranthus Culturis.

“Amaranth, Amaranto, love-lies-bleeding, tassel flower, Joseph’s coat, or ramdana (gods own grain) is the grain of well-being,” Shiva writes. (Photo: Elizabeth Weller/flickr/cc)

The aforementioned study on ghost-tech was sponsored by DARPA (The Pentagon’s Research Ghost) and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (The ghost of the Microsoft Monopoly). DARPA has been busy. Interestingly, Microsoft BASIC was developed on a DARPA Supercomputer across the street from MIT, at Harvard. Where does DARPA end and MIT start? Where does Microsoft end and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation start. The orientation of our technologies has been dictated by the DARPA-Mind, a Mechanical Mind trained in War, and Gates continues to colonize meaning, just as gates had done to our lands, and the Green Revolution has done to our food.

Our planet has evolved, in balance, creating balance, for 4.6 billion years. Homo sapiens emerged around 200,000 years ago. About 10,000 years ago, Peasants developed the selection and breeding of seeds and domesticated agriculture began. Human creativity combined with nature to provide the abundance that allowed the evolution of societies and species. Humanity and Nature renewed each other, sustaining civilisation and providing the potential for the Industrial Revolution.

75 years ago DARPA-Mind began its Extermination Experiment, and sent humanity off-axis. The Chemicals, Materials, and Technologies acquired during “The War”, and patented (interestingly, the Internal Combustion Engine Patent belongs to Texaco), were forced on Amaranthus Culturis – The Cultures of Living Cycles. DARPA-Mind called it “The Green Revolution”, colonised the meanings of those two words, and began Stockpiling Chemicals of War in Our Fields; there is nothing “green” or “revolutionary” about Extermination, it must be a secret service code name for the assault that now has the names “Gene Drives”, “CRISPR”, or more accurately, Genetic Engineering.

CASE STUDY 6: CONTROLLING PALMER AMARANTH TO INCREASE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY

Objective

Create gene drives in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri also called pigweed), to reduce or eliminate the weed on agricultural fields in the Southern United States.

Rationale

Palmer amaranth infests agricultural fields throughout the American South. It has evolved resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, the world’s most used herbicide (Powles, 2008), and this resistance has becomegeographically widespread.”

Amaranth, Amaranto, love-lies-bleeding, tassel flower, Joseph’s coat, or ramdana (gods own grain) is the grain of well-being.

Palmer Amaranth has emerged as one of the superweeds. Instead of seeing the emergence of Palmer Amaranth as a superweed, as a result of the failure of the misguided approach of Herbicide Resistant GMOs, Monsanto & Co – which includes investors, scientists, corporations, DARPA, and Gates, are now rushing to drive the Amaranth species to extinction through the deployment of an untested Tool. The tool of gene editing and gene drives – genetic “Copy-Paste”. Untested DARPAMind Tools have real impacts on our world. Intelligence requires that we stop, and assess why the tool of GMOs is creating superweeds, instead of controlling weeds, as it promised. Such assessment is real Science.

The DARPA-Mind report casually states potential harm:

Gene drives developed for agricultural purposes could also have adverse effects on human well- being. Transfer of a suppression drive to a non-target wild species could have both adverse environmental outcomes and harmful effects on vegetable crops, for example. Palmer amaranth in Case Study 6 is a damaging weed in the United States, but related Amaranthus species are cultivated for food in in Mexico, South America, India, and China.

A scientific assessment would tell us that plants evolve resistance to herbicides which are suppposed to kill them because they have intelligence, and they evolve. Denial of intelligence in life, and denial of evolution is unscientific. 107 Nobel Laureates – including two that have long passed on – “signed” a letter in support Genetic Engineering a few days ago. Clearly ‘Science’ did not prompt that “communication”. Amaranth’s root, the word amara—meaning ‘eternal’ and ‘deathless’ in both Greek and Sanskrit—connects two formidable Houses of the Ancient World. From the high slopes of the Himalayas, through the plains of north, central and south India, to the coastlines of the east, west and the south, Amaranth is a web of life in itself. Numerous varieties are found throughout the country. In fact, the Himalayan region is one of the ‘centres of diversity’ for the Amaranth.

Amaranth, Amaranto, love-lies-bleeding, tassel flower, Joseph’s coat, or ramdana (gods own grain) is the grain of well-being. It is rich in names, nutrition, history and meaning. There are records of Amaranth cultivation in South and Meso America as far back as 5,000 B.C. The sacred Amaranth criss-crosses the Ancient World, nourishing cultures from the Andes to the Himalayas. Amaranth is a sacred grain for the Indian Civilisation as much as it is for the Aztec Civilisation, civilisations in the shadow of time, yet very much alive. To force cultivation of cash crops that could be traded more easily, the cultivation of Amaranth was forbidden, and punishable by death. The “pagan” grain that built civilisations was outlawed, to pave the way for Cash Crops for traders.

amaranto.com reports:

Amaranth was also used as a ceremonial plant in the Aztec empire. In several days the religious calendar, Aztec or Inca women grind or roasted amaranth seed, mixing it with honey or human blood, giving it the shape of birds snakes, deer, or mountains and Gods, ate them with respect and devotion as Food of the Gods.

The leaves of the amaranth contain more iron than spinach, and have a much more delicate taste. If Popeye—“the sailor man”—had Amaranth on his “ship”, he wouldn’t have needed canned food to fight off his nemesis—“the bearded captain”. Besides rice bran, the grain of the amaranth has the highest content of iron amongst cereals. 1 kilogram of Amaranth flour, added to 1 kilogram of refined wheat flour, increases its iron content from 25 milligrams to 245milligrams. Adding amaranth flour to wheat/rice flour is a cheaper and healthier way to prevent nutritional anaemia; rather than buying expensive tablets, tonics, health drinks, branded and bio fortified flour, or canned spinach from the ship.

The poorest, landless woman and her children have access to nutrition through the generous gift of the Amaranth.

The Amaranth is extremely rich in complex carbohydrates and in proteins. It has 12-18% more protein than other cereals, particularly lysine—a critical amino acid. It also differs from other cereals in that 65% is found in the germ and 35% in the endosperm, as compared to an average of 15% in the germ and 85% in the endosperm for other cereals. When Amaranth flour is mixed 30:70 with either rice flour or wheat flour, the protein quality rises, from 72 to 90, and 32 to 52, respectively. The Amaranth grain is about the richest source of calcium, other than milk. It has 390 grams of calcium compared to 10 grams in rice, and 23 grams in refined flour.

The diversity of Amaranth Greens are incredible, edibles that grow uncultivated in our fields. They are a major source of nutrition. Per 100 grams, Amaranth greens can give us 5.9 grams of protein, 530 milligrams of calcium, 83 milligrams of phosphorous, 38.5 milligrams of iron,14,190 micrograms of carotene, 179 micrograms of Vitamin-C,122 milligrams of Magnesium, 0.18 Zinc, 230 Sodium, 241 Potassium. Amaranth is nearly 500% richer in Carotene than GMO Golden Rice – which is being promoted as a future miracle for addressing Vitamin A deficiency. Golden Rice has failed to materialise for 2 decades.

The poorest, landless woman and her children have access to nutrition through the generous gift of the Amaranth.

Industrial agriculture—promoted by United States Foreign Policy—treated amaranth greens as “weeds”, and tried to exterminate with herbicides. Then came Monsanto, with Round Up Ready crops, genetically engineered to resist the spraying of Round Up so that the GMO crop would survive the otherwise lethal chemical, while everything else that was green perished. As was stated by a Monsanto spokesman during the negotiations of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), Herbicide resistant GMOs “prevent the weeds from stealing the sunshine”.

This DARPA-Mind world view is distorted.

Firstly, what are weeds to Monsanto are food and nutrition for women of the South. Secondly, the sun shines with abundance for all. Sharing the sun’s blessing is a right of all species. In Amaranthus Culturis—the world of biodiversity and the sun, scarcity is alien, there is merely abundance. Sharing abundance creates abundance. It is not stealing. Stealing is a concept created by Monsanto & Co. When farmers save and share seeds, Monsanto would like to define it as “stealing”. When the sun shines on the earth and plants grow, Monsanto would like to define it as a plants “stealing” the sunshine, while Monsanto Co. privateers our biodiversity.

This is exactly how seed famine and food famine are engineered through a world view which transforms the richness of diversity into monocultures, abundance into scarcity. The paradigm of Genetic Engineering is based on Genetic Determinism and Genetic Reductionism. It is based on a denial of the self organized, evolutionary potential of living organisms. It treats living organisms as a lego set. But life is not lego, meccano, or stratego. It is life—complex, self organized, dynamic evolution—auto poetic.

The project of deliberately exterminating species is a crime against nature and humanity.

The right to food and nutrition of the people outside the US, and the right of the amaranth to continue to grow and evolve and and nourish people, can be extinguished by powerful men in the US because they messed up their agriculture with Round Up Ready crops, and now want to mess up the planet, its biodiversity, and food and agriculture systems of the world with the tool of gene drives to push species to extinction.

As in the case of GMOs, the rush for Gene Drives, and CRISPR-based Gene Editing are linked to patents. Bill Gates is financing the research that is leading to patents. And he with other billionaires has invested $130 million in a company EDITAS to promote these technologies. Bayer, the new face on Monsanto & Co, has invested $35 million in the new GMO Technologies, and committed $300 million over the next 5 years.

“Biofortification” has been given the world food prize of 2016, yet biofortification is inferior to the nutrition provided by biodiversity and indigenous knowledge.The same forces promoting biofortification are also promoting the extermination of nutritious crops like amaranth, as well as rich indigenous cultures of food.

The project of deliberately exterminating species is a crime against nature and humanity. It was a crime when Bayer and others, of IG Farben, exterminated Jews in concentration camps, and is a crime still. The very idea of extermination is a crime. Developing tools of extermination in the garb of saving the world is a crime. A crime that must not be allowed to continue any further.

We are members of an Earth Family. Every species, every race is a member of one Earth Community. We cannot allow some members of our Earth Family to allocate to themselves the power and hubris to decide who will live, and who will be exterminated.

The DARPA-Mind is obsolete.

A scientific assessment of the failure of herbicides and GMOs to control weeds, and the success of ecological agriculture in controlling pests and weeds without the use of violent tools will lead us to a paradigm-shift from industrial farming to ecological agriculture—to cultures of eternity.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist and eco feminist. She is the founder/director of Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology. She is author of numerous books including, Soil Not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis; Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply; Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace; and Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. Shiva has also served as an adviser to governments in India and abroad as well as NGOs, including the International Forum on Globalization, the Women’s Environment and Development Organization and the Third World Network. She has received numerous awards, including 1993 Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) and the 2010 Sydney Peace Prize.

El técnico renunció a encabezar el club italiano tras las promesas no cumplidas en términos de reclutamiento.

Tras varias semanas de negociaciones, dos días después de confirmar su llegada, el Lazio Roma anunció, a la sorpresa general, que Marcelo Bielsa había renunciado a ser el entrenador del club de la capital italiana. “Tomamos acto con estupor de las renuncias del Señor Marcelo Bielsa y de sus colaboradores, en violación flagrante con los compromisos contraídos en los contratos suscritos la semana pasada y debidamente entregados a la Liga y a la Federación Italiana de Fútbol”, enfatizó el comunicado, sin proporcionar más explicaciones.[1]

La prensa presentó esta inesperada decisión como una enésima excentricidad de quien el mundo del fútbol apoda El Loco. Según las distintas versiones difundidas, el técnico argentino habría cambiado de opinión de repente, a última hora, colocando el club del Lazio en una difícil situación deportiva y política. Otros rumores señalaban también la posibilidad para él de encabezar la selección argentina tras la renuncia de Gerardo Martino.

Ahora bien, la realidad es otra. En efecto, en el mundo del fútbol, pocos son los entrenadores tan racionales y meticulosos como Marcelo Bielsa. A pesar de su carácter volcánico nunca toma una decisión sin madura reflexión y siempre se ha mostrado fiel a sus compromisos cuando se respetan los principios establecidos. El comunicado que el rosarino hizo público permite arrojar luz sobre este asunto y los hechos presentados brindan un punto de vista revelador sobre la realidad de las negociaciones.[2]

De acuerdo con su rigor profesional, durante un mes, Marcelo Bielsa estudió en los menores detalles el club romano antes de tomar su decisión. Se informó sobre la ciudad, la historia del club y los hinchas. Visionó todos los partidos del Lazio de la temporada 2015-2016, elaboró fichas individuales de cada jugador del club listando las cualidades y los defectos, apuntó las fallas del grupo y estableció una lista de jugadores que fichar.

Así, estaba convenido que el Lazio fichara a un total de siete jugadores, entre ellos al menos cuatro antes del 5 de julio para que Marcelo Bielsa pudiera preparar la temporada en las mejores condiciones posibles. Estas llegadas eran tanto más vitales porque al menos 18 jugadores debían abandonar el club. Claudio Lolito, presidente del club del Lazio, certificó al técnico argentino que se respetaría escrupulosamente este compromiso. Sobre estas bases Marcelo Bielsa aceptó firmar el contrato. En un comunicado publicado el 7 de julio de 2016, el antiguo entrenador del Olympique de Marsella recordó este punto fundamental: “Estaba acordada, como condición indispensable para la ejecución del programa de trabajo, la contratación de al menos cuatro futbolistas antes del día 5 de julio, con el objetivo de que pudieran participar en el trabajo de pretemporada. No obstante esta situación, el Club hizo público el contrato que nos unía, aun sabiendo que este no era viable si no llegaban los refuerzos”.[3]

Ahora bien, el presidente Lolito no pudo cumplir su promesa, lo que de facto anuló el compromiso asumido por Marcelo Bielsa. El técnico argentino, afectado por la experiencia marsellesa cuando el presidente Vincent Labrune hizo promesas similares en 2014 sin jamás cumplirlas[4], decidió poner fin a su colaboración con el Lazio Roma. En efecto Bielsa, quien estudia minuciosamente todos los proyectos de colaboración deportiva, no deseaba encabezar la dirección técnica de una institución como el Lazio, con todas las responsabilidades que ello implica en términos de juego y resultados, si no se cumplían las condiciones definidas cuando se firmó el contrato.[5]

Intransigente con los principios, Marcelo Bielsa basa sus relaciones humanas y profesionales en la sinceridad. Para él la palabra empeñada es sagrada y todo fallo a un compromiso rompe irremediablemente el lazo de confianza. El rosarino sólo entiende y acepta un lenguaje: el de la verdad. Frente a los incumplimientos del Lazio, semejante desenlace era inevitable. Los hinchas del Lazio Roma, y más generalmente los amantes del fútbol, lamentarán este epílogo que los priva de un técnico adepto a un juego generoso y ofensivo.

Salim Lamrani

Doctor en Estudios Ibéricos y Latinoamericanos de la Universidad Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, Salim Lamrani es profesor titular de la Universidad de La Reunión y periodista, especialista de las relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos. Su último libro se titula Cuba, ¡palabra a la defensa!, Hondarribia, Editorial Hiru, 2016.

http://www.tiendaeditorialhiru.com/informe/336-cuba-palabra-a-la-defensa.html

Contacto: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Página Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SalimLamraniOfficiel

Durante la primera cumbre anual del Banco Asiático de Inversiones en Infraestructura (BAII), realizada en Pekín, los chinos revelaron sus intenciones de asumir el liderazgo mundial en el financiamiento de infraestructura. Para finales de este año, es muy probable que el BAII tenga más de 100 países de miembros, con lo cual, lograría convertirse en la institución multilateral de crédito bajo el control de los países emergentes más importante de la historia. Sin embargo, todavía está pendiente que el BAII se decida a abandonar el dólar, pues solamente de esta manera la hegemonía de Estados Unidos en las finanzas internacionales será herida de muerte.

China ya tomó la delantera frente a Estados Unidos en el financiamiento global de infraestructura. Las finanzas internacionales están en vías de transformación, pese a la fuerte oposición de la cúpula de poder norteamericana. El año pasado, desde Washington, funcionarios de alto nivel intentaron sabotear el lanzamiento del Banco Asiático de Inversiones en Infraestructura (BAII), pero no lo consiguieron.

De hecho, aquellos que eran supuestamente los aliados incondicionales del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, como Alemania, Francia, Italia y el Reino Unido, a la postre tomaron la decisión de incorporarse a la nueva institución multilateral de crédito promovida por Pekín. El presidente Barack Obama no pudo concebir que, en unos cuantos meses, el BAII haya conquistado el respaldo de más de 50 países.

Es indudable, China está precipitando el declive estadounidense en escala mundial. En abril de 2015, Larry Summers, quien fue secretario del Departamento del Tesoro durante el Gobierno de Bill Clinton, apuntó que la exitosa convocatoria del BAII representaba uno de los episodios más dramáticos para la hegemonía norteamericana: “El mes pasado puede ser recordado como el momento en que Estados Unidos perdió su papel como garante del sistema económico mundial”.

Pekín posterga la gran ofensiva contra el dólar

Con todo, hasta el momento China ha actuado con extrema cautela. Gracias a ello, casi todos los países del Grupo de los 7 (G-7, conformado por Alemania, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia, Japón y Reino Unido) han recibido con beneplácito la puesta en marcha del BAII. Sin embargo, si bien es verdad que la extraordinaria capacidad de convocatoria de Pekín socavó la influencia de Washington en el financiamiento mundial de infraestructura, el BAII se resiste a desechar el dólar. Aunque muchos especularon que los préstamos del BAII estarían denominados en yuanes, o quizás en monedas locales, hasta la fecha sus créditos han sido emitidos en la divisa estadounidense.

Por añadidura, cabe destacar que de los cuatros préstamos que fueron aprobados los primeros seis meses de este año por el BAII, por un total de 509 millones de dólares, tres de ellos están relacionados con proyectos de inversión en los que también participan las instituciones del viejo orden financiero mundial, ese que se construyó a imagen y semejanza de Estados Unidos tras la segunda posguerra. A mi juicio, los chinos quieren sacar provecho de las acciones que tienen invertidas en el Banco Mundial y el Banco Asiático de Desarrollo, así como de las excelentes relaciones que han sembrado con Europa.

Actualmente, el BAII financia un programa de mejora de vivienda en Indonesia junto con el Banco Mundial a través de un crédito de 216,5 millones de dólares; la construcción de una autovía en Pakistán, con un costo de 100 millones de dólares, se realiza en colaboración con el Banco Asiático de Desarrollo y el Departamento para el Desarrollo Internacional del Reino Unido; un préstamo de 27,5 millones de dólares, financiado junto con el Banco Europeo para la Reconstrucción y el Desarrollo, se utiliza para modernizar una carretera en Tayikistán; llevar energía eléctrica a las zonas rurales de Bangladesh, a través de un préstamo de 165 millones de dólares, es el único proyecto que el BAII ejecuta de forma independiente.

La vocación global del Banco Asiático de Inversiones en Infraestructura

Pese a todo, el nacimiento del BAII marca un punto de inflexión en la historia de las instituciones multilaterales de crédito por ser la primera (además del nuevo banco de desarrollo de los BRICS, integrado por Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica) en la que las economías emergentes son las principales accionistas.

Las aportaciones económicas de las tres potencias orientales de los BRICS son aplastantes: la de China es de 29,78%, seguida de la India con 8,36%, y en tercer lugar Rusia con 6,53%. En contraste, los 20 socios no regionales del BAII contribuyen solamente con una cuarta parte de los 100,000 millones de dólares del capital autorizado.

En un primer momento, el BAII se concibió bajo la idea de proveer financiamiento a los países de la región asiática principalmente, sin embargo, todo apunta a que China planea convertirlo en una institución con vocación global capaz de aglutinar las aspiraciones de todas las economías emergentes. Bajo esta perspectiva, en la ceremonia de inauguración de su primera cumbre anual, celebrada en Pekín el mes de junio pasado, el presidente del BAII, el chino Jin Liqun, anunció que en la actualidad están evaluando la incorporación de 24 países más.

En la región latinoamericana, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela son los candidatos; en cuanto a África, presentaron su postulación Argelia, Libia, Nigeria, Senegal y Sudán. También destaca la candidatura de Canadá, que junto con México y Estados Unidos forma parte del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN); en Europa, Chipre, Grecia e Irlanda están sumamente interesados. Si todo marcha tan bien como hasta ahora, es muy posible que para finales de este año el BAII cuente con más de 100 países miembros, es decir, tendría por lo menos 34 adherentes más en comparación con el Banco Asiático de Desarrollo, aunque todavía estaría lejos de alcanzar los 183 que posee el Banco Mundial.

Apostar por un mundo multipolar

El BAII tiene muchas tareas pendientes. Es que aunque la región asiática registró elevadas tasas de crecimiento del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) durante las últimas dos décadas, no logró hacerse de un sistema de infraestructura de vanguardia. Sultán Ahmed Al Jaber, quien es el ministro de Gobierno de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, reveló que en Asia-Pacífico casi 1,500 millones de personas carecen de servicios de saneamiento básico, 260 millones no tienen acceso a agua potable y por lo menos 500,000 no cuentan con electricidad en sus casas.

En conclusión, la primera cumbre anual del BAII puso de manifiesto la determinación de China para hacerse escuchar en las ‘grandes ligas’ de las finanzas internacionales. Por su compromiso con la construcción de la nueva “Ruta de la Seda” (‘Silk Road’), el BAII constituye un poderoso contrapeso frente a la influencia geoeconómica de Estados Unidos y Japón en la región asiática. Sin embargo, para acelerar la construcción de un orden mundial multipolar es decisivo que los directivos del BAII se decidan finalmente a desechar el dólar y, sobre todo, que nunca abandonen la promesa de mejorar las condiciones de vida de la humanidad.

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

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

The West’s Establishment Lies and Crimes Are Leading Us to The Unthinkable

By Mark Taliano, July 11 2016

Corporate media messaging about the war on Syria is corrupt to an unprecedented level, despite years of sustainable evidence that contradicts the lies. The “West”, including U.S.–led NATO, the Persian Gulf Monarchies, and Israel, are waging a proxy war against Syria.

NATO, America’s “World Policeman”, An Instrument of US Imperial Conquest

By Stephen Lendman, July 10 2016

US-dominated NATO threatens world peace. It’s for offense, not defense. No threats exist except invented ones, lamely justifying the unjustifiable. Washington uses the alliance to advance its imperium, hanging a sword of Damocles over humanity.

The Paris Bataclan Terror Attack: Six French Military Were Present, Instructed Not to Intervene, People Died…

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 11 2016

They were instructed according to their rules of engagement not to intervene, not to come to the rescue of the people inside the Bataclan nightclub or those in the street in front of the Bataclan. More than 100 people were killed.

The New Immoral Age: How Technology Offers New Ways of Killing People and of Destroying the World

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, July 10 2016

“It turns out … that I’m really good at killing people.” President Barack Obama (1961- ), (as reported in Reed Peeples, ‘A President and his Drones’, June 29, 2016, —a review of the book ‘Objective Troy: A Terrorist, a President, and the Rise of the Drone’, S. Shane, 2015)

Police Murder Because They Are Trained To Murder. The Militarization of Law Enforcement

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 11 2016

In response to my request for information on US police training, readers have sent in a variety of information that seems to fit together. I am going to assemble it as best I can as a working hypothesis or provisional account.

The Bloodiest Ramadan Month on Record: ISIS Linked to Multiple Terror Attacks. But Who is Behind ISIS?

By Joachim Hagopian, July 11 2016

The bloodiest Ramadan month in modern times has just come to an end. With relentless, near daily attacks, the world’s largest terrorist organization has proudly and defiantly proclaimed full credit for committing heinous acts just to strike terror into the hearts and minds of the planet’s 7.4 billion humans.

They were instructed according to their rules of engagement not to intervene, not to come to the rescue of the people inside the Bataclan nightclub or those in the street in front of the Bataclan. 89 people were killed, more than 100 wounded.

According to a Belgian news report (July 5),  The night of the attack at the Paris Bataclan, November 13, 2015, six French military personnel of the Sentinelle Project (launched by France’s Ministry of Defense) were at the entry of the concert hall.

They did not intervene because the circumstances [pertaining to the Bataclan attacks] did not meet their “rules of engagement”, according to cdH [Political Party] Member of Parliament (Député) Georges Dallemagne in a Tuesday morning statement [July 5] on Belgium’s RTL TV.”

An early report by Nouvel Obs (May 6, 2016), confirmed that there were 8 military personnel. They outnumbered the four alleged terrorists inside the Bataclan. If they had intervened, this would have saved lives. It is unclear from the report as to time at which they were stationed in front the nightclub.

Military personnel invariably obey orders from higher up. The question is: Who instructed them not to come to the rescue of people inside the nightclub? Was it the Police or the Ministry of Defense? According to Nouvel Ops: The  military of the Sentinelle force did not have the green light to use their weapons.  “The victims will be rescued later, without the support of the Army” (translated from French).

According to the New York Times: “Most of the men who carried out the Paris attacks were already on the radar of intelligence officials in France and Belgium”,

 ‘Rules of Engagement’

There were 10,000 Sentinelle forces in France. They operate under the auspices of the Ministry of Defense. The “Rules of engagement” defined by the Ministry of Defense for the Sentinelle Forces on November 13 were clearly defined. They were mobilized and deployed throughout the country as part of a counterterrorism operation. Their mandate was to protect the French people against the alleged terrorists.

http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/un-depute-belge-l-affirme-6-militaires-en-armes-devant-le-bataclan-ne-sont-pas-intervenus-le-soir-des-attaques-577b5d4735705701fd967b73

Below is the brief of the Ministry of Defense (French) defining the mandate of the Sentinelle Forces on November 13, 2015

Aujourd’hui, la force Sentinelle est constituée de 10 000 soldats – dont 6 500 en Ile-de-France et 3 500 en province. Au total, 50 unités de l’armée de terre ont été mises à contribution pourparticiper à cet effort. Retour sur cette montée en puissance. 

Dans la nuit du 13 novembre 2015, l’armée a immédiatement renforcé les dispositif sécuritaires des forces de sécurité intérieure (FSI) sur les sites frappés par les attentats terroristes. 

Dans les 48 heures qui ont suivis les attentats, 1000 hommes sont venus renforcer le dispositif Sentinelle d’Ile de France.

Puis en 72 heures, 2000 hommes supplémentaires portent les effectifs déployés en France à 10 000 hommes. En région parisienne, l’arrivée de ces renforts porte à 150 le nombre d’unités militaires déployées. Elles sécurisent plus de 350 lieux – en appui des FSI. En province, la vigilance reste maintenue et le 20 novembre, 500 hommes ont renforcé les 3 000 soldats déjà Lancée à la suite des attentats survenus à Paris les 7, 8 et 9 janvier 2015, l’opération Sentinelle vise à protéger les Français et sécuriser, en appui des FSI, les sites les plus sensibles à Paris et en province.

Despite claims made during NATO Summit Warsaw 2016, that “NATO remains a fundamental source of security for our people, and stability for the wider world,” it is clear that the threats and challenges NATO poses as existing to confront are in fact threats of its own, intentional creation and continued perpetuation.

From the ongoing refugee crisis triggered by NATO’s own global-spanning and ongoing military interventions, invasions, and occupations, to its continued expansion along Russia’s borders – violating every convention and “norm” that existed during the Cold War to keep it “cold,” NATO has proven that it is to the populations it poses as protector over, in fact, their greatest threat.

In particular, the summit in Warsaw, Poland centered on NATO’s expanding military presence along Russia’s borders, particularly in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as in Poland itself.

The summit also covered ongoing NATO involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, two nations so far beyond the Atlantic states the alliance allegedly was founded to protect, it would be comical if the consequences of their far-reaching meddling weren’t so serious.

Belligerence Vs Balance 

Global peace and stability is tenuously maintained through a careful balancing act between conflicting centers of power. The story of human history is that of this balancing act being performed.

World War II, which gave way to the current international order we live in, came about because of a fundamental failure to maintain this balancing act.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of World War II’s genesis, was the German military build-up along the then Soviet Union’s borders characterized by Berlin at the time as a means of collective defense for Europe, when in fact it was the lead up to a full-scale invasion known now as “Operation Barbarossa.” It is troublesome particularly because NATO is currently building up its forces in almost precisely the same areas and in almost precisely the same manner Nazi Germany did in the 1930s.

When German forces crossed into Russia on June 22, 1941, a potential balance of power meant to preserve Germany and the rest of Europe against perceived Soviet menace turned into a war that devastated both Europe and Russia.

The subsequent Cold War is an example of a balancing act of power being performed mostly with success. However, despite many common misconceptions regarding the Cold War, the mere existence of opposing nuclear arsenals and the concept of mutually assured destruction was not why balance was maintained.

Instead, balance was maintained by an immense framework, painstakingly constructed by both American and Soviet leaders, at the cost of both nations’ egos, pride, and interests and involved everything from agreements about the weaponization of space, to the composition and deployment of their nuclear arsenals, and even regarding defense systems designed to protect against nuclear first strikes.

There were also specific and complex agreements arranged over the deployment of troops along each respective center of powers’ borders, including the borders of nations that existed within their spheres of influence.

It was clear during the Cold War that both Washington and Moscow vied to expand their respective reach over the rest of the world, resulting in proxy wars everywhere from the Middle East to South America, and from Africa to Asia in a “low-intensity” bid – relative to all-out nuclear war – to gain the upper-hand.

Preceding and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, tentacles of Western influence had finally prevailed, and reached deep within Russia itself, eroding not only Russia’s own institutions and national sovereignty, but unsettling the global balance of power that had existed for decades after World War II.

It was only during the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin that this trend was reversed and something resembling global balance reemerged.

It was clear that during the early 2000’s, whatever progress the US had made in dismantling the remnants of Soviet checks to its otherwise unlimited desire for global hegemony, would need to come to an end, and a new framework mirroring that of the Cold War, established to accommodate emerging global powers including the Russian Federation

But this is not what happened.

The New Build-Up 

Instead, under the administration of US President George Bush and continued under that of President Barack Obama, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was unilaterally withdrawn from by the United States.

Additionally, the United States – beginning in the 1990s and continuing until today as seen in Ukraine – has funded and backed various political coups across Eastern Europe under the guise of “promoting democracy,” installing client states along Russia’s borders. Attempts to undermine and overthrow governments continues in nations like Belarus and Azerbaijan, as well as the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Nations successfully overthrown and co-opted by Washington have been systematically turned against Russia economically, politically, and militarily. These nations are almost immediately folded into NATO’s military alliance. In 2008 for example, the US client regime in Georgia would invade the Russian-backed republic of South Ossetia, precipitating a full-scale Russian response in what many believe was a NATO attempt to test Russian resolve. It is reminiscent of Nazi-Soviet geopolitical jousting in Finland just before Operation Barbarossa commenced.

Ukraine, overthrown in a NATO-backed putsch between 2013-2014, has also taken a hostile posture toward Russia, and again, Western military aggression, seeking Ukraine as a vector through which to strike deeper at Russia is a direct replay of events that unfolded during World War II.

The story of NATO post-Cold War has been one of confrontation, not of fostering security or stability.

Instead of working on a new framework to establish global stability by recognizing a new emerging balance of power between East and West, NATO has attempted to “race” in a reckless bid to expand its own influence as far and wide as possible before this balance of power establishes itself through the realities of military, political, and economic force

It appears that NATO may even be contemplating the destabilization and overthrow of the political order in Moscow itself with attempts to foster terrorism in Russia’s southern regions through massive NATO-backed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the funding and support of hostile political fronts all across Russia.

A Gradient of Balance Versus a New Cold War 

The Cold War was characterized by two distinct centers of power with little room for nations to deal in anything resembling an intermediary sphere of influence.

Today, very easily, a gradient of balance can be established between North America, Europe, Russia, and Asia – where the best benefits of dealing with each other could be enjoyed by all. The only requirements would be first allowing Europe to develop a foreign policy that reflected the best interests of its own governments, people, and industry, and second, the ability for Washington, London, and Brussels to abandon their unrealistic designs toward global hegemony and opt instead for a more realistic balance of multipolar power.

NATO precludes all of this – effectively coercing Europe into a zero sum game with Russia, just as it had done during the Cold War.

Europe faces many threats. But none of them from Russia. It is flooded by refugees fleeing NATO wars. It is weathering instability in nations like Ukraine, whose political order was upended by NATO-backed political violence. And Europe is plagued by the irresponsible, reckless actions of prospective NATO members like Georgia, run by incompetent regimes installed by and for Washington’s best interests, not the stability and long-term interests of the European people.

Europe’s leadership has clearly demonstrated no interest in recognizing these realities. It will be up to the European people themselves to demand a more rational shift away from the various, intentionally manipulative strategies of tension NATO has cultivated, and toward a more sensible and independent relationship with the world beyond the Atlantic alliance.

There has been much talk of Britain’s leaving of the European Union. Perhaps it is time for the European Union to leave the long and corrosive influence of Anglo-American interests and institutions.

Until then, the people of Europe should examine closely the lessons of history of aggressive expansion toward Russia’s borders, the lies such expansion was predicated upon, and the consequences those lies had on the security and stability of Europe when finally they were exposed through the unfolding conspiracy they were designed to obfuscate.

The wheel of history turns not because our hands are on it, turning it, but because our apathy and ignorance has prevented our hands from stopping it.

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

In response to my request for information on US police training, readers have sent in a variety of information that seems to fit together. I am going to assemble it as best I can as a working hypothesis or provisional account.  Perhaps a former or current police officer concerned about the change in the behavior of US police, or an expert on police training and practices, will come forward and verify or correct this provisional account.

First, we know that the police have been, or are being, militarized.  They are armed with weapons of war that hitherto have been used only on battlefields.  We don’t know why police are armed in this way, as such weapons are not necessary for policing the American public and are not used in police work anywhere except in Israeli-occupied Palestine.

There is an undeclared agenda behind these weapons, and neither Congress nor the presstitute media have any apparent interest in discovering the hidden agenda.

Nevertheless, the militarization of the police fits in with what we know about police training.

There are sourced reports that US police are receiving training from Israel, both from traveling to Israel and in the US from Israeli training firms or from US firms using Israeli methods.

See, for example, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/homeland.html

and  http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/us-police-get-antiterror-training-israel-privately-funded-trips

The training of American police by Israeli occupation forces is not an Internet rumor or “conspiracy theory.”  It is a fact acknowledged by the Israeli press:  http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-trains-us-law-enforcement-in-counter-terrorism/

Israeli police practices arose from decades of occupying a hostile Palestinian population while stealing the Palestinians’ land and isolating the population in ghetto enclaves.  Essentially, Israeli police practices consist of intimidation and violence.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-export-occupation-police-tactics/8485

We know from innumerable news reports over many years the behavior of the occupying Israeli Army toward the Palestinian population.  In four short words: it is extremely brutal.

For a soldier, especially a female soldier, to execute a child and his mother in the streets of Palestine or in the family’s home requires that soldier to have been desensitized to human life that is not Israeli.  This requires Palestinians to have been dehumanized, as the native inhabitants of what is today the United States and Australia were dehumanized by the European immigrants who stole their land.

On the basis of this information, we can infer that the Israeli training of US police teaches the police to see only police lives as valuable and the lives of the public as potential threats to police lives.  This is why American police often murder a wrongly suspected person and almost always an unarmed one.  The examples are numerous.  You can spend much of your life just watching on youtube the existing videos of wanton murders of US citizens by police.

The American police are being taught at public expense that only their lives are valuable, not our lives. Therefore, in any encounter with a citizen, the automatic assumption is that the citizen intends harm to the police and must be immediately forcefully subdued and handcuffed or, alternatively, shot dead.  The police are trained that the safest thing for the police to do is to terminate the suspect even if it is a soccer mom who forgot to signal a turn while driving her kids to a practice.

In other words, the American police have no more obligation to respect the lives and rights of US citizens than the Israeli occupying forces have to respect the lives and rights of Palestinians.

This does appear to be an accurate description of the situation.  Even the New York Times has blown the whistle on William J. Lewinski, who trains US police to shoot first and he will answer the questions for them in court, on the rare occasion that the wanton murder they committed lands them there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=1

What about racism?  Racism is the answer put forward by liberals, progressives, the putative leftwing, and by blacks themselves.

There are problems with the racist explanation.  One obvious problem is that the American police wantonly murder and brutalize white people also.  Just the other day the police murdered a 19 year old white American while he lay on the ground.  And the TSA abuses far more whites than it does blacks.  See my website for recent examples of both.

A former black police officer provides revealing insight into the real situation.  He says that about 15% of a police department consists of people who are there for the right reasons and represent a culture of public service. Another 15% are psychopaths who routinely abuse their power.  The remaining 70% of the department goes with whichever of the two cultures prevails.  Unfortunately, “the bad officers corrupt the department” and the Chicago police under former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge proves the case.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

The former black police officer assigns blame to “institutional racism.”  However, based on what we have learned about Israeli police training, the police bias against black Americans might not be racist or totally racist.  Blacks in America have a history of dehumanization.  In the eyes of police trainers, American blacks fit the mold of Palestinians. It is easier to begin the training process by making American police indifferent to the lives of an already dehumanized element of the US population. Once the police are indoctrinated to see themselves not as servants of the people but as “exceptional, indispensable people” whose lives must never be at risk, it is a simple matter to generalize the feeling of police superiority over the white population as well.

I have always been suspicious of the racist explanation.  This is an explanation fed to the public in order to break the public into waring factions that cannot unite against their real oppressors. Indoctrinated as we are to hate and fear one another, those who rule and abuse us can do as they will.

It is as clear as a clear day that only a tiny percentage of white Americans belong to the One Percent.  The rest of us are of no more consequence to those who rule than are blacks. Yet, we are divided, fearful of and opposed to one another.  What a success for the One Percent !

Let me be clear.  Just as we oppose the mentality of violence that is being inculcated into the police who live on our earnings, numerous Jews and Israelis themselves oppose the settler mentality that the Israeli government has come to represent. Jews are among the most ardent defenders of human rights of our time. Think of Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky Ilan Pappe, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Think of the brave Israeli organizations that oppose the theft of Palestinian lands and villages.  We cannot damn an entire people for the sins of their political masters.  If so, then after Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, all Americans are damned.

The two greatest threats to the world are American and Israeli exceptionalism.  It is the success of the indoctrination of this Nazi doctrine of exceptionalism that is the source of the violence in the world today.

The problem of American police violence is that the police are now defined as exceptional and unaccountable. They can kill the rest of us without accountability, just as Washington slaughters untold numbers of peoples in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Unexceptional peoples are dispensable.

It is paradoxical that training US police in the violent methods of the Israeli occupying forces is justified with the argument that it is necessary to save American lives from terrorists when the actual result is far more Americans killed by police than by terrorists.

Clearly the police training is counterproductive.

It would seem that the families of those murdered and abused by police have good grounds for suing mayors, city councils, county commissioners, governors and state legislators for negligence in police oversight.  The evidence is in.  The police are taking lives, not saving them.  The training is a total failure.  Yet it persists.  This is a high order of negligence and failure by public authorities.