Global Research

Later this month, Barack Obama will become the first sitting US president to visit the city of Hiroshima, Japan. The dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the American military on August 6, 1945, and the destruction three days later of the Japanese city of Nagasaki, rank among the greatest war crimes of the 20th century.

One would think that after 71 years, the United States would finally be prepared to acknowledge that the incineration of two defenseless Japanese cities, causing some 200,000 deaths, was a militarily unnecessary act.

Nothing of the sort will happen. Obama “will not revisit the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II,” declared the White House. No apology will be forthcoming.

For decades, the US government has insisted that it was right to carry out the nuclear attacks on Japan, declaring that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the only alternative to an invasion of Japan and the ensuing loss of American lives. Every attempt to question the legitimacy of the bombings has been met with frenzied and dishonest propaganda, such as that which forced the Smithsonian Institution to shutter its exhibit commemorating the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995.

Typical of these apologetics is a comment published in the Wall Street Journalby the Reverend Miscamble of Notre Dame University. Miscamble declares, “There’s zero reason to apologize for the atomic bombing,” because

“[President Harry S.] Truman authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both major military-industrial targets, to help win the gruesome Pacific War as quickly as possible and with the loss of the fewest American lives—and, as it turned out, the loss of the fewest Japanese lives.”

Echoing these sentiments, the New York Times this week cited those who insist that the “decision to drop the bomb saved tens of thousands of American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Honshu, Japan’s main island.”

These claims are without all credibility. They bear no relationship to the actual content of discussions taking place in Washington and the US military high command prior to the attacks.

By early 1945, the United States had gained total air supremacy over Japan and taken numerous islands within flying range of the Japanese mainland. Around the same time, the US switched from carrying out precision bombings of specific military targets to mass incendiary raids that ultimately leveled 67 Japanese cities, including the March 9–10 firebombing of Tokyo that killed some 100,000 people.

When General Curtis Lemay, the head of the US Strategic Air Command, was asked in 1945 how long he thought the war would last, he said, “We sat down and did some thinking about it, and it indicated that we would be pretty much out of targets around September 1, and with the targets gone, we couldn’t see much of any war going on at the time.”

The rationalizations for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were challenged within the US high command itself, which insisted that the incineration of another pair of Japanese cities had little military significance.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower said that, upon learning of President Truman’s intention to use the bomb against a civilian population, he felt a feeling of “depression” and voiced “my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

Other high-ranking military officials subsequently made similar statements. Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the US Pacific Fleet, said after the war, “The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” President Truman’s Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy, acknowledged, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, brought Harry S. Truman to the presidency. This limited and rather ignorant man was dubbed “The Senator from Pendergast” because of his connections with the convicted felon and gambling addict who ran the Missouri Democratic Party political machine.

Truman was completely indifferent to the moral implications of the use of nuclear weapons. One of his advisers later recalled that, when Truman learned of the bombing of Hiroshima, he “was tremendously pepped up by it and spoke to me of it again and again when I saw him.”

By the time Truman decided to use the bomb, the Japanese government had for months been sending strong indications that they were seeking to surrender, insisting only that they be allowed to retain their Emperor. The White House had by this time come to favor retaining the Emperor, but was divided over whether this fact should be communicated to the Japanese. President Truman ultimately decided to drop the bomb first, then let the Japanese government know the terms.

Why, then, did the United States government embark upon a course of action that, while having no military justification, would forever brand it with infamy in the eyes of the world?

As the war was reaching its end, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was intensifying. In accordance with the terms of the Yalta agreement, the Soviet Union was about to invade Japan, laying claim to territories granted to it in that accord, and was seeking to play a role in post-war Europe commensurate with the losses it had endured during the war.

The use of the atomic bomb was, as two historians recently put it, “America’s first act of the Cold War.” It was intended to send a clear signal to the Soviet Union that, despite Soviet victory over Germany, the Americans were the masters of the world.

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki announced the entry of the United States as the world’s unchallenged imperialist hegemon, bullying and dictating terms to all humanity. Behind the thin veneer of democracy, the United States was signaling that it would do whatever was necessary for the preservation and expansion of its own interests, no matter the scale of the crime or how many people had to die.

In the more than seven decades since the bombing of Hiroshima, the determination of the American ruling class to use military force to defend its interests has only grown. Obama will make his appearance in Hiroshima as part of his participation in a Group of 7 meeting where he will seek to strengthen America’s alliance with Japan against China and facilitate Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s re-militarization of the country.

Evan as it demands “nuclear non-proliferation” from every other country, the White House is spending a trillion dollars to modernize the US nuclear stockpile and engaging in an a continuous series of provocations against China and Russia that threaten war between nuclear-armed states.

In other words, Obama will go to Hiroshima not to apologize for past crimes, but to prepare new ones.

How can one expect the United States government, which since Hiroshima has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people in Korea and Vietnam—and, over the past quarter century, throughout the Middle East—to apologize for mass murder when it continues to practice it to this day?

But there will come a day in a socialist America, when the atrocities committed by the ruling class will be disavowed, and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be acknowledged for what they were: crimes against humanity.

We have seen this story before, and it never ends well.  From mid-March until early May 2008, a vigorous stock market rally convinced many investors that the market turmoil of late 2007 and early 2008 was over and that happy days were ahead for the U.S. economy.  But of course we all know what happened.  It turned out that the market downturns of late 2007 and early 2008 were just “foreshocks” of a much greater crash in late 2008.  The market surge in the spring of 2008 was just a mirage, and it masked rapidly declining economic fundamentals.  Well, the exact same thingis happening right now. 

The Dow rose another 222 points on Tuesday, but meanwhile virtually every number that we are getting is just screaming that the overall U.S. economy is steadily falling apart.  So don’t be fooled by a rising stock market.  Just like in the spring of 2008, all of the signs are pointing to an avalanche of bad economic news in the months ahead.  The following are 11 signs that the U.S. economy is rapidly deteriorating…

#1 Total business sales have been declining for nearly two years, and they are now about 15 percent lower than they were in late 2014.

#2 The inventory to sales ratio is now back to near where it was during the depths of the last recession.  This means that there is lots and lots of unsold stuff just sitting around out there, and that is a sign of a very unhealthy economy.

#3 Corporate earnings have declined for four consecutive quarters.  This never happens outside of a recession.

#4 Profits for companies listed on the S&P 500 were down 7.1 percent during the first quarter of 2016 when compared to the same time period a year ago.

#5 In April, commercial bankruptcies were up 32 percent on a year over year basis, and Chapter 11 filings were up 67 percent on a year over year basis.  This is exactly the kind of spike that we witnessed during the initial stages of the last major financial crisis as well.

#6 U.S. rail traffic was 11 percent lower last month than it was during the same month in 2015.  Right now there are 292 Union Pacific engines sitting idle in the middle of the Arizona desert because there is literally nothing for them to do.

#7 The U.S. economy has lost an astounding 191,000 mining jobs since September 2014.  For areas of the country that are heavily dependent on mining, this has been absolutely devastating.

#8 According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, U.S. firms announced 35 percentmore job cuts during April than they did in March.  This indicates that our employment problems are accelerating.

#9 So far this year, job cut announcements are running 24 percent above the exact same period in 2015.

#10 U.S. GDP grew at just a 0.5 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2016.  This was the third time in a row that the GDP number has declined compared to the previous quarter, and let us not forget that the formula for calculating GDP was changed last year specifically to make the first quarter of each year look better.  Without that “adjustment”, it is quite possible that we would have had a negative number for the first quarter.

#11 Barack Obama is poised to become the first president in U.S. history to never have a single year during his time in office when the economy grew by more than 3 percent.

But you never hear Obama talk about that statistic, do you?

And the mainstream media loves to point the blame at just about anyone else.  In fact, the Washington Post just came out with an article that is claiming that the big problem with the economy is the fact that U.S. consumers are saving too much money…

The surge in saving is the real drag on the economy. It has many causes. “People got a cruel lesson about [the dangers] of debt,” says economist Matthew Shapiro of the University of Michigan. Households also save more to replace the losses suffered on homes and stocks. But much saving is precautionary: Having once assumed that a financial crisis of the 2008-2009 variety could never happen, people now save to protect themselves against the unknown. Research by economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics finds higher saving at all income levels.

So even though half the country is flat broke, I guess we are all supposed to do our patriotic duty by going out and running up huge balances on our credit cards.

What a joke.

Of course the U.S. economy is actually doing significantly better at the moment than almost everywhere else on the planet.  Many areas of South America have already plunged into an economic depression, major banks all over Europe are in the process of completely melting down, Japanese GDP has gone negative again despite all of their emergency measures, and Chinese stocks are down more than 40 percent since the peak of the market.

This is a global economic slowdown, and just like in 2008 it is only a matter of time before the financial markets catch up with reality.  I really like how Andrew Lapthorneput it recently…

On the more bearish slant is Andrew Lapthorne, head of quantitative strategy at Societe Generale. To him this profit downturn is a sign that stocks are far too overvalued and the economy is weaker than you think.

“MSCI World EPS is now declining at the fastest pace since 2009, losing 4% in the last couple of months alone (this despite stronger oil prices),” wrote Lapthorne in a note. For the S&P 500 specifically, the year on year drop in profit drop was the most since third quarter of 2009.

Global earnings are now 14% off the peak set in August 2014 and back to where they stood five years ago. Equity prices on the other hand are 25% higher. Gravity beckons!

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Look, this is not a game.

So far in 2016, three members of my own extended family have lost their jobs.  Businesses are going under at a pace that we haven’t seen since 2008, and this means that more mass layoffs are on the way.

We can certainly be happy that U.S. stocks are doing okay for the moment.  May it stay that way for as long as possible.  But anyone that believes that this state of affairs can last indefinitely is just being delusional.

Gravity beckons, and the crash that is to come is going to be a great sight to behold.

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) says the Al-Nusra Front terrorist group has deployed chemical weapons near Syria’s city of Aleppo.

Scores of militants have also arrived from Turkey in the outskirts of the city in order to participate in the clashes there.

“Several trucks carrying self-made ammunition, armed with chlorine-based toxic agents, have arrived from the Idlib province to the northern outskirts of the city of Aleppo controlled by al-Nusra Front terrorists,” the MoD’s daily bulletin reads.

On May 12, the violence escalated in the Aleppo province as the ceasefire expired.

Members of al Nusra Front. © Khalil Ashawi / Reuters

The Syrian Air Force destroyed ISIS targets in the vicinity of the main station at al-Shaer oil field, near al-Muhr oil field and near the Jazal village in the province of Homs. The air raids were aimed to support the government forces that clash with ISIS near the T-4 Military Airport. Recently, ISIS seized the Muhajarah Base in the area.

Clashes are ongoing in the province of Aleppo. On May 12, the pro-government forces renewed attempts to conduct offensive operations in the northern part of the province, advancing on the Nusra-controlled Handarat Refugee Camp. Syrian artillery and warplanes are working against militant targets in the area of the Khan Touman city.

Russian soldier Anton Yerygin died of heavy injuries sustained during an insurgent attack in Syria’s Homs province, a spokesman of the Khmeimim base reported on May 11. Yerygin was escorting monitoring mission vehicles, when the convoy was shelled by terrorists earlier this week.

A series of car bombings targeted civilian areas in Baghdad on May 11, killing 88 people and injuring dozens more. The attacks targeted the capital’s Shiite district of Sadr City, the predominantly Shiite district of Kadhimiya and the Sunni district of Jamiya.

Iraqi forces have reportedly found a chemical plant belonging to ISIS in the city of Hit in the province of Anbar. The plant had refining equipment as well as large amounts of chlorine and toxic chemicals. All these were left behind after the militants fled the city last month. According to Director General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Ahmet Uzumcu, this confirms ISIS has the technology and access to the materials which might be used for the production of chemical weapons.

Professor Peter Dale Scott sees what the rest of us miss. His decades-long investigation of the connections between the hugely lucrative and unstoppable global drug trade and the national security apparatus is unparalleled. The details are also highly complex and a challenge to absorb. Nevertheless, they demand our attention.

In this excerpt from his new book, Scott focuses on the troubling relationship between Ronald Reagan’s CIA director, William Casey, and BCCI, a still-mysterious “outlaw bank” with tentacles everywhere, and extensive ties to the drug economy.

This is Part 4 of a 5-part series. To see Parts 1, 2, and 3, please go here, here, and here.

Excerpt from American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan ( Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014), Introduction. Deep History and the Global Drug Connection:

Creating an International Islamist Army: Casey, BCCI, and the Creation of al-Qaeda

The other most significant case in which the CIA became a front for sanctioned violence was CIA Director William Casey’s use of the CIA in the 1980s to promote his own plans for Afghanistan. Casey’s Afghan initiatives aroused the concern of the CIA’s professional operatives and analysts, including his deputy directors, Bobby Ray Inman and John McMahon.(35) But this did not deter Casey from making high-level decisions about the Afghan campaign outside regular channels when meeting in secret with foreigners.

Photo caption: President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters in 1983.  Photo credit: White House / Reagan Library

One man Casey dealt with in this fashion was Agha Hasan Abedi, a close adviser to General Zia of Pakistan and, more important, the head of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI):

Abedi helped arrange Casey’s sojourns in Islamabad and met with the CIA director during visits to Washington. Typically, Abedi would stay in a hotel and Casey would go to his suite. The two men, who met intermittently over a three-year period, would spend hours talking about the war in Afghanistan, the Iran-Contra arms trades, Pakistani politics, and the situation in the Persian Gulf. (36)

Members of Senator John Kerry’s staff, who investigated this relationship, concluded that Casey in his dealings with Abedi may have been acting not as CIA director but as an adviser to President Reagan, so that his actions were“undocumented, fully deniable, and effectively irretrievable.” (37) (Casey’s dealings with BCCI may not have been at arm’s length: the weapons pipeline to Afghanistan allegedly involved funding through a BCCI affiliate in Oman, in which Casey’s close friend and business associate Bruce Rappaport had a financial interest. (38)

Unquestionably BCCI offered Casey an opportunity to conduct off-the-books operations, such as the Iran-Contra arms deal, in which BCCI was intimately involved. But the largest of these operations by far was the support to the Afghan mujahideen resistance against the Soviet invaders, where once again BCCI played a major role. Casey repeatedly held similar meetings with General Zia in Pakistan — arranged by Abedi (39)— and with Saudi intelligence chiefs Kamal Adham and Prince Turki al-Faisal (both BCCI shareholders).

As a result of such conclaves, Prince Turki distributed more than $1 billion in cash to Afghan guerrillas, which was matched by another billion from the CIA. “When the Saudis provided the funding, the administration was able to bypass Congress.” (40)Meanwhile “BCCI handled transfers of funds through its Pakistani branches and acted as a collection agency for war matériel and even for the mujahideens’ pack animals”:(41)

To access the CIA money was relatively easy. Bags of dollar bills were flown into Pakistan and handed over to Lieutenant General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] director. Rahman banked the cash in ISI accounts held by the National Bank of Pakistan, the Pakistan-controlled Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and the Bank of Oman (one-third owned by the BCCI).(42)

Yet there is not a word about BCCI in Ghost Wars, Steve Coll’s otherwise definitive history of the CIA’s campaign in Afghanistan. Similarly there is no mention of BCCI in Coll’s excellent book The Bin Ladens, even though he provides an extended description of how Prince Turki arranged for “transfers of government cash to Pakistan.” (43)

Tons of drugs and billions of dollars were moved around the world
Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from  (US Air Force)

Casey’s involvement with BCCI was not just a backdoor operation with a bank; it was a multi-billion-dollar backdoor operation with a criminal bank accused, even by its own insiders, of:

Global involvement with drug shipments, smuggled gold, stolen military secrets, assassinations, bribery, extortion, covert intelligence operations, and weapons deals. These were the province of a Karachi-based cadre of bank operatives, paramilitary units, spies, and enforcers who handled BCCI’s darkest operations around the globe and trafficked in bribery and corruption. (44)

There were huge and lasting historical consequences from Casey’s apparently unilateral decision to work with BCCI. One was that BCCI’s drug clients in Pakistan and Afghanistan, notably Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, emerged in the 1980s, with protection from General Zia, as dominant figures in an expanded Afghan heroin drug traffic that continues to afflict the world. (45) (According to McCoy, BCCI “played a critical role in facilitating the movement of Pakistani heroin money that reached $4 billion by 1989, more than the country’s legal exports.”(46)

A second consequence was that many of the CIA funds intended for the Afghan mujahideen were instead siphoned off by ISI and redirected to Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) for the successful development of Pakistan’s atomic bomb. “Although the European intelligence community frequently warned of fraudulent activities between BCCI, the BCCI Foundation and KRL, the Reagan administration continually denied there was a problem.”(47)

In turn the head of the labs, Abdul Qadeer Khan, “created a vast network that has spread nuclear know-how to North Korea, Iran and Libya.”(48) In 2008 the Swiss government allegedly seized and destroyed, from the computers of just one network member, nuclear bomb blueprints and manuals on how to manufacture weapons-grade uranium for warheads, but investigators feared that these might nonetheless still be circulating on the international black market. (49)

A third consequence was that Casey could help build up the foreign legion of so-called Arab Afghans in Afghanistan, even though the CIA hierarchy in Langley rightly “thought this unwise.” (50) It was this foreign legion which in 1988 redefined itself as al-Qaeda.(51)

Such can be the consequences of ill-considered covert operations conceived by very small cabals!

US Responsibility for the Flood of Heroin in the World

Here is yet another fact that is so alien to our normal view of reality that I myself find it hard to keep in mind: US backdoor covert foreign policy has been the largest single cause of the illicit drugs flooding the world today.

It is worth contemplating for a moment the legacy of CIA-supported drug proxies in just two areas — the Golden Triangle and the Golden Crescent. In 2003, according to the United Nations, these two areas accounted for 91 percent of the area devoted to illicit opium production and 95 percent of the estimated product in metric tons. [Add in Colombia and Mexico, two other countries where the CIA has worked with drug traffickers, and the four areas accounted for 96.6 percent of the growing area and 97.8 percent of the estimated product.(52)]

The CIA’s covert operations were not the sole cause for this flood of opium and heroin. But the de facto protection conferred on sectors of the opium trade by CIA involvement is clearly a major historical factor for the world crime scourge today.

When the CIA airline CAT began its covert flights to Burma in the 1950s, the area produced about 80 tons of opium a year. In ten years’ time, production had perhaps quadrupled, and at one point during the Vietnam War the output from the Golden Triangle reached 1,200 tons a year. By 1971, there were also at least seven heroin labs in the region, one of which, close to the CIA base at Ban Houei Sai in Laos, produced an estimated 3.6 tons of heroin a year. (53)

Afghan opium production has been even more responsive to US operations in the area. It soared from 200 metric tons in 1980, the first full year of US support for the drug-trafficking mujahideen Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to 1,980 metric tons in 1991, when both the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to terminate their aid. (54)  After 1979 Afghan opium and heroin entered the world market significantly for the first time and rose from roughly 0 to 60 percent of US consumption by 1980. (55) In Pakistan there were hardly any drug addicts in 1979; the number had risen to over 800,000 by 1992.(56)

In 2000-2001, the Taliban virtually eliminated opium production in their area of Afghanistan. Thus total production for 2001 was 185 metric tons. Nearly all of this was from the northeastern corner controlled by the drug trafficking Northern Alliance, which in that year became America’s ally in its invasion.

Once again production soared after the US invasion in 2001, in part because the United States recruited former drug traffickers as supporting assets in its assault. From 3,400 metric tons in 2002, it climbed steadily until “in 2007 Afghanistan produced an extraordinary 8,200 tons of opium (34 percent more than in 2006), becoming practically the exclusive supplier of the world’s deadliest drug (93 percent of the global opiates market).” (57)

Notes:

35. Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin, 2004), 90; cf. Prados, Safe for Democracy, 489.

36. Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 133.

37. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 133n.

38. US Congress, Senate, The BCCI Affair, a Report to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from Senator John Kerry, Chairman, and from Senator Hank Brown,Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations, December 1992, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., Senate Report No. 102-140, “BCCI, the CIA, and Foreign Intelligence,” 320,http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/ bcci/11intel.htm; Alan A. Block and Constance A. Weaver, All Is Clouded by Desire: Global Banking, Money Laundering, and International Organized Crime (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 27–33, 83–85; Wall Street Journal, October 23, 1991; Scott, The Road to 9/11,95, 108, 325.

39. In 1978, when the United States terminated economic assistance to Pakistan because of its nuclear program, Abedi had come to Zia’s rescue with emergency loans from BCCI (Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 80–81).

40. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 153.

41. Truell and Gurwin, False Profits, 133.

42. Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons (New York: Walker and Co., 2007), 125.

43. Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century (New York: Penguin, 2008) 249.

44.Jonathan Beaty and S. C. Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI (New York: Random House, 1993), 66. Those interested in BCCI should also read the defense of the bank by Abid Ullah Jan, From BCCI to ISI: The Saga of Entrapment Continues (Ottawa: Pragmatic Publications, 2006).

45. Beaty and Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank, 48–50; McCoy, The Politics of Heroin, 479–80. Fazle Haq was the governor of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier province; at the same time he was also an important CIA contact and supporter of the Afghan mujahideen, some of whom—it was no secret—were supporting themselves by major opium and heroin trafficking through the North-West Frontier province. By 1982, Fazle Haq would be listed by Interpol as an international narcotics trafficker. However, after lengthy correspondence with Fazle Haq’s son, I am persuaded that there are no known grounds to accuse Fazle Haq of having profited personally from the drug traffic. See “Clarification from Peter Dale Scott re Fazle Haq,” 911Truth.org, http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090223165146219.

46. M. Emdad-ul Haq, Drugs in South Asia: From the Opium Trade to the Present Day (New York: Palgrave, 2000), 204–5, quoted in McCoy, The Politics of Heroin,480.

47. Levy and Scott-Clark, Deception, 128.

48. Washington Post, November 11, 2007, B01.

49. Guardian, May 31, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/31/nuclear.internationalcrime. According to David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector in Washington, the network member, Urs Tinner, was recruited by the CIA from 1999 to 2000 and “was on the CIA payroll for a very large sum of money.”

50. Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 129 (Casey); Prados, Safe for Democracy, 489 (Langley).

51. Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 131–34.

52. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report, 2004,http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2004/Chap3_opium.pdf.

53. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin, 162, 191, 286–87. McCoy’s estimate of the Kuomintang’s impact on expanding production is extremely conservative. According to Bertil Lintner, the foremost authority on the Shan states of Burma, “The annual production increased from a mere 30 tons at the time of independence [1945] to 600 tons in the mid-1950s” (Bertil Lintner, “Heroin and Highland Insurgency,” in Alfred W. McCoy and Alan A. Block, War on Drugs: Studies in the Failure of US NarcoticsPolicy [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992], 288). Furthermore, the Kuomintang’s exploitation of the Shan states led thousands of hill tribesmen to flee to northernThailand, where opium production also increased.

54. State Customs Committee of Azerbaijan, “Opium Production in Afghanistan (1980–2005),” http://www.az-customs.net/en/hq15.htm.

55. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin, 464.

56. Beaty and Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank, 295.

57. Council on Foreign Relations, “Afghanistan Opium Survey, 2007,” August 2007 http://www.cfr.org/publication/14099/afghanistan_opium_survey_2007.html.

The cumulative US merchandise trade deficit with Israel from 1985 through 2015 has ballooned to $144 billion adjusted for inflation. Why are these results so one-sided? By design. The 1985 US “free” trade deal with Israel was passed among a score of measures in the 1980s designed to prop up Israel’s tiny, sputtering economy—not to benefit the US. As recognized by industry opponents at the time, if the deal were truly about trade, the US would have sought out a foreign trading partner with a much larger and more diversified economy.

The “US-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group” headed up by economist Stanley Fischer demanded the Reagan administration henceforth deliver foreign aid to Israel in the form of grants, which did not have to be repaid, rather than loans. The team also insisted upon the unilateral elimination of US trade barriers on Israeli goods while allowing Israel to continue to protect its own domestic industries.

Originally referred to as “Duty Free Treatment for US Imports from Israel” the spin-masters in the “discussion group,” the Israeli government, and its foreign lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) knew a public relations reframing job was necessary if they were going to pull off the near unilateral lowering of US tariff and non-tariff barriers.

The deal was therefore rebranded as America’s first “free trade” deal, conjuring up rosy images of bilaterally, if not equally, lowering barriers which would force each country’s producers to focus on their comparative advantages, boosting total trade volumes and making better, cheaper, more plentiful goods available to consumers in both countries.

It did not work out that way.

Israel maintained its set of fixed and floating tariff and non-tariff barriers in order to gradually reverse America’s bilateral trade surplus and create a chronic trade deficit solely to Israel’s advantage.

Source: US Census foreign trade data

American industry groups lobbying against the deal at the time foresaw this. Sunkist, Monsanto, the US Bromine Alliance, the American Farm Bureau, Dow Chemical, Hunt Wesson Foods, the AFL-CIO and most other interested US industry groups testified against it before the International Trade Commission. Only a handful of small, mostly pro-Israel, groups backed it. Injury was added to insult when the US Trade Representative and ITC discovered Israeli agents (including AIPAC) had surreptitiously obtained hundreds of pages of classified trade secrets submitted by opponents of the deal and used it to lobby for passage. As has now become the norm, the US Department of Justice shut down the FBI investigation just as it was closing in on the Israeli agents and their US collaborators involved in the economic espionage caper. Israel remained on USTR’s “watch list” over abuses for many years, but few remedies were ever offered to U.S. producers.

Members of congress, various Israel lobby organization pundits and chambers of commerce occasionally trumpet the deal as a success. In 2009 Martin Indyk, head of the AIPAC research unit that worked hard to lobby in support of the deal (before spinning off AIPAC’s think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy at the peak of the FBI investigation) confidently claimed, “the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement served as a wedge that opened up the Congress to Free Trade Agreements throughout the world, including the NAFTA agreement. No doubt there are some downsides to it, but otherwise it’s been a very positive thing.” (YouTube version)

However, the numbers reveal that it has been positive only for Israel. In terms of the cumulative inflation-adjusted deficit created since this first “free” trade deal was signed, it is the worst-performing of all US bilateral trade agreements, and the second-worst of all US trade agreements, trailing only NAFTA.

Source: US Census foreign trade data

News reports occasionally provide a glimpse of the truth—that the U.S.-Israel FTA is merely an extension of Israel-lobby extracted American aid—a $10 billion boost to the annual $3-$4 billion US foreign aid package whereby Israel receives the lion’s share of the US foreign aid budget. When Israel reinstated a 120 percent duty on imported gefilte fish, it took the involvement of an Illinois congressional representative, the secretary of state, Israel’s ambassador and the Israeli Prime Minister to get a special “one time” exemption and finally allow the US fish to enter Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s own voluminous goods arrive in American ports on greased skids even as Israel’s agents fight to gain acceptance of illegal settlement products within Israel’s flow of exports.

Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book Big Israel: How Israel’s Lobby Moves America. He is director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington (IRmep)

The Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) is a Washington-based nonprofit organization that studies US-Middle East policy formulation. 

There are two realistic scenarios for Bernie Sanders to win the U.S. Presidency.

One depends upon his receiving the Democratic Party’s nomination. The other doesn’t, but both are realistic.

HE STILL MIGHT WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

He still can win the Democratic Party’s nomination, under not just one but two possible scenarios:

(1): Clinton could be indicted for her having privatized her State Department emails.

As I have documented, there are at least three federal criminal statutes that Hillary Clinton unquestionably did violate by privatizing her State Department emails:

THE FIRST: 18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

THE SECOND: 18 U.S.C. Section 641. Public money, property or records: Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, … Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information … (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same  to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —  Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

THE THIRD: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally: (a)Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b)Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I have no sources inside the FBI’s investigation, but the libertarian legal commentator and retired U.S. judge Andrew P. Napolitano does, and he has continually reported that FBI agents who are working on the case have threatened to resign if the Administration blocks them, and he also has reported, on May 12th, that they are closing in on Hillary Clinton now and are pursuing a case against her, negotiating for testimony from her aides (potentially to testify against her), and that “last week”:

“a federal judge ordered the same five persons to give videotaped testimony in a civil lawsuit against the State Department which once employed them in order to determine if there was a “conspiracy” – that’s the word used by the judge – in Mrs. Clinton’s office to evade federal transparency laws. Stated differently, the purpose of these interrogations is to seek evidence of an agreement to avoid the Freedom of Information Act requirements of storage and transparency of records, and whether such an agreement, if it existed, was also an agreement to commit espionage – the removal of state secrets from a secure place to a non-secure place.”

Although the U.S. President could instruct his Attorney General to drop the investigation into Clinton’s email operation, an FBI agent who would go public about that obstruction of justice would sink not only Clinton’s chances but that President’s historical legacy.

Though an indictment after Clinton’s receiving the Party’s endorsement wouldn’t change the fact of her still being (in that scenario) the Democratic Party’s nominee for the U.S. Presidency, it would cause a split amongst congressional Democrats, some continuing to support her but others not, and a Republican-controlled Congress would be almost certain to result under that circumstance.

The 719 Democratic Party superdelegates at the National Convention are there mainly in order to be able to block a person from receiving the Party’s nomination if that person as the nominee would clearly harm the Party’s chances of winning (controlling) congress and other elective offices throughout the nation; and, so, if Hillary Clinton stands a serious chance of indictment, they’ll oppose her; and, if she has actually been indicted prior to the July 25th start of the National Convention, they’ll definitely vote against her.

(2) Sanders has far higher likelihood of beating Trump than Clinton does.

Nationally polled matchups between Clinton versus Trump, and between Sanders versus Trump, have consistently shown Sanders performing far better than Clinton does. (The trend you see there in those numbers gets worse and worse for Clinton.)

With national polls like that, the superdelegates could possibly, if not perhaps even likely, swing so strongly to Sanders as to hand him the Democratic nomination.

WHAT ABOUT IF CLINTON RECEIVES THE NOMINATION?

As I noted at that last link, there’s “the possibility that Sanders would run a campaign whose message will be ‘Write in “Bernie Sanders”‘ — that he will be campaigning for the votes of everyone who wants him to become the President, to simply write his name in on the Presidential ballot.” And he realistically might win, even under that scenario.

This outcome could provide a U.S. President who is beholden to no Party, and who very possibly (if he wishes to do it) will transform the Democratic Party so that it’s no longer the anti-FDR, anti-Kennedy, anti-LBJ, Party, that eliminated FDR’s Glass-Steagall Act and deregulated banking, and eliminated Aid to Dependent Children, and weakened protections of labor union organizers. He might transform it into, instead, a rebirth and extension of FDR’s progressive Democratic Party, and he thus could restore American politics to its constructive direction, which pertained generally during the period 1932-1980, the period that was dominated by FDR’s Democracy — America’s boom-years, when the U.S. truly did lead the world in democracy.

For Sanders to instead campaign for Clinton, would be for him to endorse her record (not her words but her actual policies in public office), which would make a mockery of not only Sanders’s words, but of his extensive entire record of actions in public office. It would be for him to renounce himself, renounce his most cherished stated and acted-upon beliefs.

Under circumstances such as Sanders is facing, his quitting the Presidential contest would be folly — not to mention a failure by him to live up to what that majority of Americans who want Sanders to be the next President fervently hope and expect from him: to continue to represent their demands for a more progressive America.

We didn’t get to the point of having the one person that more Americans, in all matchup-polls, show to be preferred more than any other individual to become the next U.S. President, by expecting him to back down from his democratic commitment, under such circumstances as have here been documented to pertain. Not at all.

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

At least 140 politicians from more than 50 countries are linked to offshore companies.

Trump Would Beat Clinton; Sanders Would Beat Trump

By Eric Zuesse, May 12 2016

A Reuters/Ipsos poll was released on the evening of Wednesday May 11th and headlined, “Trump draws even with Clinton in national White House poll”. It opened: “Republican Donald Trump pulled even with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in a Reuters/Ipsos opinion…

Zionist Israel Hides Its Crimes Behind Its Smears of Truth-Tellers

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 12 2016

Several years ago two very distinguished American scholars wrote a book, The Israel Lobby.  The book made a very understated case that the Israel Lobby has far more power over the US government and media than is good for America…

Pesticides, GMOs and Corporate Control: The Poster Child is Monsanto but Neil Young is the Main Act

By Colin Todhunter, May 12 2016

Neil Young has a long history of activism. He is a co-founder of Farm Aid, which works to support small and family farmers in North America, while his song Ohio is often considered to be one of the greatest protest…

Bangladesh: The Hanging of Nizami and the Grip on Political Power

By Chandra Muzaffar, May 12 2016

The head of Bangladesh’s leading Islamic party, the Jamaat-e-Islami,(JI) Motiur Rahman Nizami was hanged at Dhaka Central jail at one minute past midnight on Wednesday 11 May 2016. In 2014, a death sentence was imposed on him by a special…

Massacres in Northern Nigeria and the Repressive State

By Kola Ibrahim, May 12 2016

What is the worth of a Nigerian life? This is a vital question that the Nigerian army and government will have to answer in view of the mass murder of Nigerians, who are supporters and members of the Ibrahim El…

Remembering World War II, the Defeat of Nazism: Toronto Officials Try to Thwart Victory Day Celebration

By Konstantin Goulish, May 12 2016

Seventy one years ago the most violent military conflict of the 20th century, the Second World War ended in victory over Nazi Germany. Unprecedented levels of destruction, barbarism, industrial scale ethnic cleansing, and a myriad of other atrocities took millions…

Usually crimes against humanity take place behind closed doors, in concentration camps, Abu Ghraib-like torture settings or Nazi Germany; not so in 83% Black Detroit, Michigan.  In the next few weeks, the international community will witness with eyes wide open the city of Detroit’s blatant violations of human rights.  These crimes will be condoned and executed by Detroit officials with the full knowledge of the White House.

Access to water is considered a human right and access to safe and clean water is a core mission of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), however, 40% of the residents of Detroit will be deprived of the basic element of life: water.  Children will go to school without baths and senior citizens will be deprived of water to take medicine. Having lost confidence in a US national commitment to saving the lives of citizens, advocacy groups have begun to petition the United Nations for an emergency response.

The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), has begun shutting off water to 3,000 people a week, and could soon cut off access to drinkable water for 150,000 Detroit residents who have failed to pay recent water bills.

Detroit was one of the cities hardest hit by international trade agreements, such as NAFTA. Detroit is also a city targeted for ethnic cleaning of its African population to make space for white professionals. Once a thriving middle-class city, the union movement was crushed by the government and business executives determined to drive wages down. At the end of the day, these latest tactics are designed to induce forced relocations, a component of ethnic cleansing that is sometimes politely and inaccurately called gentrification.

The forced relocation tactics have changed over the years, with contemporary methods eerily resembling Nazi-like strategies, such as deliberately poisoning urban and domestic water supplies, depriving children and households of life-maintaining and sustaining water and a decent education. Black communities – already traumatized by the removal and imprisonment of nearly one million African men and the murder by police of thousands of unarmed young men and women – have become soft targets for these unrelenting attacks.

The United Nations’ Human Rights council criticized the United States for police violence and racial discrimination, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility and the continued use of the death penalty. Member countries criticized the US and recommended that it strengthen legislation and expand training to “eliminate racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement.”

“I’m not surprised that the world’s eyes are focused on police issues in the U.S.,” said Alba Morales, who investigates the U.S. criminal justice system at Human Rights Watch. “There is an international spotlight that’s been shone [on the issues], in large part due to the events in Ferguson and the disproportionate police response to even peaceful protesters,” she said.

The recommendations from the Council seem tepid and dismissive of the scale of the violence towards African-Americans.  These same atrocities occurring in any other country outside the US, such as Bosnia or Syria would cause an international uproar and calls to prevent deaths from water deprivation and to provide international protections for the targeted group. But, the US is the major donor to the UN and plays a leadership role on the UN Security Council, making it virtually impossible for nations that would show solidarity to African-Americans to act through this institution. Nevertheless, UN member states do have a bully-pulpit to expose the human rights violations occurring in the US.

However, when one considers the war-like tactics deployed against an unarmed civilian population, such as, deliberate state-sponsored poisonings, murders of unarmed civilians, forced relocations and imprisonment, one is left asking what part of genocide does the UN not understand?

And the beat of genocide escalates.

The Detroit People’s Water Board, Food and Water Watch, Blue Planet Project, and Michigan Welfare Rights Organization submitted a comprehensive report to the U.N.’s special rapporteur that details the dire situation facing the predominately Black population of Detroit:

“Sick people have been left without running water and working toilets. People recovering from surgery cannot wash and change bandages. Children cannot bathe, and parents cannot cook…”

“(F)amilies concerned about children being taken away by authorities due to lack of water and sanitation services in the home have been sending their children to live with relatives and friends, which has an impact on school attendance and related activities.”

Activists claim the city has been unfairly overcharging Detroit residents for water to compensate for its significant financial woes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 38.1 percent of Detroit residents are living below the poverty line. Despite the tough times many people are facing, they’ve been paying an average of $64.99 a month, significantly higher than the nationalaverage of about $40, and rates are only going up. The Detroit City Council just approved a nearly 9 percent rate increase for water.

Three U.N. human rights experts issued a statement declaring that “disconnection of water services because of failure to pay due to lack of means constitutes a violation of the human right to water and other international human rights.

“When I conducted an official country mission to the U.S. in 2011, I encouraged the U.S. government to adopt a federal minimum standard on affordability for water and sanitation and a standard to provide protection against disconnections for vulnerable groups and people living in poverty,”

said Catarina de Albuquerque, who is the U.N.’s special rapporteur on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation. “I also urged the government to ensure due process guarantees in relation to water disconnection.”

One of the experts, Leilani Farha, who focuses on the right to adequate housing, also pointed out the racial implications of shutting off water to the nearly 83 percent black population. “If these water disconnections disproportionately affect African Americans, they may be discriminatory, in violation of treaties the U.S. has ratified,” said Farha.

These calls for justice are falling on deaf ears. While President Obama concedes that the poisoning in Flint “was a man-made disaster; this was avoidable, this was preventable,” the President did not deploy with all due haste the full power of the federal government to solve this situation.  In fact, he primed the Flint community, in which over 8,000 children are suspected of being lead poisoned to expect that it may take additional two years before lead pipes are replaced. But, he left Flint on a positive note, asserting that “filtered water in the city was safe for anyone over the age of six.”

But not everyone is feeling the pain of water deprivation in Detroit. That kind of pain seems to be reserved for families and communities. The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department has decided not to pull the plug on businesses in the city.  Although the city claims that it started sending out notices about the disconnections in March, the report’s authors write that they heard “directly from people impacted by the water cutoffs who say they were given no warning and had no time to fill buckets, sinks, and tubs before losing access to water.”

“We really don’t want to shut off anyone’s water, but it’s really our duty to go after those who don’t pay, because if they don’t pay, then our other customers pay for them,” department spokesperson Curtrise Garner told Al Jazeera America. “That’s not fair to our other customers.”

Businesses owe hundreds of thousands of dollars but a decision was made not to disconnect the corporate community:

“According to a department list, the top 40 commercial and industrial accounts have past-due accounts totaling $9.5 million. That list includes apartment complexes, the Chrysler Group, real estate agencies, a laundromat and even a cemetery.”

The only people who apparently are in denial regarding the blatant, surgical and genocidal attacks against them are unfortunately the targets of the attack. Perhaps, Black folks are hoping that US genocidal policy towards our community will be confined to Flint and Detroit. How else can you explain the silence and inaction of black communities across the country?

Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo is the author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated: No FEAR: A Whistleblowers Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA. She worked at the EPA for 18 years and blew the whistle on a US multinational corporation that endangered South African vanadium mine workers. Marsha’s successful lawsuit led to the introduction and passage of the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21st century: the Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act). She is Director of Transparency and Accountability for the Green Shadow Cabinet, serves on the Advisory Board of ExposeFacts.com and coordinates the Hands Up Coalition, DC.

After a series of secret meetings between Saudi and Israeli officials were exposed by a select few of mainstream press outlets, both the Saudis and the Israelis are now becoming more open about the relationship between the two governments. Although, for years, GCC countries like Saudi Arabia have held a public position of hostility toward Israel, many researchers and observers have long been aware of secret cooperation between the two and that public statements were largely designed to provide a cover of Arab identity and self-interest for the benefit of public consumption.

After all, the two share common goals when it comes to Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria and all have the common ally of the United States.

As Murtaza Hussain wrote for the Intercept in his article “Israel’s Clandestine Alliance With Gulf Arab States Is Going Public,”

In 2009, a U.S. State Department diplomatic cable gave one of the first glimpses of a burgeoning alliance between Israel and the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The cable quoted Israeli Foreign Ministry official Yacov Hadas saying, “the Gulf Arabs believe in Israel’s role because of their perception of Israel’s close relationship with the United States,” adding that GCC states “believe Israel can work magic.”

Israel and the Gulf states also shared an interest in countering what they saw as rising Iranian influence in the Middle East. So while the two sides sparred in public — Israel’s “Cast Lead” military operation had just claimed more than 1,400 lives in the Gaza Strip and was condemned by Saudi Arabia, in a letter to the United Nations, as “fierce aggression” — they enjoyed “good personal relations” behind closed doors, Hadas said, according to one cable. Hadas reportedly added that the Gulf Arabs were still “not ready to do publicly what they say in private.”

Fast forward six years, and it seems as though the GCC states have finally readied themselves to go public about their warming relationships with Israel. In an event at the Council on Foreign Relations this week in Washington, reported on by Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, high-ranking former Saudi and Israeli officials not only shared the stage but disclosed that the two countries had been holding a series of high-level meetings to discuss shared strategic goals, particularly around the perceived regional ascendance of Iran. At the event, former Saudi General Anwar Eshki openly called for regime change in Iran, while former Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Dore Gold, once a fierce critic of Saudi Arabia, spoke of his outreach to the country in recent years, and of the possibility of resolving the remaining differences between the two nations, stating, “Our standing today on this stage does not mean we have resolved all the differences that our countries have shared over the years, but our hope is we will be able to address them fully in the years ahead.”

Hussain also pointed out that signals are now apparent of the growing intelligence connection between the Israelis and the Gulf States. He wrote,

In recent years, however, the dual phenomena of the Arab uprisings and growing Iranian influence have pushed GCC leaders closer to Israel. Last year, Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal took the unprecedented step of publishing an op-ed in a major Israeli newspaper calling for peace between Israel and GCC nations, as well as for a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. As the United States under the Obama administration has pursued détente with Iran in recent years, reports have also surfaced suggesting covert security cooperation between Israel and GCC states. The investigative news site Middle East Eye recently documented the existence of regular, secret flights between Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv, despite the ostensible ban on Israeli citizens entering the UAE.

In addition, it should be pointed out that such an alliance was largely cemented when Saudi Arabia banned Al-Manar, the Hezbollah-owned television channel, from operating within its borders. Saudi Arabia shortly thereafter labeled Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization.” Hezbollah, of course, is both an enemy of Israel and close friend of Iran.

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

Governments, NGOs and journalists across the globe have condemned a leak of personal data of more than 4,000 media staff, accused by pro-Kiev activists of “collaborating with terrorists” for their reporting from war-torn eastern Ukraine.

 What is the worth of a Nigerian life? This is a vital question that the Nigerian army and government will have to answer in view of the mass murder of Nigerians, who are supporters and members of the Ibrahim El Zakzakky-led Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) based in Zaria, Kaduna State. The Judicial Commission of Inquiry set up by the Kaduna State government to probe the Zaria events, rather than provide soft-landing for the government and the military has brought the cruel nature of armed forces and the Nigerian state to the fore.

Between December 12 and 14, 2015, hundreds of members of IMN, which belongs to the Shia tendency in Muslim family, were summarily and extra-judicially murdered by the Nigerian army under the direct order of the army chief, General Tukur Buratai. Several hundred others were brutalized, many with serious bullet wounds; while according to the government sources, close to 200 persons are being detained and/or arraigned for sundry offences. The head of IMN, El Zakzakky, who was brutally injured according to his counsel, and his equally wounded wife, Zeenat, are under illegal army/police detention.

According to Kaduna State government officials, around 347 corpses were summarily and secretly mass buried by the government, while the IMN has claimed that close to a thousand of its people are missing. Hospital sources likewise revealed that more than the reported 347 lives must have been lost. Video footages recorded by some IMN members show desperate soldiers running around the IMN buildings to shoot down any visible human. Yet, the army authorities claimed that just ‘few’ lives were lost. According to Amnesty International report, relying on interview with survivors of the mass purge, many wounded and trapped people in the IMN headquarters were burnt alive by soldiers (page 8, Nigeria: Unearthing the Truth, 2016). Clearly, those burnt are not part of the secretly buried 347.

The question then is; what grave offence did the IMN members, who are Nigerians like the soldiers, committed to have warranted this gruesome and extra-judicial murder? Even in war situation, women, children, and non-combatants should be protected. Meanwhile, the IMN was not known to be a terror group or advocate of terrorism, at least according to its official statements.

Orwellian Logic

According to popular narrative, the IMN members blocked a section of the Sokoto road which is adjacent to their headquarters, in an attempt to secure a section of the road for their religious activity. However, the convoy of the army chief of staff, General Tukur Buratai ran into the roadblock, and attempted to wade through the procession of the Shiites. This led to disagreement as the Shiites insisted that the army convoy should pass through another route. In the ensuing agitation, the army gunned down about dozen people, and dispersed the IMN parade. Not satisfied, several army forces, fully armed to the teeth, descended on the IMN secretariat, housing the IMN leader, El Zakzakky. In two days, from 12-14 December, 2015, several hundreds of IMN members were murdered and wounded, while buildings of the IMN, aside its cemetery, were burnt and demolished.

The army, in its defensive propaganda statements, claimed that the IMN members were armed to the teeth and planned to kill the army chief of staff. This is aimed at justifying the mass murder of the Shiites. In fact, at the Probe Panel set up by the Kaduna State government, the army spokesperson portrayed IMN members as terrorists. This seems to be an Orwellian logic where the criminal turns to the victim. Otherwise, how can one explain that the army, which killed hundreds of citizens in a gruesome manner, will turn around to tag their victims, murderous militia? However, no amount of justification, twisted logic or misrepresentation by the army and the government can justify the massacre of hundreds of citizens. Rather, these falsehoods will further show the repressive and neo-colonial character of the Nigerian army.

Religion and Public space

Without mincing words, blocking of public road for days and creating avoidable discomfort for other citizens under the guise of observing religious rites is wrong and unacceptable. The Shiites’ use and display of some harmful tools and weapons like batons, knives and machetes, which threaten public peace, but obviously in self-defence of the Shiites, is also not justifiable. But tell me, which religious group has not constituted or is not constituting public disturbance. On the basis of the false belief that ‘spiritual’ message is superior to human activity and reasoning, various religious sects have turned our roads into their properties, while millions of man-hour are lost to religious control of public space. Virtually every month, Lagos-Ibadan expressway, a major road for the country, becomes virtually impassable due to religious activities of different sorts along the road. Should we mention the unsolicited public noise and nuisance?

Even in the north, religious activities not only constitute public disturbance but also force people of other beliefs and sects to abide by injunctions and directive of others. There have been conflicts associated with non-Muslims passing through public place occupied by Muslims during their religious activities. Enforcement of Sharia law in many northern states, despite the fact that there are significant religious minorities, shows how religion and political authorities use might, either subtly or directly, to enforce their activities on the society and take public space.

In nearly none of these scenarios were security agents drafted to mass murder citizens. In many instances, ruling politicians and government officials support and play active roles in many religious activities that impinge on people’s right to public places. This is because politicians, with no popular base due to their pro-rich, anti-poor character and philosophy, usually rely on religious and ethnic bases to guarantee their continuous presence on the political scene. Therefore, they are comfortable with using religion to further their politics. At such point, they care no hoot if religious activities constitute social disturbance. Contrarily, the security operatives will be on hand to physically crush anyone who stands in the way of politicians’ convoy.  Some few years back, tens of lives were lost at a church convention in southeastern Nigeria when two contending politicians attended the event.

IMN’s Ideological Root

The Shiites possibly became victim of state repression because they are independent of the mainstream political class in the north. The Shiites, on the basis of age-long rivalry with Sunnis, are seen as enemy by the Sunni authorities who control majority of Muslims in the north, nay Nigeria. Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) itself intends, just like many Political Islamist groups, to establish an Islamic state. But unlike majority of violent rightwing Islamist groups seeking to establish an Islamic state through violence and terror, IMN wants to establish a Shiite Islamic state in the image of the Iran state. This difference is very important. Iran theocratic state was formed out of the crucible of the revolt in 1979 against the Muhammed Reza Sha regime, a pro-imperialist, corrupt and repressive regime. The revolution that started as mass movement of workers against Sha was hijacked by the Islamic organization led by Ayatollah Khomeini. This was made possible by the treacherous role of the Communist Tudeh Party and Fedayeen in Iran, which subscribe to the false theory of two-stage revolution.

This is a theory that propound that revolting mass of working people will first have to hand over power to a so-called ‘progressive’ section of the capitalist class, in the Iran’s case, the capitalist Islamic clerics, who will carry out a democratic revolution before working people can have a second revolution to bring about socialism. This false theory has meant that leadership of working class movement, handing revolutions over to various sections of capitalist class, who are only opposed to their colleagues in power on the basis of who and how to run the exploitative system. This method had ruined many revolutionary movements and set the society back. This was what happened in Iran. The communist party, at a period of revolutionary fervor of the working masses against poverty, corruption and repression under Reza Sha, handed over power to the Islamic clergy, which lost huge landed properties under the Sha’s rule. This led to the emergence in 1980 of a theocratic state under the direction of Khomeini. What was actually needed was a revolutionary leadership that would link the democratic programmes denied under Reza Sha with economic transformation towards socialism, with full democratic participation of working people. The leadership of Tudeh and Fadeyeen, on the contrary, betrayed the revolutions. Khomeini subsequently purged the political space of radical leftist and communist influences.

However, the Iranian revolution, like other revolutions evoked mass enthusiasm among young people throughout the world. It was in this period that Ibrahim El Zakzakky, then prominent student leader formed his organization. Zakzakky perhaps wants to create Islamic state by playing prominent role in the anti-establishment movement and build followership, in the same manner as Khomeini.

North’s Religious Authority

The Zakzakky-led group by this condition is a thorn in the flesh of majority Sunni authority in the northern Nigeria. The religious authority in the north, also serve to a large extent as the traditional authority from which the political authority was dependent and allied. Therefore, an opposition to the traditional cum religious authority in the north is more or less an opposition to the state. While the traditional and religious authority supported the military rule, El Zakzakky opposed the military rule, especially the Abacha junta that clamped him into detention for months. Traditional and religious authorities support various sections of the ruling elites in the country, while the El Zakzakky Shiite group opposes or remains indifferent to most ruling elites. Of course, El Zakzakky’s opposition to various sections of the ruling elites may be rooted in religious differences albeit laced with socio-economic rhetoric, the fact that a minority group is opposed, possibly consistently to political and traditional authorities in the north, poses serious danger for the continued rule of the corruption-ridden political and traditional authority in the north and the country.

Covering up the Massacre

The military and the Nigerian state can thus bank on this support from the religious and traditional authorities to wish away the horror they wrought on citizens. However, they have to strenuously cover their tracks. This is what the military and the Nigerian state has been trying to do since the December 12-14, 2015 massacre. Few days after the massacre, the military destroyed all buildings and cleared off headquarter of IMN in Hussainiyyah and El Zakzakky house at Gyallesu, including several dead bodies shot dead and burnt therein,. By this, the military deliberately destroyed vital evidences that could have indicted it.  Also, in the wee hours of 14 December, 2015, barely few hours after the mass murder, the military in conjunction with Kaduna State government mass buried 347 (three hundred and forty seven) dead bodies at a location in Zaria town. Even after the state government was forced by previous revelations from hospital sources to reveal the secret burial, the military authority still denied this, claiming “only few bodies” were buried.

In a ridiculous manner, the military authority, even before the brim of flame at Hussainiyya and Gyallesu could die down, petitioned National Human Rights Commission, alleging attempted murder of Chief of Army Staff, General Buratai by IMN members. According to reports, including that of the military, few IMN members were only with dagger, knives and swords during the procession, which though was wrong and unlawful, but obviously was for self defence, and was already with the Shiites before the soldiers arrived the scene. How can military, whose foot soldiers were armed to the teeth, claim that few barely armed IMN members tried to kill its chief?

Agreed that the IMN’s monopolizing of public road was wrong; could the army not have invited the police, whose jurisdiction fall within civil security, to resolve the issue, instead of gunning down citizens just to protect already battered ego of the army? Why did the army, which had earlier killed over 40 Shiites in July 2014, not exercise restraint knowing that emotion of Shiites would run high? Why did the army go ahead, after committing extra-judicial killing at the procession, to kill hundreds of persons not only at the Hussainiyya but also at the Zakzakky building in Gyallesu? Is the right to life not part of military rule of engagement? Even in war situation, the combat soldiers are expected to safeguard lives of the weak including women, children, the old, and even the unarmed. From the gruesome manner the military carried out the massacre, coupled with the clinical manner of covering up the massacre, it is glaring the massacre is premeditated.

Police’s Horrible Conduct

The police authority that was not involved in the matter by the army was quick to arraign about 200 IMN members and supporters for various offences including criminal conspiracy, attempted homicide, etc. How did the police arrive at the conclusion that led to the arraignment of IMN members for these crimes, when it has yet to conduct any serious investigation, other than report from the army and the state government? Interestingly, the police that was quick to detain and arraign IMN members for criminal offenses is yet to hold any soldier responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of IMN members. The same police authority has not till date probed nor prosecuted a single soldier for the killing of Shiites in late 2014 by the same army, despite promises that the culprits will be punished. Yet, the police authority was quick to compare the IMN with Boko Haram even when the IMN was itself a victim of Boko Haram terror in Kano on 27 November 2015 where 20 of its members were killed in bomb blast.

Unlike Boko Haram, IMN was not known to be a terroristic organization. In late 2014, its members protected Christians against Boko Haram attack. Even when its members were killed in 2014 and 2015, it has limited its protests to civil activities including press campaign, rallies, protest marches, petitions, etc. The groups had consistently distanced itself from violent action ever since the latest mass murder occurred. Therefore, the police authority attempt to join IMN with Boko Haram is aimed at whitewashing army’s heinous record. The police and the Department of State Security (the repressive and undemocratic secret security outfit set up under military rule to crush opposition to the military) further claimed that the IMN members are lawless and that they constituted themselves into a state within a state. But is it not funny that that the same security agencies that were quick to kill peaceful protesters would claim it has no capacity to apprehend IMN members who acted unlawful? Why would the police and DSS wait until hundreds of IMN members were killed before realizing that they were lawless?

Trail of Blood

The gruesome actions of the army follow known murderous pattern of Nigerian military. This is not the first time that the army will be carrying out extra-judicial murder. Beside the 40 Shiites killed in 2014 by the army, scores of pro-Biafra protesters were killed and wounded by soldiers during their protests between December 2015 and March 2016. In fact, some pro-Biafra groups claimed that the army is secretly killing and arresting scores of suspected pro-Biafra members.

Moreover, the various extra-judicial killings by the military under the guise of fighting Boko Haram has not been investigated neither are the perpetrators brought to book. For instance, the extra-judicial mass killing of hundreds of citizens, mostly detainees, by soldiers following Boko Haram attack on Giwa Barrack in Maiduguri, Borno State on 14 March, 2014 is swept under the carpet. According to Amnesty International, several hundred innocent citizens were killed by both Boko Haram and the military in 2014. The Jonathan government, whose administration has been fingered in massive arms deal fraud, covered up many of these atrocities. Unfortunately, the Buhari administration, since emergence a year ago, has not deemed it fit to open many of these cases, despite their gruesomeness. According to the latest report from Amnesty International, over 150 detainees, including women and children have died in the Giwa Barrack detention centre this year due to hunger, gun wounds and diseases. In fact, since the emergence of the military rule, the armed and security forces have wasted tens of thousands of lives in its quest to project its ego, and serve the interests of corrupt Nigerian government and oil corporations. From Odi to Zaki Biam, Jos, Warri, Borno (2009), etc., Nigerian military has blood in its hands.

The underlining basis for the military acting like an occupation force is premised on its neo-colonial, pro-ruling class and undemocratic nature. Nigerian military, since its formation by the colonial master for the defence of colonial local and foreign interests, has not fundamentally departed from this orientation even after the end of colonial rule. It has transformed from defending colonial interests to defending the interests of various sections of capitalist political class. Therefore, the military in any engagement will be prepared to defend the interests of its overlords in the political and imperialist camps, even if involves killings hundreds of citizens.

This is made worse by the undemocratic nature of running the military, where the rank and file soldiers have no democratic input into decision making process in the military, even on their welfare issues. Aside answerable only to the commander-in-chief, there is no public democratic control over the military and the armed forces. This means that if a senior military officer, acting under ethno-religious or pecuniary influences, takes a deadly decision, such will have to be abided with by juniors. There are reported cases of compromised commanding officers cornering money meant for materials and upkeep of rank and file soldiers in the Boko Haram fight thus sacrificing lives of foot soldiers. In one instance, rank and file soldiers had to mutiny against their commanding officer, after his order led to mass killing of soldiers by Boko Haram. The diversion of billions of dollars meant for the fight against Boko Haram by elements in Goodluck Jonathan administration shows how corrupt and undemocratic the political and military structure are.

Only when we have a genuinely revolutionary working people’s government, which basis of existence is the defence of the welfare, democratic and long term interests of the working and oppressed majority, can we have a genuine pro-people, democratic and revolutionary armed forces. Such armed forces, aside being put under the democratic control of rank and file officers – without necessarily encouraging indiscipline – and society at large, will also play vital role in socio-economic and political development. The current neo-colonial, backward and pro-rich armed forces is only representing the backward, neo-colonial, primitive capitalist system we have in Nigeria. The mass murder of Shiites, among other massacres, clearly underscores this.

Governments’ dubious responses

The responses of the Nigerian state have also shown that Nigerian governments do not care a hoot for lives of their citizens, inasmuch as their interest to continue to rule is guaranteed. Based on the much touted ‘Change’ mantra, one would have expected a different approach by the Buhari administration. But it seems people are expecting too much ‘Change’. Government’s deliberate passivity towards the massacre of Shiites betrays its complicity. President Muhammadu Buhari, when asked during last edition of Presidential Chat about the Shiites’ issue, only wished it away, claiming that the Kaduna State government has already set up a probe panel. Yet, the state government has no enough capacity to fully investigate this massacre or prosecute the dramatis personae involved especially the military, as it does not control any security and intelligence structure. This is clearly an attempt to defray public outcry against the mass murder.

The Kaduna State government is also dubiously trying to justify the massacre. Immediately the carnage occurred, the state government placed the blame at the doorstep of Islamic Movement of Nigeria, but refused to condemn the army for the killing. Of course, the government later set up a Judicial Commission of Inquiry in January, 2016 to probe the issue. While some revelations, which confirmed some aspects of Amnesty report has been made, it is clear the agenda for setting up the judicial commission was to provide alibi for the government’s endorsement of the mass murder. The same government that set up a commission of inquiry was helping military to cover up vital evidences should help expose the military. The government also provided moral support for the military in carrying out torture of those arrested, many of whom were wounded. A survivor named Nasiru, who spoke to Amnesty, was quoted thus:

I was outside the Hussainiya on Saturday afternoon when the soldiers started to shoot so I went to ground and as I was crawling a soldier grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and stabbed me with a knife below my left eye. It was a deep cut. I must have passed out briefly and he dragged me to the one of their trucks nearby. On the truck there were several bodies or injured people, I don’t know as nobody was moving. One soldier said ‘this guy is still alive’, and they grabbed me and opened my mouth and stuck an arrow down my throat through the back of my neck. I fainted. The following morning I was taken to the hospital. I don’t know how I got there but I was told that I spent the night in the morgue with the dead bodies but that in the morning someone noticed that my leg was twitching. The arrow was only removed nine days later because the doctors did not know how to go about it…

According to the Amnesty report, hospital officials claimed that the kind of wound of Nasiru was the pattern of those treated. Yet, the Kaduna State government, aside unilaterally and unjustly tagging these victims of military brutality as the culprit, went as far as helping to detain and arraign most of these people for criminal offences. Many of those arraigned have not recovered from the loss of loved ones and family members. In fact, one of the objectives of the commission is to “determine the evolution of the Islamic Movement in Nigeria, including its organization, structure and assets… and how these contributed to its engagement with… the security agencies”. This clearly shows the bias of the state government towards indicting the IMN. Can any genuine intention lie behind the setting of a commission of inquiry? The demand of the IMN that its leader be released in order to prepare its defence was not acceded to. Moreover, the IMN had alleged that some of those in the Commission are known opponents of Shiites and IMN. All of these the government and the Commission had deliberately wished away.

Repressive State

It is clear that the governments, both federal and Kaduna state, want to make a scapegoat of Shiites in order to send strong message to any other dissident or dissent voice that may want to oppose the government. In the last one year, about two thousand lives have been lost to extra-judicial killings and criminal negligence by security and armed forces under the Buhari government. All this shows government in disarray which is therefore afraid of opposition. The current Buhari government, which had some popular support at its inception, has not being able to and cannot resolve Nigeria’s socio-economic problems. This is a result of its adherence to the same neo-liberal capitalist orientation, nay its neo-colonial form, of the past that ensure wealth for the rich few, and impoverishment for the majority.

Inasmuch as the current economic maelstrom facing the country was not caused by the Buhari government, it has however gotten worse under its watch, with the government being lost on what to do. While the poor and the working people are made to bear the brunt of the economic crisis through unpaid salaries and pensions, hike in fuel price and electricity tariffs, retrenchment and ballooning unemployment, skyrocketing inflation, etc., the rich few in politics and big business continue to live in opulence. This kind of situation will surely sooner than later engender popular anger and opposition. Even in the north, there is growing anger against the prevailing situation. It is this fallout anger the government wants to avoid by allowing extra-judicial killings of Shiites and pro-Biafra protestors to be covered up. This is meant to send jitters to the spines of those who may want to oppose the government. The deliberately silence and passivity of the government towards the atrocities of herdsmen who are killing Nigerians in drove in the name of feeding cattle is also aimed at getting people divided and occupied.

Already in Kaduna State, the El Rufai government, fearful that religious activities may become a new centre of opposition, wants to castrate non-mainstream religious preachers and groups by enforcing a compulsory license for religious preachers. This means that groups that are not favoured by the state and pro-state mainstream religious authorities will be officially banned. Definitely, IMN will be a victim of this. While one will not support religious demagogy that unnecessarily exhorts spiritualism over reason, reality and science, it is ridiculous that the state government will think that its neo-fascist censoring of religious freedom, can curtail opposition.

Moreover, the government is trying to destroy trade unions by discouraging workers from joining unions and paying union dues. It is true that labour union, guaranteed regular check-off dues from members aside perks from the state, have become utterly irresponsive and passive to the welfare interests of workers and union members. However, the right to reform the union is that of workers. It is not the duty of the El Rufai government, which sole aim is to use the irresponsibility of labour leaders to further cripple the labour movement to reform unions. Nationally too, students are rising against worsening state of studying and living, with such protests being repressed by pro-state school authorities.

What the future holds

The massacre of Shiites points to the backwardness of Nigeria’s ruling elites. They never learn from their mistake because their pecuniary and short term interest always beclouds their sense of judgment. This was the same way Boko Haram terrorism was engendered when about a thousand of the sect members were murdered in cold blood by soldiers in 2009. The beheaded monster left by Muhammed Yussuf later grew into a wider, more vengeful and bloodthirsty terror gang that is still ravaging the country. Of course, the northern religious and political leaders are fretting on the possible fall out of the Shiite massacre; but they do not want justice to be done, in order to preserve their ego and authority.

On several occasions, IMN spokespersons have maintained that they will not take the road of violence. However, this does not guarantee that the massacre will not snowball into worse crisis in the short or long run. Firstly, it is not given that the rank and file members will fully abide by their leaders’ statements not to be vengeful. Secondly, there is the possibility of breakaway from the main IMN group by more radical or youthful layer. Also, the risk of other Shiite groups taking the issue beyond the IMN’s stand is a live question. More than this, other non-mainstream religious groups and angry youths, learning from the IMN experience, may build up armed militia or go violent against the state and its officials. On the other hand, if the military get away with these atrocities, it will embolden it to become more terroristic against the citizens, especially perceived opponents. This can only generate a cycle of violent crises.

Conclusion

The minimum the Nigerian state can do is to tender immediate apology to the Shiites; carry out genuine and democratic probe panel that comprise representatives of workers, communities, and Shiites, and those found culpable should be prosecuted. Moreover, government must reverse all repressive policies, against the Shiites and the working and poor people. All the arrested and detained members of IMN and IPOB and their leaders must be released. There must also be payment of hospital bills of those injured and compensation to affected people. The labour movement in Nigeria and genuine pro-democracy and pro-labour organizations must exert mass pressure to demand justice in this matter.

Conclusively, the rise in religious radicalism and revivalism in both Islam and Christianity reflects growing disillusion with the socio-economic and political situations of the country. People are worse off, yet there seems to be no genuine way out. This has fueled rise in frustration and religiosity. Only working class actions can resolve growing disillusion expressed in religious radicalism and revivalism. Nigeria’s labour movement needs to rally the working and poor people across the country towards mass struggle to resist all anti-poor economic and social policies being launched by capitalist ruling elites. More vital is the need for labour leadership to build alternative political platform with clear anti-capitalist, revolutionary socialist programmes that will liberate working and poor people from the poverty and misery. Convocation of a political summit of labour movement, pro-labour organizations, socialist and left groups, radical parties, etc. will be a good step in this direction.

Kola Ibrahim

Author of ‘Boko in Nigeria’ and ‘Revolutionary Pen’, is the Coordinator of Campaign for Democratic and Workers’ Rights (CDWR), Osun State, [email protected], 08059399178

Sources

1. Nigeria: Unearthing the truth; unlawful killing and mass cover-up in Zaria, Amnesty International Report, 2016, Index:  AFR 01/3883/2016, www.amnesty.org
2. A Kaduna State Government Panel Tries to Unravel the Shiite/Army Clash, Thisday Newspaper, 24 April, 2016, www.thisdaylive.com
3. Chilling Eyewitness Accounts of how soldiers killed Shiites Muslims in Zaria,  December 25, 2015, www.abusidiqu.com
4. Inquiry hearings into Nigerian military over Shiite killings finish, Deutsche Welle, 9/4/16
5. Nigerian soldiers raped our women before killing them, January 6, 2016, NewsRescue, www.newsrescue.com
6. We handed over few corpses…, April 26, 2016, NewsRescue, www,newsrescue.com
7. Shiite movement denies kidnapping army colonel…, March, 28, 2016, Daily Post, www.daolipost.ng
8. Boko Haram: Mutiny as soldiers shoot at commanding officer’s vehicle, Premium Times, May 14, 2014, Premium Times online newspaper, www.premiumtimesng.com
9. 35 killed as soldiers, Islamic sect clash, 26 July, 2014, Vanguard Newspaper, www.vanguardngr.com
10. El Rufai moves to regulate religious preaching in Kaduna, 22 February, 2016, Leadership newspaper, www.leadership.ng
11. El Rufai, workers on collision course over union membership…, April7, 2016, Guardian newspaper, www.m.guardian.ng
12. Kaduna govt. says 347 Shiites killed by Nigerian troops given secret mass burial, April 11, 2016, Premium Times online newspaper, www.premiumtimesng.com
13. JCI: The Shiites made history defending churches from Boko Haram in Kaduna, April 24, 2016, www.ends.ng
14. Shiites accuse military of killing its members in detention, January 3, 2016, Daily Post, www.dailypost.ng
15. Shiites protest killing of members in Bauchi, Yobe, Kaduna, December 13, 2015, Vanguard newspaper, www.vanguardngr.com
16. Sunrise Daily TV show, part 1 and 2, 17 December 2015 http://ynaija.com/weve-never-carried-arms-shiite-spokesperson-ibrahim-musaspeaks-on-army-attack-watch/
17. Nine killed as pro-Biafra protests turn bloody, December 3, 2015, Vanguard newspaper
18. Stop clampdown on pro-Biafra protesters, February 16, 2016, Vanguard newspaper
19. Ten pro-Biafra protesters die in Aba, February 10, 2016, Nation newspaper
20. Amnesty says Nigerian detainees dying in appalling conditions, May 10, 2016, Financial Times (London)
21. Zaria Killings: NSCIA warns Nigerian govt., military against creating another Boko Haram insurgence, December 14, 2015, Premium Times online newspaper, www.premiumtimesng.com

[Note the part of the NSCIA statement on the killing: “while no group should be allowed to constitute law unto itself or arrogate unconstitutional powers to itself under any guise, the fact still remain that the position of the law is clear when there is any breach”. The same NSCIA – the leading Islamic pro-Sunni group in Nigeria – that was calling for a judicial probe was quick to agree that IMN constituted law unto itself, even when there are no independent prove of such.]

Thousands of oil and gas industry wastewater spills in North Dakota have caused “widespread” contamination from radioactive materials, heavy metals and corrosive salts, putting the health of people and wildlife at risk, researchers from Duke University concluded in a newly released peer-reviewed study.

Some rivers and streams in North Dakota now carry levels of radioactive and toxic materials higher than federal drinking water standards as a result of wastewater spills, the scientists found after testing near spills. Many cities and towns draw their drinking water from rivers and streams, though federal law generally requires drinking water to be treated before it reaches peoples’ homes, and the scientists did not test tap water as part of their research.

High levels of lead — the same heavy metal that infamously contaminated water in Flint, Michigan — as well as the radioactive element radium, were discovered near spill sites. One substance, selenium, was found in the state’s waters at levels as high as 35 times the federal thresholds set to protect fish, mussels, and other wildlife, including those that people eat.

The pollution was found on land as well as in water. The soils in locations where wastewater spilled were laced with significant levels of radium, and even higher levels of radium were discovered in the ground downstream from the spills’ origin points, showing that radioactive materials were soaking into the ground and building up as spills flowed over the ground, the researchers said.

The sheer number of spills in the past several years is striking. All told, the Duke University researchers mapped out a total of over 3,900 accidental spills of oil and gas wastewater in North Dakota alone.

Contamination remained at the oldest spill site tested, where roughly 300 barrels of wastewater were released in a spill four years before the team of researchers arrived to take samples, demonstrating that any cleanup efforts at the site had been insufficient.

“Unlike spilled oil, which starts to break down in soil, these spilled brines consist of inorganic chemicals, metals and salts that are resistant to biodegradation,” said Nancy Lauer, a Duke University Ph.D. student who was lead author of the study, which was published in Environmental Science & Technology. “They don’t go away; they stay.”

“This has created a legacy of radioactivity at spill sites,” she said.

The highest level of radium the scientists found in soil measured over 4,600 Bequerels per kilogram [bq/kg] — which translates to roughly two and half times the levels of fracking-related radioactive contamination discovered in Pennsylvaniain a 2013 report that drew national attention. To put those numbers in context, under North Dakota law, waste over 185 bq/kg is considered too radioactive to dispose in regular landfills without a special permit or to haul on roads without a specific license from the state.

And that radioactive contamination — in some places over 100 times the levels of radioactivity as found upstream from the spill — will be here to stay for millennia, the researchers concluded, unless unprecedented spill clean-up efforts are made.

“The results of this study indicate that the water contamination from brine spills is remarkably persistent in the environment, resulting in elevated levels of salts and trace elements that can be preserved in spill sites for at least months to years,” the study concluded. “The relatively long half-life of [Radium 226] (∼1600 years) suggests that [Radium] contamination in spill sites will remain for thousands of years.”

Cleanup efforts remain underway at three of the four sites that the Duke University research team sampled, a North Dakota State Health Department official asked to comment on the research told the Bismarck Tribune, while the fourth site had not yet been addressed. He criticized the researchers for failing to include any in-depth testing of sites where the most extensive types of cleanup efforts had been completed.

The four sites the researchers sampled instead included the locations of two of the biggest spills in the state’s history, including a spill of 2.9 million gallons in January 2015, and two areas where smaller spills occurred in 2011. The samples from the sites were collected in June 2015, with funding from the National Science Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

Over the past decade, roughly 9,700 wells have been drilled in North Dakota’s Bakken shale and Bottineu oilfield region — meaning that there has been over one spill reported to regulators for every three wells drilled.

“Until now, research in many regions of the nation has shown that contamination from fracking has been fairly sporadic and inconsistent,” Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment,said when the study was released. “In North Dakota, however, we find it is widespread and persistent, with clear evidence of direct water contamination from fracking.”

Dealing with wastewater generated by drilling and fracking has proved to be one of the shale industry’s most intractable problems. The industry often pumps its toxic waste underground in a process known as wastewater injection. Every day, roughly 2 billion gallons of oil and gas wastewater are injected into the ground nationwide, the EPA estimates. Wastewater injection has been linked to swarms of earthquakes that have prompted a series of legal challenges.

Photo Credit:  North Dakota, Williston – Bakken – Oil and Gas – Missouri River, by EcoFlight

The sheer volume of waste generated by the industry — particularly from the type of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing used to tap shale oil and gas — has often overwhelmed state regulators, especially because federal laws leave the waste exempt from hazardous waste handling laws, no matter how toxic or dangerous it might be, under an exception for the industry carved out in the 1980’s.

This leaves policing fracking waste up to state inspectors, and not only do the rules vary widely from state to state, but enforcing those rules brings its own difficulties.

State inspectors have faced escalating workloads as budgets have often failed to keep pace with the industry’s rapid expansion. In North Dakota, the number of wells per inspector climbed from roughly 359 each in 2012 to 500 per inspectorlast year. In other states, the ratios are even more challenging, with Wyoming oil and gas well inspectors being responsible for more than 2,900 wells in 2015. And now, with the collapse of oil and gas prices, funds earmarked for oil and gas inspection have also nosedived in many states.

Lax enforcement may help explain why wastewater spills are so common across the U.S. More than 180 million gallons of wastewater was spilled between 2009 and 2014, according to an investigation by the Associated Press, which tallied the amount of wastewater spilled in the 21,651 accidents that were reported to state or federal regulators nationwide during that time.

The naturally occurring radioactive materials in that wastewater have drawn particular concern, partly because of their longevity in the environment and partly because the drilling industry enjoys looser federal standards for their radioactive waste than many other industries.

In January, North Dakota regulators further relaxed their standards for the dumping of radioactive materials, allowing many landfills in the state to accept drilling waste at levels higher than previously permitted, citing tough economic times for drillers.

But environmentalists argue that relaxing the rules for radioactive waste disposal could mean that radioactive materials receive less careful handling. “If people think this study points to a building tragedy, just wait,” Darrell Dorgan, who chairs the North Dakota Energy Industry Waste Coalition, told the Bismarck Tribune, when the Duke University research was released. “The new rules allow radioactive waste that is 10 times more dangerous.”

The spills the Duke University researchers identified often resulted from a failure to maintain infrastructure including pipelines and storage tanks. Roughly half of the wastewater spilled came from failed pipelines, followed by leaks from valves and other pipe connectors, and then tank leaks or overflows.

But recent floods in Texas’s Eagle Ford shale region also highlight the risks that natural disasters in drilling regions might pose. Texas regulators photographed plumes of contamination around submerged drilling sites, a repeat of similar incidents in Colorado. “That’s a potential disaster,” Dr. Walter Tsou, former president of the American Public Health Association told the Dallas Morning News.

Risks associated with fracking in flood zones have drawn the attention of some federal agencies in the past, but perhaps not in a way that locals in affected areas might find helpful.

In 2012, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program — a program designed to help people move away from areas subject to recurring floods — ran into a series of conflicts over oil and gas leases on properties that would otherwise be offered buy-outs. Some homeowners in Pennsylvania were denied the chance to participate in the program because of oil and gas leases or pipelines on their properties, as DeSmog previously reported.

In other words, it may be harder for those who have signed oil and gas or pipeline leases to abandon flood-prone areas, meaning that homeowners whose properties frequently flood could potentially face battles over cleanup costs without aid from FEMA.

And the newly published research from North Dakota suggests that the less visible brines may ultimately be more of a long-lasting environmental hazard than the spilled oil.

Even though their study included only leaks that were reported to state regulators, the researchers warned that little is currently being done to clean up sites where spills have occurred — or even to track smaller spills, especially on reservation lands, where roughly a quarter of the state’s oil is produced.

This means that the real amount of wastewater spilled is likely even higher than currently reported.

“Many smaller spills have also occurred on tribal lands,” Prof. Vengosh said, “and as far as we know, no one is monitoring them.”

Seventy one years ago the most violent military conflict of the 20th century, the Second World War ended in victory over Nazi Germany. Unprecedented levels of destruction, barbarism, industrial scale ethnic cleansing, and a myriad of other atrocities took millions of innocent lives. The Soviet Union paid the most terrible price with over 20 million civilian and military personnel dead.

The genocidal plans of the Nazi leaders and their collaborators scarred the lives of millions more. Literary every family in what is now the former Soviet Union lost loved ones, or had been impacted by the war. That is the reason why the Victory Day celebration is one of the most important days in the calendar for nearly all immigrant communities from the former Soviet Union. Victory Day is a very personal day for tens of thousands of residents of Toronto, war veterans, their families. It is a celebration and remembrance of sacrifice and heroism.

Last year’s Victory Day event organized by grassroots volunteer veterans organization took place at Earl Bales park in the north end of Toronto. Several thousand people, many holding portraits of their parents and grandparents, marched through the park to underscore the unity of all people from different generations, waves of immigration, countries of origin, religions and political backgrounds in their respect and gratitude for the sacrifice of the veterans.

This year the Victory Day celebration might not have happened at all – if bureaucrats in the City of Toronto had their way. Officials at City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation did everything in their power to exclude organizers from Earl Bales Park, to prevent the community from honouring the sacrifice of their loved ones.

A dizzying array of unreasonable, ever-changing restrictions, and obstacles had been placed in order to discourage the organizers and the community. Firstly, the bureaucrats denied the request to have a small parade of veterans and family members in one of the park’s roadways. Next they’ve tried to shuffle the event as far away from people’s eyes into a remote parking lot, that looks more like construction site than a place where veterans should be honoured. They placed restrictions on the use of washrooms and other park facilities, tried to deny space for an art exhibition, and demanded that a garbage collection company be contracted one day before deadline. City of Toronto officials forced the organizers to rent, at their expense, the amphitheatre in the park regardless that organizers had no use for it. The amphitheatre is not wheelchair accessible and could not possibly be used by veterans, many of who are wheelchair bound and are approaching their centenary.

Next was the demand to erect a stage, also not needed. Building permits, crowd control plans, etc. Park officials did everything in their power to drown organizers in paperwork in order to satisfy constantly changing demands. Catering, signs, banners, all of the literature to be distributed or sold at the event had to be pre-approved by Parks officials. Even though the event is not political in nature City bureaucrats had effectively barred political organizations sympathetic to the cause from participating in the event. Organizers worked ceaselessly to satisfy the ever-changing whims of the bureaucrats. It took a month of negotiations, scores of meetings and the involvement of City Councillor James Pasternak for the City bureaucrats to finally allow veterans, but not members of general public, to march through the Park.

Yet as soon as one set of obstacles would be overcome, the bureaucrats would slap another set of restrictions turning the process into a never-ending nightmare with an ever-more uncertain outcome. On the day of signing the permit,  a little more than a day before the event, Lindsay Peterson a manager for Parks North York District had demanded from organizers to provide porta-potties, contrary to previous agreement negotiated with the help of Ward 20 city councillor James Pasternak. Surely she was aware that such a requirement would be impossible to satisfy in few remaining hours before her office closes for the weekend. When that had failed she had questioned the authority of representative to sign for the permit. Mrs. Peterson demanded, that the president of organization, a 88 year old veteran who doesn’t speak English, be summoned into her office to sign for the permit. It’s a miracle and testament to perseverance of volunteers at veterans group were finally issued a permit for the event.

The treatment the organizers received underscores the level of hostility of Toronto City Hall and other level of Canadian Government towards Russian and other communities from the former Soviet Union. The ideologically based harassment, bordering on ethnic discrimination is something the community had to deal with for years. Yet the treatment organizers, who wished nothing more but to provide the community with opportunity to honour the sacrifices of their relatives, veterans and loved ones, got from City officials this year is definitely a new low by any standards. Not only does this macabre show exposes the strength of  in City’s own Human Rights and Anti-Harassment/Discrimination Policy, but also showcases true value of Mayor John Tory’s commitment to running an inclusive city administration, open to all the communities and their concerns.

Konstantin Goulich – Activist, Community Organizer

In April, Dutch citizens voted against the European Union Association Agreement with Ukraine. In early May, the Hungarian government confirmed the decision to hold a referendum on the European Commission’s plan to distribute asylum seekers among member states. In June, the United Kingdom will hold a vote on whether to leave the European Union altogether. In all cases, EU citizens are being asked to decide on issues connected to the process of the EU integration. Considering the democratic legitimacy of the European Union is being questioned, a referendum is a tool to save the loyalty of citizens.

According to some experts, the current spate of referendums in Europe, to a large extent, is a result of the upcoming British vote. This version argues London proved that referendums can be used to extract concessions from Brussels. Thus, governments will likely continue to use referendums to demand concessions from the EU or to justify domestic decisions.

On the other hand, it means some sides of the Continental integration can be frozen or even reversed with a popular vote. This situation is result of the ongoing political, economic and migration crisis in the EU and is strengthened by the lack of legitimacy of the EU bureaucratic core in Brussels.

• In the migration case, governments can use popular opposition to the relocation scheme to justify their rejection of the plan in Brussels. Hungary’s attitude will be stronger if it’s able to coordinate actions with other states.
• Popular political parties could use referendums as a part of their electoral campaigns or as a tool to implement decisions, ingoring the opposition of the establishment. France’s National Front has promised to hold a vote on the country’s EU membership if it wins the presidential election in 2017. Italy’s Five Star Movement has also stated it would hold a referendum on the country’s membership if it’s elected.
• Interest groups or nongovernmental organizations also can try to push their agendas by this way. However, only a handful of EU members have mechanisms that allow for citizens to organize referenda.

There are enough issues in Europe that could be decided by a referendum. This fact threatens the power of the EU bureaucracy. However, ignoring the people’s right to decide, it only triggers a wave of new referendums across the continent. If there is no another option, more and more governments in Europe will threaten to put their membership in the EU or the eurozone to a vote so as to resist measures that undermine their national wealth and sovereignty.

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

A Reuters/Ipsos poll was released on the evening of Wednesday May 11th and headlined, “Trump draws even with Clinton in national White House poll”.

It opened: “Republican Donald Trump pulled even with Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Wednesday, in a dramatic early sign that the Nov. 8 presidential election might be more hotly contested than first thought.”

It showed 41% Clinton versus 40% Trump, well within the poll’s 3% margin-of-error. This is the first time ever, that their polling has shown the two candidates even nearly close enough to be within the poll’s margin-of-error

The recent trends are crucial; and here you see them, first at RealClearPolitics, and then at HuffPostPollster:

RealClearPolitics Composites

Here were all recent pairings of Clinton versus Trump prior to that latest one from Reuters:

Here were all recent pairings of Sanders versus Trump:

Whereas Sanders would beat Trump 51.8% to 38.8%, and this 13% victory-margin for Sanders has been remaining fairly steady for many months now; Clinton would beat Trump 47.3% to 40.9%, and this 6.4% victory-margin for Clinton has been declining for months — and might now be gone since Trump became the Republican nominee.

HuffPostPollster Composites

The figures shown at Huffington Post are even clearer, because they show the trends during an even longer period — Trump is actually declining against Sanders:

Whereas Sanders would beat Trump 51.3% to 37.9%, and this 13.4% victory-margin for Sanders has remained fairly steady for many months now; Clinton would beat Trump 43.4% to 37.5%, and this 5.9% victory-margin for Clinton has been declining for months — and might now be gone since Trump became the Republican nominee.

Thus: both the RealClearPolitics composites and the HuffPostPollster composites indicate a close race between Clinton and Trump, but a clear victory for Sanders over Trump.

If Democrats don’t want anti-abortion new members of the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts, and also more Republicans on the lower courts, then Sanders is the clear way to prevent that, but Clinton might not be; and if current trends are any indication, Clinton would fail at that.

Therefore, the question for Democratic Party superdelegates is whether they want a successful Party, or whether instead they want their Party to be led by a failure who is slightly preferred by Democratic Party’s voters but definitely not by the entire U.S. electorate, and who is shown in the trendlines to be likely to fail in the general election.

If Clinton becomes chosen by the superdelegates in order to satisfy the preferences of her voters, instead of Sanders becoming chosen by those superdelegates in order to serve the needs of the Democratic Party and the preferences of the entire American electorate, then there is a possibility that Trump might not become the next President, but (if current trends continue any further) Trump probably would become the next President.

However, there is also a very different type of possibility: the possibility that Sanders would run a campaign whose message will be “Write in ‘Bernie Sanders’” — that he will be campaigning for the votes of everyone who wants him to become the President, to simply write his name in on the Presidential ballot.

This will offer a realistic third possibility: for the first time in over a century, a President who is from neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party — a real break away from the toxic politics that now is strangulating the United States and blocking all progress, desperately needed progress, in America.

Would as many people donate to that campaign as donated to Sanders’s Democratic primary campaign? Would even more people donate to it than donated to that primary campaign? Would it receive enough money to be viable for to be able to win the Presidency? That would be the subject of his write-in campaign, to present to American voters, if he chooses to present it.

Before Sanders entered the Democratic Party primaries, his name-recognition amongst the general American electorate was below 10%, but now it’s so high (and so favorable) that for many months the polling has shown that more Americans want him to be the next President than want anyone else to be. That’s the reason why, whereas a ‘third party’ run by Sanders back at the beginning would have been doomed from the start, an independent write-in campaign for him now would stand a real possibility of victory.

Of course, electronic voting machines, and other methods that might not provide the ability for a reliable count or recount of actual votes, would be a problem no matter whom the candidates are. But a write-in campaign for Sanders could win the most votes, if he wages it.

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

GR editor’s note

Michael Ratner was an important voice. He confronted the war criminals in high office including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  His contributions to social justice and human rights will be remembered.

See   The Case against George W. Bush under Torture Law,By Michael Ratner, March 26, 2011

*        *        *

Several years ago, I asked the civil-rights lawyer Michael Ratner, who died Wednesday at age 72, whether he thought he had any chance of prevailing when, with the Center for Constitutional Rights, he sued George W. Bush in early 2002 on behalf of some of the first Guantánamo detainees. “None whatsoever,” he replied. “We filed 100 percent on principle.”

Após duas décadas de governos progressistas se espalhando pela região com ganhos econômicos, políticos e sociais sem precedentes, especialmente em direitos humanos ano a ano reconhecidos pela ONU e por várias organizações internacionais, a América Latina enfrenta hoje o avanço dos agressivos setores neoliberais, secretamente apoiados e financiados pelo regime de Washington.

Nesta entrevista exclusiva, o jornalista, escritor e cineasta John Pilger fala sobre a guerra dos EUA contra a democracia na América Latina. “O imperialismo da era moderna é uma guerra contra a democracia. A verdadeira democracia é uma ameaça ao poder ilimitado, e não pode ser tolerada”, diz ele.

Pilger produziu War on Democracy na América Latina e nos EUA em 2006, quando viajou por toda a Venezuela com o então presidente Hugo Chávez. Ele conta o que o motivou a produzir esse documentário, ganhador do prêmio One World Media Awards, em 2008. O filme mostra como a escalada intervencionista dos EUA, aberta e encoberta, derrubou uma série de governos legítimos na América Latina desde a década de 1950.

Evidenciando o caráter democrático com profundas transformações sociais na Venezuela, John Pilger conta nesta entrevista sobre suas experiências no berço da Revolução Bolivariana. “As crianças estavam aprendendo sobre a história e as artes, pela primeira vez; o programa de alfabetização da Venezuela era o mais ousado do mundo.”

Ele também fala de suas experiências com o então presidente Chávez, entrevistado pelo cineasta. “Viajei com Hugo Chávez por a Venezuela. Nunca conheci um líder nacional tão respeitado e tratado com tanto carinho quanto Chávez. Ele era um homem extraordinário que parecia nunca dormir, consumido pelas idéias. (…) Ele era também incorruptível e resistente – resistente no sentido de que era corajoso”.

Pilger avalia a cobertura de mídia em relação à Venezuela: através de dados precisos, evidencia como as pessoas ao redor do mundo têm sido mal informadas pela propaganda da mídia.

Os grandes meios de comunicação internacionais passam a ideia de que os governos de Chávez e hoje de Nicolás Maduro são ditatoriais, enquanto escondem conquistas sociais e políticas impressionantes: por exemplo, que já em 2005 a Venezuela foi considerada pela Unesco Estado livre do analfabetismo, e pela FAO (Organização das Nações Unidas para Alimentação e Agricultura), da fome.

A educação é gratuita e acessível a todos, do ensino básico ao universitário, assim como a assistência médica. Para a Cepal (Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e Caribe), a Venezuela era um dos países mais desiguais da América Latina pré-governo bolivariano, e hoje o país é o menos desigual da região, e possui hoje o melhor Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano (IDH) entre os países latino-americanos.

A Constituição de 1999, aprovada por referendo popular logo no primeiro ano de Chávez no Palácio de Miraflores, é o mais avançado do mundo em termos democráticos e de direitos humanos. Isso tudo, foi constatar John Pilger no país caribenho.

O destacado cineasta termina esta entrevista com previsões não muito positivas para o país que tem a maior reserva petrolífera do mundo, a Venezuela, e para a região mais rica em biodiversidade do planeta, exatamente a América Latina. “Este é um momento perigoso para a América Latina. (…) Os Estados Unidos querem a sua ‘fazenda’ de volta”, diz John Pilger entre outras observações importantes a esse respeito.

Ele também fala de sua nova produção a ser publicada em um futuro próximo, The Coming War between America and China (A Próxima Guerra entre os Estados Unidos e a China).

Edu Montesanti: Obrigado, John, por conceder esta entrevista, estou muito honrado por ela. Você poderia comentar, por favor, sobre seu novo documentário The Coming War between America and China a ser publicado? O que ele vai trazer para nós, o que o motiva e qual seu objetivo com ele?

John Pilger:  O novo filme descreve uma guerra fria, perigosa e desnecessária, entre Estados Unidos e China: a mesma guerra fria dirigida contra a Rússia. Ele examina o giro rumo á Ásia do presidente Obama – a mudança de dois terços do poder naval norte-americano para Ásia-Pacífico até 2020, como resposta militar à ascensão econômica da China.

O filme é gravado nas ‘linhas de frente’ insulares, do Pacífico e da Ásia: as Ilhas Marshall, onde os EUA testaram suas bombas nucleares durante a década de 1940 e de 50, e agora mantém uma base de ‘Guerra nas Estrelas’; Okinawa, onde os EUA têm 32 instalações militares a menos de 400 milhas da China; Jeju Island (Coreia do Sul), onde uma base naval recentemente concluída permite que os EUA apontem seus mísseis Aegis à China; e Xangai, onde entrevistei várias pessoas sobre a ascensão da China; são vozes raramente ouvidas no Ocidente.

Como todos os meus filmes, o objetivo é desconstruir a fachada de propaganda que encobre muitos assuntos críticos, especialmente os de guerra e de paz.

Edu Montesanti: O que o motivou a produzir o filme de 2006 gravado na América Latina, The War on Democracy?

John Pilger: A era moderna do imperialismo é uma guerra contra a democracia. A verdadeira democracia é uma ameaça ao poder ilimitado, e não pode ser tolerada. A maioria dos governos os EUA têm derrubado ou tentaram derrubar, desde o final da Segunda Guerra Mundial, democracias; e a América Latina tem sido o parque temático do seu poder corrupto a fim de impor sua vontade. Um “sucesso” norte-americano foi a destruição do governo de Arbenz na Guatemala, em 1954.

Jacobo Arbenz foi um reformador democrata e modesto que não acreditava que a United Front Company deveria regular seu país, e reduzir a vida de seu povo à servidão. Para Washington, ele representava o que o governo norte-americano diria mais tarde da Nicarágua sob os sandinistas: a democracia na Guatemala era “a ameaça de um bom exemplo”. Isto era intolerável para os EUA, e Arbenz foi derrubado, pessoalmente humilhado e expulso de seu próprio país.

Este fato estabeleceu o padrão para todo o continente.

Edu Montesanti: Você poderia comentar sua ideia, John, sobre a Venezuela quando deixou o país depois de ter produzido o filme? O que mais chamou sua atenção, e o que mudou (se alguma coisa mudou) em suas ideias sobre o país caribenho, e a própria Revolução Bolivariana?

John Pilger: Minha impressão foi que a Venezuela estava passando por mudanças imaginativas, históricas, até mesmo épicas. Nos ‘barrios’ [grandes comunidades carentes], a democracia local na forma de conselhos comunais autônomos estava mudando a vida das pessoas. As crianças estavam aprendendo sobre a história e as artes, pela primeira vez; o programa de alfabetização da Venezuela era o mais ousado do mundo.

A taxa de pobreza caiu pela metade. O que me impressionou foi o orgulho que as pessoas comuns sentiam – o orgulho por suas vidas revitalizadas, pelo ineditismo das possibilidades que estavam adiante, e pelo governo delas, especialmente por Hugo Chávez.

Também ficou claro que a Venezuela não era revolucionária; que era e ainda é uma democracia social. Isso não quer dizer que muitas das ideias chavistas não são revolucionárias na essência; mas na prática a Venezuela apresentava semelhanças à Grã-Bretanha sob a reforma do governo doAttlee Labour de 1945-1951.

A velha guarda, aqueles que vivem extremamente bem no leste de Caracas e olham para Miami como uma espécie de lar espiritual, manteve o poder econômico se não o poder político. Assim, ‘duas Venezuelas’ existiram lado a lado; em termos revolucionários, isto foi e continua sendo insustentável.

Edu Montesanti: Você entrevistou ex-presidente Hugo Chávez durante horas, John, além de ter viajado por toda a Venezuela com ele. Levando isso em conta e também o que viu no país, o que você pode dizer sobre Hugo Chávez como presidente e como ser humano?

John Pilger: Nunca conheci um líder nacional tão respeitado e tratado com tanto carinho quanto Chávez. Ele era um homem extraordinário que parecia nunca dormir, consumido pelas idéias. Certa vez, ele chegou a uma reunião de agricultores com uma pilha de livros debaixo do braço: Dickens, Orwell, Chomsky, Zola.

Ele tinha marcado passagens para ler para sua audiência, e as pessoas ouviram atentamente; ele se via como educador do povo. Ele também foi incorruptível e resistente – resistente no sentido de que era corajoso.

Ele também era espirituoso. Uma vez, caí no sono debaixo do sol durante uma de suas longas reuniões ao ar livre: acordei ouvindo meu nome sendo gritado, e as pessoas rindo. Para aliviar o meu constrangimento, ‘El Presidente’ apresentou-me com um vinho local. “Ele é australiano; ele gosta de vinho tinto,” Chávez disse à multidão.

Posso dizer que nunca falai com outros políticos desta forma. Sua imperfeição se devia a que o poder principal fluía naturalmente dele; era caudillo e idealista-chefe da Venezuela, e quando morreu, o vácuo se tornou muito intenso.

Edu Montesanti: Que semelhanças você vê entre a guerra econômica perpetrado pelos EUA contra Salvador Allende no Chile no início da década de 1970, e contra a Revolução Bolivariana na Venezuela hoje? Quanto você acha que esta guerra secreta por parte do regime de Washington, além da guerra de informação, tem influenciado a vitória da oposição nas eleições parlamentares na Venezuela, em dezembro de 2015?

John Pilger: Há uma terceira e contínua força dinâmica nos países latino-americanos, que tenta controlar os acontecimentos e destruir a justiça social – os Estados Unidos. A subversão dos EUA, por via direta ou através de fantoches em países que elegeram governos reformistas, os EUA promovem uma oposição permanentemente ofensiva. Quando você pensa sobre a doutrinação dos norte-americanos, que dizem seu país é um modelo de ideais, a ironia é medonha.

Esta ‘guerra’, como você descreve, tem sido significativa em todas as eleições da Venezuela – mas não tem sido o principal fator nas eleições parlamentares de 2015; pode ser comparada apenas em alguns aspectos à campanha dos EUA contra Allende. A queda dos preços do petróleo inflação, a escassez, a corrupção e a fadiga política foram elementos cruciais, para não mencionar a ausência dolorosa de Chávez.

Edu Montesanti: Comente, por favor, a cobertura da mídia predominante em relação à Venezuela desde que Hugo Chávez venceu a eleição presidencial de 1998.

John Pilger: A Universidade do Oeste da Inglaterra (University of the West of England) publicou um estudo de mais de dez anos sobre como a Venezuela é noticiada pela BBC. Os investigadores analisaram 304 reportagens da BBC transmitidos ou publicados entre 1998 e 2008, e descobriu que apenas três delas mencionaram algumas das políticas positivas introduzidas pelo governo de Chávez.

A BBC tem se equivocado em noticiar, de forma adequada, qualquer uma das iniciativas democráticas, a legislação de direitos humanos, os programas de alimentação, as iniciativas de saúde ou os programas de redução da pobreza. A Missão Robinson, maior programa de alfabetização da história da humanidade, recebeu apenas uma menção passageira.

O jornal The Guardian não esconde sua animosidade contra Chávez. O mesmo aconteceu com muitos correspondentes dos EUA e europeus.

Tem havido uma exposição tão implacável do jornalismo de má-fé? Eu duvido. Como resultado, às pessoas nos EUA, no Reino Unido e em outros lugares têm sido negado qualquer percepção real das mudanças notáveis na Venezuela.

No final de seu documentário The War on Democracy, você disse que “o que aconteceu no Estádio Nacional, em Santiago no Chile [torturas e assassinatos por Augusto Pinochet], tem um lugar especial na luta pela liberdade e pela democracia na América Latina e no mundo. O imperativo é ‘nunca mais'”.

Países da América Latina com governos progressistas têm vivido sob constante ameaça da “revolução colorida”, método não-violenta para derrubar governos, aperfeiçoada pelo norte-americano Gene Sharp, professor de Ciências Políticas. Levando-se em consideração também vitória da oposição pró-EUA nas últimas eleições na Venezuela, na Argentina e do referendo na Bolívia, você teme uma nova dominância dos interesses dos EUA na região? Qual é sua perspectiva para a América Latina, e o que a Revolução Bolivariana significa para a região?

John Pilger: Este é um momento perigoso para a América Latina. Os ganhos obtidos pelas democracias sociais estão mais arriscadas que nunca. Os EUA costumavam a se referir à América Latina como sua “fazenda”, nunca tendo aceitado a independência de Venezuela, Bolívia, Equador e, é claro, Cuba.

Os EUA querem sua “fazenda” de volta. Há muito a perder. Li outro dia que, de acordo com o Ministério da Saúde da Bolívia, 85 mil vidas foram salvas na Bolívia por médicos cubanos. É uma conquista dessa magnitude que está em risco agora.

Important New Info on Boston Marathon Bombing

WhoWhatWhy has discovered that the FBI secretly flagged at least one of the “Boston Marathon bombers” as a terrorist threat in his immigration records, despite publicly denying it had done so.

This designation existed right up to the time the bombs went off at Boylston St. on April 15, 2013.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s heavily redacted immigration records, known as an A-file (alien file), were released in February under the Freedom of Information Act and posted online by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). FOIA has a “frequently requested record” provision where multiple request for the same record triggers a “reading room” (posted online) treatment of the records. WhoWhatWhy was one of those requesters.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Dave Newman / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

For context, it’s important to note that soon after the bombing, uncomfortable questions were raised by WhoWhatWhy when it became clear the FBI had long been aware of Tsarnaev. Even some of the mainstream outlets, which almost uniformly have accepted the government’s version of events, couldn’t ignore this reality.

The Bureau steadfastly maintains that it determined the elder Tsarnaev (who died in an altercation with police three days after the bombing) was not any kind of a national security threat. It also denies ever having asked him to be an informant.

And yet a shadowy program used by the feds to keep individuals deemed a “national security concern” from obtaining citizenship looks like the reason Tsarnaev’s naturalization application was held up — to the very moment of his death. This program is called the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP).

Significantly, CARRP is also used to manipulate foreign nationals (mostly Muslims) to do the FBI’s bidding by — ironically — flagging them as a “national security concern,”according to an extensive ACLU investigation into the program.

Reeled in by CARRP?

So, what is the significance of holding Tsarnaev’s naturalization application under CARRP?

It would mean that, by definition, the FBI had not ruled out whether Tsarnaev was a  “Known or Suspected Terrorist” (KST) by the time of the bombing.

A KST is a designation under CARRP automatically given to anyone listed on the terrorist “watch list,” which Tsarnaev most certainly was. A lower threat level, or “non-Known or Suspected Terrorist” (non-KST), can also be labeled a “national security concern” if certain “indicators” are present.

There’s also a good possibility that the FBI wasn’t worried about him at all. Instead a ”false” or trumped up KST designation and subsequent delay was used as leverage to get Tsarnaev to play some “informant” role. In FBI parlance, the word “informant” encompasses a wide range of roles — both official and unofficial — that an individual might be asked to perform.

The FBI, as a matter of policy, does not confirm or deny whether an applicant has been subjected to CARRP. And the Bureau almost never confirms or denies whether an individual was asked to become an informant.

Notably, however, the latter policy was ignored when it became patently obvious to observers that Tsarnaev fit the archetypal informant profile: young male Muslim, native speaker from a geopolitically important area, citizenship applicant, with minor legal troubles (which can provide even more leverage over a potential recruit). So, the FBI broke its own policy by explicitly denying they ever pushed him to be an informant.

***

There are two key documents in Tsarnaev’s A-file.

One is a “Naturalization Applications Routing Slip.” This is an internal routing sheet used to track the movement of files through USCIS.

The other is a copy of an e-mail from USCIS’s Fraud Detection & National Security (FDNS) Directorate instructing an Immigration Services Officer. It instructs the officer to “de-schedule and place in suspense” Tsarnaev’s naturalization application.

Both documents use the CARRP acronym. Taken together, it’s clear that Tsarnaev’s application was routed through FDNS which is where it goes when CARRP is in effect.

CARRP Routing Slip Photo credit: USCIS.gov

Former FBI Special Agent Mike German told WhoWhatWhy that “the CARRP references in the files are pretty good evidence that CARRP played a role in delaying action on his application.”

There’s another red flag. Despite completing all the requirements and passing his citizenship test January 23, 2013, Tsarnaev’s naturalization approval was put on hold. According to the ACLU, that is a solid indicator an individual has been “CARRP’d.”

The author of ACLU’s report on CARRP, attorney Jennie Pasquarella, told WhoWhatWhy: “That is typical in CARRP cases.” Although the mandated interview and test are conducted, the  agency only notifies the applicant that it “cannot make a decision at this time.” That is because the policy forbids USCIS to grant citizenship — even to applicants who are otherwise “statutorily eligible” — as long as he or she has been flagged with the catchall “national security concern” by the FBI.

FDNS Email Photo credit: USCIS.gov

Ostensibly, CARRP is run by USCIS. In reality, the program has turned the decision to grant or deny citizenship, that is, “adjudication,” over to the FBI. In such cases, USCIS officers have to follow FBI direction on whether to deny, approve, or “hold in abeyance (potentially indefinitely)” an application, according to Pasquarella’s detailed report.

Another red flag indicative of CARRP is whether “the application was denied on specious grounds that appear pretextual.”

Feds Move the Goalpost

Indeed, we now know that the “official” reason for holding up Tsarnaev’s application — “waiting for records” — is false.

The Boston Globe’s Maria Sacchetti, the first reporter to comb through Tsarnaev’s A-file, noted that, “Earlier, a federal report [the Inspector General report on intelligence failures that allowed Tsarnaev to slip through the cracks] had said that Tsarnaev’s citizenship application was delayed because the government did not have his criminal court records from the 2009 case.”

Not so. As Sacchetti confirmed with Homeland Security (USCIS’s parent agency), Tsarnaev had already furnished those records to his immigration officer.

In fact, they are date- and time-stamped with the same date and time as Tsarnaev’s naturalization application: September 5, 2012, at 16:19 (4:19 p.m.) — five months prior to the decision to delay.

The “official” reason for delay has now been tweaked from “waiting for records” to “pending a supervisor’s review,” according to what Homeland Security told Sacchetti.

This kind of “moving the goalpost” matches the type of chicanery detailed in ACLU’s investigation.

The IGs who wrote the “intelligence failures” report included a footnote thatcomplained about stonewalling by the FBI, suggesting they were either misinformed or misled about why Tsarnaev’s A-file was on hold. Similarly, WhoWhatWhy wrote previously of a widespread and growing frustration in the inspector general community over stonewalling by the very agencies they are tasked with overseeing.

“They Were Controlling His Every Step” 

Evidence that Tsarnaev was “CARRP’d” right up to the time of his death adds to the list of contradictions between what the Bureau says publicly about Tsarnaev — and what the record suggests was actually going on with this enigmatic young man.

(1) The Bureau denied knowing who the brothers were — until their mother came forward to report that the FBI had been in regular contact with Tamerlan and other members of the family. “They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step,” she said in an interview with Russia Today.

The FBI put out a press release later that day confirming the mother’s report of previous contact.

(2) Then, having admitted it conducted a six-month long “assessment” of Tsarnaev — two years before the bombing — the FBI said the investigation was closed after it “found no link or ‘nexus’ to terrorism.”

Contradicting that statement, both the FBI and CIA had actually put Tsarnaev’s name on the terrorist “watch list,” stating that he “may be armed and dangerous” and that screening him is “mandatory” if he attempts to board an airplane.

(3) The FBI initially claimed Tamerlan Tsarnaev was first brought to its attention by a March 2011 tip from the Russian government, which alleged he was an adherent “of radical Islam and that [he] was preparing to travel to Russia to join unspecified ‘bandit underground groups’ in Dagestan and Chechnya.”

And yet, two months after the bombing FBI director Robert Mueller admitted in Congressional testimony that Tsarnaev’s name was known to the FBI beforeRussia’s 2011 warning. Mueller testified that Tamerlan’s name came up in connection with other individuals under investigation.  (Please see WhoWhatWhy’searlier discoveries on this issue.)

To sum up, the FBI maintains that after conducting its own assessment of Tamerlan, it dismissed Russia’s detailed warning as being “without merit.”

Six months later, however, Tamerlan did just what the Russians said he would do.

He flew to Dagestan by way of Moscow and made theatrical attempts to hook up with underground bandit groups — attempts that may have been real, or contrived as part of some international “sting” operation for which Tsarnaev may have been recruited. Even more problematic, neither government did anything to impede his travel, despite the flag-raising warnings about him on record.

The FBI’s own trail of contradictory statements and backpedaling suggests it has something to hide about its dealings with an alleged perpetrator of a deadly terrorist attack on American soil.

In muddying the record, was the FBI merely trying to cover up its dangerous incompetence, or is there a darker secret to be “protected” from public scrutiny — a scenario in which Tamerlan operated under some kind of government cover until something went horribly wrong?

If so, this would not be the first time that a cover up was the preferred option for America’s security apparatus.

Several years ago two very distinguished American scholars wrote a book, The Israel Lobby. 

The Israel Lobby presented itself as just a poor little weak thing unable to stand up to all the Nazis assailing Israel. Meanwhile the US Congress was unanimously passing outrageous resolutions handed to it by the Israel Lobby.

A number of former US Senators and Representatives, including Cynthia McKinney, have publicly stated that they were removed from office by the Israel Lobby for criticizing actions of the Israeli government, such as the Israeli government’s attempt to sink the USS Liberty, in which a majority of the American crew were killed or injured.

Instead of defending the US Navy, the cowardly US government was so scared of Israel that the President of the United States and the Admiral conducting the inquiry, Senator John McCain’s father, rushed to the defense of Israel and covered up the incident.

The coverup has been so successful that few Americans today know that a vessel of the US Navy was decimated by an Israeli air and torpedo boat attack, and Washington did not even file a protest. Really! The US is a “superpower,” and the cowardly government cannot even stand up to Israel?

What do you think will happen to these pussies in Washington when they confront by their carelessness and unjustified arrogance the power of Russia and China?

Little wonder that after 15 years of pointless conflict the US has been defeated by a few thousand lightly armed warriors in Afghanistan, and the “Mission Accomplished” promouncement of the moron George W. Bush now requires intervention by the Russian Superpower to be accomplished.

Only Russia can bring the terrorism in the Middle East that the dolts in Washington created to an end. The low grade morons in Washington sponsor the terrorism in order to bleed the American taxpayer of money to pay the profits of the Military-Security Complex that President Eisenhower, a Five Starr General warned us about going on 7 decades ago.

The Americans are so incompetent that they should just depart the scene and go home and hide under their beds so scared they are of “terrorists,” largely an invention of neoconservative propaganda.

But it only takes a propaganda invention, a false flag event, to scare “powerful America” out of its wits.

I became an “anti-semite” when I observed that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians resembled the Union Army’s treatment, under Sherman and Sheridan, of the American Plains Indians. Wholesale genocide.

An Israeli official wrote to me asking me why I criticized Israel for doing to the Palestinians what the United States government did to the native Americans. In other words, the Western World, and Israel that allegedly suffered the Holocaust, were not required to make any moral progress in one or two centuries. Whatever the Union war criminals did to the American Plains Indians in the 19th century is perfectly OK for Israel to to to Palestinians in the 21st century.

So much for those who believe in moral progress.

“Anti-semite” has lost its sting, because every justified criticism of the Zionist Israeli government is declared to be anti-semitism. The word is so overused and misapplied as to be useless. Indeed, to be declared “anti-semite” by the Israel Lobby is to be declared a person of high moral conscience.

Currently the Israel Lobby is at work destroying anyone associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which is an effort to sanction Israel for its genocide against Palestine. The popular musician, Roger Waters, is one of the few brave enough to support this movement.

Waters says that many of his colleagues, who protested the Viet Nam War and South Africa Apartheid are too “scared shitless of Israel” to protest what former US President Jimmy Carter called Israeli Apartheid.

Republicans, conservatives, and the Israel Lobby do not like Jimmy Carter because he speaks honestly, but that is why I respect him.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Palestinians have had their country stolen. Now they, like native Indians in the US in the 19th century, have been confined to ghetto reservations. This is a simple fact. But anyone who states the fact is declared by the Israel Lobby to be an anti-semite who wants to kill all the Jews.

In other words, it is Zionist Israel that is committing genocide, but if a person mentions that fact that person is accused of wanting to do to the Jews what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

Israel, thanks to the complete cowardice of the government of “the world’s only superpower” and the largely Israeli controlled US media and entertainment industry, has got away with this raw exercise of the power of propaganda and intimidation.

But not with Roger Waters.

Support Roger Waters, one of the acknowledged greatest rock musicians of this era, when he stands up for the Palestinians and opposes the monstrous crimes of Zionist Israel:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/05/musicians-destroyed-palestinians/ ^[1]

It is amazing to me how courage has disappeared from the entire Western world. Insouciant Americans have lost their liberty to disinformation and fear. Such a fearful and afraid people have no prospect of standing up to the Russian and Chinese people.

The Western World buried in propaganda and lies is now in the trash bin of history. It is no more.

“They took out Saddam in two weeks, but they can’t finish IS in two years?” asked Falih, another Iraqi who asked that his last name not be used out of security concerns. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

This latest report serves as a reminder of just how thin the US-led international game of supporting extremist militants has become.

The most comical part of this story is how US military court scribes at the Associated Press are still in denial that Iraqis are harboring ill will against the US for suffocating (via crippling sanctions), bombing and destroying, looting and occupying their country over the last 25 years.

Aside from numerous reports showing US weapons and equipment being dropped “by accident”and then used by ISIS, it’s undeniable by now that the US have been the primary driver in fueling the rise and growth of this militant fighting group over the last 7 years.

Associated Press writers are very careful to frame this narrative and advance the establishment’s favorite meme that the debacle of Iraq was down to US “government incompetence”, rather than inherent malice – even though history clearly demonstrates that malice has been omnipresent in US foreign policy for at least the last 70 years.

“Why can’t they (the Iraqis) appreciate what we’ve done for them?” Seriously…

Ironically, it is worth noting that Iraqi skepticism is tacitly acknowledged by the Pentagon’s mouthpiece (Military Times)  According to Sinan Salaheddin and Susannah George writing in AP/MilitaryTimes.com

Many Iraqis still aren’t convinced the Americans are on their side.

Government-allied Shiite militiamen on the front-lines post videos of U.S. supplies purportedly seized from ISIS militants or found in areas liberated from the extremist group. Newspapers and TV networks repeat conspiracy theories that the U.S. created the jihadi group to sow chaos in the region in order to seize its oil.

Skepticism about U.S. motives is deeply rooted in Iraq, where many still blame the chaos after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein on American malice rather than incompetence…

Neil Young has a long history of activism. He is a co-founder of Farm Aid, which works to support small and family farmers in North America, while his song Ohio is often considered to be one of the greatest protest songs ever made. Last year, Young pledged a $100,000 donation to Vermont’s legal fight against the GMO-labelling lawsuit, and he has recently been involved in putting together a new website that will help people engage with issues such as GMOs, farming, ecology, justice and climate change (access the site here).

His new albums The Monsanto Years (2015) and Earth (2016) have a strong anti-corporate theme running through them and feature songs exploring global hunger, pesticides, GMOs, seeds and ecology. Young spent part of 2015 touring the US. The tour was different from the usual concert tour because it was accompanied by an ‘activist village’ comprising a coalition of leading non-profit organisations housed in numerous tents.

These organisations travelled with Young and his band to raise awareness and educate concert-goers about the deleterious impacts of industrial agriculture, environmental issues and the negative impact of corporate control of government. The tours gave a diverse group of NGOs involved in ecology and social justice issues an opportunity to reach out to the public with their message and materials.

The village comprised six tents with the themes of GMOs, earth ecology, energy and climate, freedom and justice, future of farming and news you can trust (the same as those on the new website). The host NGOs were also keen to bring in local groups to highlight local initiatives.

GMO Free USA hosted the GMO education tent. Diana Reeves, GMO Free USA Executive Director, says Young’s inclusion of her organisation on his national tour brings the GMO issue to music fans who might have otherwise not known about it. It also gave the organisation the chance to connect with many farm belt residents.

She says:

“I heard story after story from residents who were concerned about increasing rates of cancer. ‘My father has cancer. My aunt has cancer. My neighbors have cancer’, said one concertgoer. At another venue we met a couple – he was a cancer survivor and his very pregnant wife was battling cancer. It was heartbreaking. We heard stories from farmers who have no choice but to grow GM crops because they are surrounded by neighbors who are growing them. We were told that they were certain they would be sued by Monsanto if they grew non-GMO because contamination by pollen drift would be inevitable. But they’re afraid to speak out. These GMO growers are their neighbors. Their friends. Even their family members.”

Reeves founded GMO Free USA with the organisation’s first and ongoing campaign, a national boycott of the Kellogg Company. Kellogg’s net sales have been down for seven out of eight quarters.

She adds:

“The great thing about the boycott is that it happens at a personal level and you can effect change without having ‘activist’ stamped on your forehead. It only takes one major food company to change the entire industry. America doesn’t want GMOs. The faster Kellogg’s gets the message, the faster their financial outlook will improve. I’m looking forward to connecting with people along the West Coast, educating and growing the boycott.”

Thousands of educational brochures about GMOs and postcards informing people of the Kellogg’s boycott were distributed in all the cities during the July Midwestern and East Coast tour.

The public response during the tour was overwhelmingly positive. Luan Van Le, GMO Free USA Communications Director, states:

“We imagined there would be more resistance to the information we were distributing in the Midwestern GMO agriculture belt. But what we found was strong support… Neil had the courage to record an unreserved album about the most pressing issues in this country and on this planet. There is too much at stake today to be silent or passive.”

Coming to Europe

Neil Young argues that ‘The Monsanto Years’ are here and we are living them:

“Monsanto is the poster-child for what is wrong with corporate controlled government in our world. The Monsanto Years encompasses several associated subjects that millions of people worldwide are concerned about and active in. Earth is not ours. We are of the Earth. That’s how I feel. When we plunder our own home we hurt our children and their children after them.”

At a time when there is a concern about the corrupt TTIP leading to an influx of GMOs into Europe, the UK government working hand in glove with the GMO biotech to get GM crops planted in England above the heads of the public and apprehension about new genetic engineering techniques side-stepping regulations, Young is bringing his combination of music and activism to Europe.

As was the case in North America, the activist village will be part and parcel of the package. Beyond GM was an integral part of the North American tour and will be managing all the GMO tents during the UK/Republic of Ireland (ROI) leg and coordinating the GMO tents on the European mainland segment.

Beyond GM believes that campaigning needs to change and the tour presents a great opportunity. Co-founder and Director Pat Thomas Public feels that outreach and finding ways of taking the issues to the people is key to promoting engagement and change and that this kind of tour is ideal for reaching out to large groups of people who are not the ‘usual suspects’ – the same ones that turn up at every rally. In this respect, the activist village provides a platform for grassroots NGOs to engage with a much bigger audience, one that may be sympathetic to their causes but which is not necessarily attracted to attend marches or meetings.

Pat Thomas states:

“The majority of people want to be GM free and believe the UK is somehow ‘safe’. Few realise that the meat and dairy they are eating is GM-fed or that the UK government is stealthily – and undemocratically – pushing ahead with plans to plant GMOs on our soil by 2017. New field trials have just been given the go ahead for GM camelina and GM potatoes and we are on track to start living the GMO nightmare that people in the Americas are so desperately trying to escape. Big public forums like Neil Young’s The Monsanto Years tour and its activist village are an important opportunity to open people’s eyes to what’s really going on.”

There will be lots of information available. GM Free Me photos will be taken, and there will be various free organic giveaways. The UK leg of the tour hopes to focus on and bring in agroecological groups (for example, the Landworkers’ Alliance and urban solutions like those the Kindling Trust works on) and also showcase local community supported agriculture projects.

GMO groups expected to be involved in the European segment of the tour include –

France: Inf’OGM

Spain: Amigos de la Tierra

Belgium: The Field Liberation Movement

Finland: Associated Organizations and Citizens to Promote GMO Free Finland

Sweden: Friends of the Earth Sweden (stil tbc)

Norway: Nettverk for GMO-fri mat og fôr (Network for GMO-free food and animal feed)

Netherlands: ASEED (Action for Solidarity Environment Equality and Diversity)

Switzerland: StopOGM

Italy: Slow Food

Germany: Gen Ethisches Netzwerk

Austria: Global2000

Farming groups will include (others to be confirmed) –

Dublin: Landworkers Alliance

Belfast: Boxa + another CSA scheme with info from Irish Organic Farmers & Growers

Belgium: Bioforum’s new agroecology network of 16 organisations

Finland: Southern Finland Organic Farming Association

Netherlands: working with ASEED again but to put together a different agroecology network

Neil Young European Tour Dates

There may be one or two dates/venues not yet confirmed that are not included below, but they won’t have a village in them.

UK/ROI

June 5 / Glasgow / SSE Hydro NO VILLAGE

June 7 / Belfast, Ireland / SSE Arena

June 8 / Dublin, Ireland / 3Arena

June 10 / Leeds, England / First Direct Arena

June 11 / London, England / O2 Arena

France 

June 13 / Lille, France / Le Zenith de lille Arena

June 15 / Lyon, France / Halle Tony Garnier

June 16 / Marseille, France / Le Dôme de Marseille

Spain

June 18 / Madrid, Spain / Mad Cool Festival

June 20 / Barcelona, Spain /  El Poble Espanyol

France

June 21 / Toulouse, France / Le Zenith de Toulouse

June 23 / Paris, France / AccorHotels Arena

Belgium

June 24 /  Antwerp, Belgium / Sportpaleis Arena

Scandinavia

July 3 / Helsinki, Finland / Hartwall Arena

July 5 / Rattvik, Sweden / Dalhalla Amphitheater

July 7 / Larvik, Norway / Stavernfestivalen

Netherlands

July 9 / Amsterdam, Netherlands / Ziggo Dome

Switzerland

July 12 / Montreux, Switzerland / Montreux Jazz Fest,Auditorium Stravinski

Italy 

July 13 / Padova, Italy / Villa Contarini Town Square

July 16  Lucca, Italy / Lucca Summer Festival, Piazza Napoleone

July 18 / Milan, Italy / Estathe Market Sound Festival

Germany

July 20 / Leipzig, Germany / Völkerschlachtdenkmal

July 21 / Berlin, Germany / Waldbühne Amphitheatre

Austria

July 23 / Linz, Austria / Clam Castle

Property prices in central Baghdad are as high as London’s, even though Iraq’s national income is down by 70 percent since the collapse of oil prices. Islamic State bombings regularly devastate parts of the capital and still the real estate market booms. Why?

Because there is so much “dirty money” in Iraq that needs to be laundered. If you lack the political clout to get your stolen money out of the country, then the safest course is to put it into residential property. But then that’s not a very safe bet either when the entire pseudo-democratic system bequeathed to Iraq by the U.S. invasion is on the brink of collapse.

Intrusion late last month by thousands of angry Iraqis into the Green Zone, the vast blast-walled government compound in Baghdad, was probably the beginning of the end of the current dispensation in Iraq. They stayed for two days, only leaving after delivering an ultimatum calling for wholesale reform of the government but vowing to return if it does not happen.

It will not happen, and they will be back in the streets soon. Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, forced from power in 2014 after Islamic State forces conquered the western half of Iraq, has been plotting a comeback with other parties in parliament. He may not succeed, but he and his allies are certainly able to block the passage of most measures they do not like.

The cement binding Maliki and the other plotters is their determination to retain the utterly corrupt system that has allowed them to loot the country’s oil wealth for so long. The oil wealth is a great deal less now, but it is still practically Iraq’s only source of income and they have no intention of giving it up.

The man who replaced Maliki, President Haider al-Abadi, is in relative terms a reformer. He belongs to the same Dawa Party as Maliki and can’t afford to get too far out of touch with his power base. Nevertheless, almost a year ago he promised that he would replace many of his Cabinet members, drawn from the various parties in the ruling coalition, with “technocrats” who would (theoretically) be less likely to steal the government’s money.

He couldn’t deliver on his promise, however, because any Cabinet changes have to be approved by parliament. None of the parties there were willing to give up their own Cabinet ministers, and with it their ability to divert the government’s cash flow into their own pockets. Three times Abadi’s proposed reforms were rejected by parliament.

It was after the last time, in April, that Moqtada al-Sadr, a populist cleric with a big following among Baghdad’s multitudinous Shiite poor, ordered the invasion of the fortified Green Zone. That forced parliament to approve of five of Abadi’s Cabinet changes, and more will probably follow.

But changing the figureheads in the government ministries will not end the looting of public funds, which permeates the system from top to bottom. Indeed, you might say that corruption is the system in Iraq. Like several other oil-rich countries, Iraq distributes some of the cash flow to the citizens by means of paying them to do non-jobs. Most of the rest is stolen by the 25,000 or so people who hold senior administrative, political or military positions, leaving a small amount for public works.

There are 7 million government employees in Iraq — a large majority of the adult male population — and most of them do little or no work. Indeed, some of them don’t even exist, like the “ghost soldiers” whose pay is collected by their officers. Collectively they were paid around $4 billion a month, which was all right when monthly oil income was up around $6 billion.

The oil revenue is now down to $2 billion a month. The central bank has been making up the difference from its reserves, but those are now running out. The country’s economic crisis is now more urgent and more dangerous than the military confrontation with Islamic State, but that does not seem clear to many of the major players in Iraq’s dysfunctional political system.

It is so dysfunctional that little is being done even to repair the Mosul Dam, which requires constant work on its foundations if it is not to break and drown Mosul, four hours downstream, under a 24-meter-high wave. The wave would be much lower by the time it would reach Baghdad two days later, but it would still be big enough to wreck property values for a long time to come.

All the talk about the Iraqi army driving Islamic State back is just hot air. The only Iraqi military advances have happened under the cover of massive U.S. airstrikes, and the government’s own attention is elsewhere. So, increasingly, is that of the population. But Islamic State is still paying attention.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

For centuries hereditary monarchy was the dominant way to select national leaders, evolving into an intricate system that sustained itself through power and propaganda even as its ideological roots shriveled amid the Age of Reason. Yet, as monarchy became a dead idea, it still killed millions in its death throes.

Today, the dangerous “dead ideas” are neoconservatism and its close ally neoliberalism. These are concepts that have organized American foreign policy and economics, respectively, over the past several decades – and they have failed miserably, at least from the perspective of average Americans and people of the nations on the receiving end of these ideologies.

Neither approach has benefited mankind; both have led to untold death and destruction; yet the twin “neos” have built such a powerful propaganda and political apparatus, especially in Official Washington, that they will surely continue to wreak havoc for years to come. They are zombie ideas and they kill.

Yet, the Democratic Party is poised to nominate an adherent to both “neos” in the person of Hillary Clinton. Rather than move forward from President Barack Obama’s unease with what he calls the Washington “playbook,” the Democrats are retreating into its perceived safety.

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

After all, the Washington Establishment remains enthralled to both “neos,” favoring the “regime change” interventionism of neoconservatism and the “free trade” globalism of neoliberalism. So, Clinton has emerged as the clear favorite of the elites, at least since the field of alternatives has narrowed to populist billionaire Donald Trump and democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

Democratic Party insiders appear to be counting on the mainstream news media and prominent opinion-leaders to marginalize Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, and to finish off Sanders, who faces long odds against Clinton’s delegate lead for the Democratic nomination, especially among the party regulars known as “super-delegates.”

But the Democratic hierarchy is placing this bet on Clinton in a year when much of the American electorate has risen up against the twin “neos,” exhausted by the perpetual wars demanded by the neoconservatives and impoverished by the export of decent-paying manufacturing jobs driven by the neoliberals.

Though much of the popular resistance to the “neos” remains poorly defined in the minds of rebellious voters, the common denominator of the contrasting appeals of Trump and Sanders is that millions of Americans are rejecting the “neos” and repudiating the establishment institutions that insist on sustaining these ideologies.

The Pressing Question

Thus, the pressing question for Campaign 2016 is whether America will escape from the zombies of the twin “neos” or spend the next four years surrounded by these undead ideas as the world lurches closer to an existential crisis.

The main thing that the zombie “neos” have going for them is that the vast majority of Very Important People in Official Washington have embraced these concepts and have achieved money and fame as a result. These VIPs are no more likely to renounce their fat salaries and overblown influence than the favored courtiers of a King or Queen would side with the unwashed rabble.

Image: Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the United States, meeting with President George W. Bush in Crawford, Texas, on Aug. 27, 2002. (White House photo)

The “neo” adherents are also very skilled at framing issues to their benefit, made easier by the fact that they face almost no opposition or resistance from the mainstream media or the major think tanks.

The neoconservatives have become Washington’s foreign policy establishment, driving the old-time “realists” who favored more judicious use of American power to the sidelines.

Meanwhile, the neoliberals dominate economic policy debates, treating the “markets” as some new-age god and “privatization” of public assets as scripture. They have pushed aside the old New Dealers who called for a robust government role to protect the people from the excesses of capitalism and to build public infrastructure to benefit the nation as a whole.

The absence of any strong resistance to the now dominant “neo” ideologies is why we saw the catastrophic “group think” over Iraq’s WMD in 2003 and why for many years no one of great significance dared question the benefits of “free trade.”

After all, both strategies benefited the elites. Neoconservative warmongering diverted trillions of dollars into the Military-Industrial Complex and neoliberal job outsourcing has made billions of dollars for individual corporate executives and stock investors on Wall Street.

Those interests have, in turn, kicked back a share of the proceeds to fund Washington think tanks, to finance news outlets, and to lavish campaign donations and speaking fees on friendly politicians. So, for the insiders, this game has been a case of win-win.

The Losers

Not so much for the “losers,” those average citizens who have seen the Great American Middle Class hollowed out over the past few decades, watched America’s public infrastructure decay, and worried about their sons and daughters being sent off to fight unnecessary, perpetual and futile wars.

Image: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. (NBC photo)

But inundated with clever propaganda – and scrambling to make ends meet – most Americans see the reality as if through a glass darkly. Many of them, as Barack Obama indelicately said during the 2008 campaign, “cling to guns or religion.” They have little else – and many are killing themselves with opiates that dull their pain or with those guns that they see as their last link to “freedom.”

What is clear, however, is that large numbers don’t trust – and don’t want – Hillary Clinton, who had a net 24-point unfavorable rating in one recent poll. It turns out that another indelicate Obama comment from Campaign 2008 may not have been true, when he vouched that “you’re likable enough, Hillary.” For many Americans, that’s not the case (although Trump trumped Clinton with a 41-point net negative).

If the Democrats do nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be hoping that the neocon/neolib establishment can so demonize Donald Trump that a plurality of Americans will vote for the former Secretary of State out of abject fear over what crazy things the narcissistic billionaire might do in the White House.

Trump’s policy prescriptions have been all over the place – and it is hard to know what reflects his actual thinking (or his genuine ignorance) as opposed to what constitutes his skillful showmanship that made him the “survivor” in the real-life reality TV competition for the Republican nomination.

Does Trump really believe that global warming is a hoax or is he just pandering to the know-nothing element of the Republican Party? Does he actually consider Obama’s Iran nuclear deal to be a disaster or is he just playing to the hate-Obama crowd on the Right?

Opposing the ‘Neos’

But Trump is not a fan of the “neos.” He forthrightly takes on the neocons over the Iraq War and excoriates ex-Secretary of State Clinton for her key role in another “regime change” disaster in Libya. Further, Trump calls for cooperation with Russia and China rather than the neocon-preferred escalation of tensions.

Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaking to the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

In his April 27 foreign policy speech, Trump called for

“a new foreign policy direction for our country – one that replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace. …It’s time to invite new voices and new visions into the fold. …

“My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people, and American security, above all else. That will be the foundation of every decision that I will make. America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.”

Such comments – suggesting that “new voices” are needed and that “ideology” should be cast aside – were fighting words for the neocons, since it is their voices that have drowned out all others and their ideology that has dominated U.S. foreign policy in recent years.

To make matters worse, Trump outlined an “America First” strategy in contrast to neocon demands that the U.S. military be dispatched abroad to advance the interests of Israel and other “allies.” Trump is not interested in staging “regime changes” to eliminate leaders who are deemed troublesome to Israel.

The real estate tycoon also has made criticism of “free trade” deals a centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that those agreements have sold out American workers by forcing them to compete with foreign workers receiving a fraction of the pay.

Sen. Sanders has struck similar themes in his insurgent Democratic campaign, criticizing Hillary Clinton’s longtime support for “free trade” and her enthusiasm for “regime change” wars, such as those in Iraq and Libya.

Examining her long record in public life, there can be little doubt that Clinton is a neocon on foreign policy and a neolib on economic strategies. She stands firmly with the consensus of Official Washington’s establishment, which is why she has enjoyed its warm embrace.

She has followed Wall Street’s beloved neoliberal attitude toward “free trade,” which has been very good for multinational corporations as they shipped millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries. (She has only cooled her ardor for trade deals to stanch the flow of Democratic voters to Bernie Sanders.)

Wars and More Wars

On foreign policy, Clinton has consistently supported neoconservative wars, although she might shy from the neocon label per se, preferring its less noxious synonym “liberal interventionist.”

But as arch-neocon Robert Kagan, who has recast himself as a “liberal interventionist,” told The New York Times in 2014, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

Image: Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

Summing up the feeling of thinkers like Kagan, the Times reported that Clinton “remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes.”

In February 2016, distraught over the rise of Trump, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush’s Iraq War, openly threw his support to Clinton, announcing his decision in a Washington Post op-ed.

And Kagan is not mistaken when he views Hillary Clinton as a fellow-traveler. She has often marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented their aggressive “regime change” schemes against governments and political movements that don’t toe Washington’s line or that deviate from Israel’s goals in the Middle East.

She has backed coups, such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results. [For more details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon” and “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?”]

Seeking ‘Coercion’

A glimpse of what a Clinton-45 presidency might do could be seen in a recent Politico commentary by Dennis Ross, a former special adviser to Secretary of State Clinton now working at the staunchly pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

In the article, Ross painted a surreal world in which the problems of the Middle East have been caused by President Obama’s hesitancy to engage militarily more aggressively across the region, not by the neocon-driven decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the similar schemes to overthrow secular governments in Libya and Syria in 2011, leaving those two countries in ruin.

Channeling the desires of right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ross called for the United States to yoke itself to the regional interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in their rivalry against Shiite-led Iran.

Image: Dennis Ross, who has served as a senior U.S. emissary in the Middle East.

Ross wrote:

“Obama believes in the use of force only in circumstances where our security and homeland might be directly threatened. His mindset justifies pre-emptive action against terrorists and doing more to fight the Islamic State. But it frames U.S. interests and the use of force to support them in very narrow terms. …

“The Saudis acted in [invading] Yemen in no small part because they feared the United States would impose no limits on Iranian expansion in the area, and they felt the need to draw their own lines.”

To counter Obama’s hesitancy to apply military force, Ross calls for a reassertion of a muscular U.S. policy in the Middle East, much along the lines that the neocon establishment and Hillary Clinton also favor, including:

–Threatening Iran with “blunt, explicit language on employing force, not sanctions” if Iran deviates from the Obama-negotiated agreement to constrain its nuclear program (the bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran zombie lives!);

–“Contingency planning with GCC states and Israel … to generate specific options for countering Iran’s growing use of Shiite militias to undermine regimes in the region”;

–A readiness to arm Sunni tribes in Iraq if Iraq’s prime minister doesn’t;

–Establish “safe havens with no-fly zones” inside Syria if Russian President Vladimir Putin does not force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down.

Employing the classic tough talk of the neocons, Ross concludes, “Putin and Middle Eastern leaders understand the logic of coercion. It is time for us to reapply it.”

One might note the many logical inconsistencies of Ross’s arguments, including his failure to note that much of Iran’s supposed meddling in the Middle East has involved aiding the Syrian and Iraqi governments in their battle against the Islamic State and Al Qaeda. Or that Russia’s intervention in Syria also has been to support the internationally recognized government in its fight against Sunni extremists and terrorists.

But the significance of Ross’s prescription to “reapply” U.S. “coercion” across the region is that he is outlining what the world can expect from a Clinton-45 presidency.

Clinton made many of the same points in her speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and in debates with Bernie Sanders. If she stays on that track as president, there would be at least a partial U.S. military invasion of Syria, a very strong likelihood of war with Iran, and an escalation of tensions (and possible war) with nuclear-armed Russia.

The logic of how all that is supposed to improve matters is lost amid the classic neocon growling about showing toughness or reapplying “coercion.”

So, the Democratic Party seems to be betting that Hillary Clinton’s flood of ugly TV ads against Trump can frighten the American people enough to give the neocons and the neolibs one more lease on the White House – and four more years to wreak their zombie havoc on the world.

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).

Tras las sanciones económicas que Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea impusieron en contra de Rusia, Moscú y Pekín tejieron una poderosa mancuerna energética que ha transformado radicalmente el mercado mundial del petróleo. Además de incrementar sus intercambios de hidrocarburos de forma exponencial, ambas potencias orientales han decidido poner fin a la dominación del dólar en la fijación de precios del oro negro. El petroyuan es el instrumento de pagos de  carácter estratégico que promete facilitar la transición a un sistema monetario multipolar, un sistema que tome en cuenta a varias divisas y que refleje la correlación de fuerzas del orden mundial actual.

En lugar de humillar a Rusia, la ‘guerra económica’ que Washington y Bruselas han promovido les resultó contraproducente, pues solamente contribuyó a fortalecer la mancuerna energética entre Moscú y Pekín. Recordemos que en mayo de 2014 la empresa rusa Gazprom se comprometió a garantizar el suministro de gas a China por hasta 38,000 millones de metros cúbicos anuales durante las próximas tres décadas (a partir de 2018) mediante la firma de un contrato por 400,000 millones de dólares con la Corporación Nacional de Petróleo de China (CNPC)[1].

En la actualidad ambas potencias coordinan los trabajos de un ambicioso plan de proyectos estratégicos que lo mismo incluye la construcción de gasoductos y oleoductos, que la operación conjunta de refinerías y complejos petroquímicos de gran envergadura. Sin proponérselo, el acercamiento de Moscú con Pekín produjo profundas transformaciones en el mercado petrolero mundial a favor de Oriente, socavando dramáticamente la influencia de las petroleras occidentales.

Incluso Arabia Saudita, que hasta hace poco tiempo se mantenía como el principal abastecedor de petróleo del gigante asiático, ha sido vapuleada por la diplomacia del Kremlin. Mientras que desde el año 2011 las exportaciones petroleras de Arabia Saudita a China venían creciendo a un ritmo de 120,000 barriles por día, las de Rusia lo hicieron a una velocidad de 550,000 barriles diarios, es decir, casi cinco veces más rápido. De hecho, en 2015 las empresas rusas llegaron a superar en cuatro ocasiones las ventas de petróleo de sus homólogas sauditas a China: Riad se tuvo que conformar con ser el segundo proveedor de crudo de Pekín en mayo, septiembre, noviembre y diciembre[2].

Cabe destacar que los países que integran el núcleo europeo también han visto disminuida su cuota de mercado frente a la región asiática: Alemania por ejemplo, fue suplantada por China a finales de 2015 como la mayor compradora de petróleo ruso[3]. De este modo, los grandes inversionistas que operan en el mercado petrolero mundial apenas pueden dar crédito de cómo, en unos cuantos meses, el principal demandante (China) se convirtió en el cliente favorito del tercer mayor productor (Rusia). De acuerdo con el vicepresidente de Transneft (la empresa rusa encargada de la implementación de los oleoductos nacionales), Serguéi Andrónov, China está dispuesta a importar un volumen total de 27 millones de toneladas de petróleo de Rusia a lo largo de 2016[4].

La alianza energética ruso-china se ha propuesto ir más lejos. Moscú y Pekín han hecho de sus intercambios de petróleo un canal de transición hacia un sistema monetario multipolar, esto es, uno que no esté basado únicamente en el dólar, sino que tome en cuenta a varias divisas y sobre todo, que refleje la correlación de fuerzas del orden mundial actual. Es que las sanciones económicas impuestas por Washington y Bruselas incentivaron a los rusos a eliminar el dólar y el euro de sus transacciones comerciales y financieras, pues de lo contrario, estarían demasiado expuestos a sufrir sabotajes en el momento de realizar operaciones de compra-venta con sus principales socios.

Por esa razón desde mediados de 2015 los hidrocarburos que China compra a Rusia se pagan en yuanes, ya no en dólares, información que ha sido confirmada por altos ejecutivos de Gazprom Neft, el brazo petrolero de Gazprom[5]. Esto incentiva el uso de la “moneda del pueblo” (‘renminbi’) en el mercado petrolero mundial a la vez que permite a Rusia neutralizar la ofensiva económica lanzada por Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea. Los cimientos de un nuevo orden financiero sustentado en el petroyuan están emergiendo: la moneda china se prepara para convertirse en el eje de los intercambios comerciales de Asia-Pacífico con las principales potencias petroleras.

Hoy en día Rusia realiza sus intercambios de petróleo con China en yuanes, en un futuro igual lo hará la Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP) una vez que China lo exija ¿O acaso el culto de Arabia Saudita por el dólar le hará perder a uno de sus principales clientes?[6] Otras potencias geoeconómicas ya han seguido los pasos de Rusia y China, pues han comprendido que para construir un sistema monetario más equilibrado, la ‘desdolarización’ de la economía mundial es una prioridad.

No menos importante es que tras el desplome de los precios del petróleo en más de 60 por ciento (desde mediados de 2014) los bancos chinos se han convertido en un soporte de financiamiento decisivo para las obras conjuntas de infraestructura energética. Por ejemplo, para poner en marcha cuanto antes el gasoducto ruso-chino ‘Fuerza de Siberia’, Gazprom solicitó a Bank of China un préstamo a cinco años por un monto equivalente a 2,000 millones de euros el pasado mes de marzo[7]. Es el crédito bilateral más grande que Gazprom ha contraído con una entidad financiera hasta la fecha. Otro ejemplo es el préstamo que China otorgó a Rusia hace unas semanas por un total de 12,000 millones de dólares para el proyecto Yamal GNL (de gas natural licuado) en la región del Ártico[8]. Evidentemente, la política exterior de Rusia en el rubro energético no padece aislamiento alguno, por el contrario, vive uno de sus mejores momentos gracias a China.

En conclusión, la hostilidad de los dirigentes de Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea contra el Gobierno de Vladímir Putin precipitó el fortalecimiento de la mancuerna energética ruso-china que a su vez, no hizo sino incrementar la preponderancia de Oriente en el mercado mundial de hidrocarburos. La gran apuesta de Moscú y Pekín es el petroyuan, el instrumento de pagos de carácter estratégico que tiene por delante el desafío de acabar con el dominio del dólar en la fijación de los precios del oro negro.

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ landslide victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, following his victory last week in Indiana, has highlighted the widespread hostility toward the Democratic Party’s front-runner, Hillary Clinton, some ten weeks before the party’s nominating convention in July.

Sanders defeated Clinton, whom the Democratic Party has declared the all-but-certain victor of the primary process, in every single county in the state, winning 51.4 percent of the vote compared to Clinton’s 35.8 percent. He secured particularly high vote margins in working class areas where the coal industry once dominated. As a consequence of decades of deindustrialization, largely overseen by the Democratic Party, West Virginia is now one of the poorest states in the country, with the lowest labor force participation rate.

In Logan County—the location of the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, in which 10,000 armed coal miners confronted strikebreakers and police—Sanders defeated Clinton by a 25 percentage point margin. The Vermont senator continues to secure overwhelming majorities among young voters, winning 73 percent of West Virginia Democratic voters under the age of 44.

The trouncing of Clinton by Sanders, who describes himself as a “democratic socialist,” in a state like West Virginia is of immense political significance. In trying to explain this and the other victories for Sanders, the media and the Democratic Party backers of Clinton are promoting a false racial narrative in which everything is to be understood in terms of the “white vote,” the “black vote,” etc. An example of this is the column (“As West Virginia Goes”) published yesterday by New York Times columnist Charles Blow, a committed Clinton supporter.

Clinton’s problem, according to Blow, is that her strategy “has been to so closely align herself with President Obama that there is very little light between them.” This has “helped her secure and retain some minority voters, but most likely distanced her from white ones.” West Virginia, Blow continues, is “one of the whitest states in the country, and the absolute whitest in the South,” as well as the “least educated state and one of the poorest.”

Blow attempts to conceal the obvious—that the support for Sanders is driven by enormous alienation and the desire among broad sections of workers and youth for a dramatic change in economic policy. Clinton’s association with the Obama administration is generating hostility among workers and youth because the seven years of the Obama White House have seen a historic growth of social inequality and a continued deterioration of working class living standards.

Blow’s comment, and many others like it, assumes as a matter of course that workers are acting not on the basis of economic interests, but on the basis of racial identity. These commentators reject any notion that the concerns motivating broad sections of workers who happen to be white are the same as those animating workers who happen to be black. They deny that workers are capable of rational judgment as to where their interests lie. They provide no evidence for these claims. Rather, they assume that repeating them incessantly will make them true.

The attempt to turn race into the fundamental social and political category has been at the center of the political strategy of the Democratic Party and its political periphery for decades. Particularly since the late 1960s, the Democratic Party has combined the repudiation of any commitment to social reform with the promotion of affirmative action and various forms of lifestyle and identity politics connected to the interests of privileged sections of the population.

To the extent that racial issues have been a significant factor in the 2016 elections, it is mainly in their crass utilization by the Clinton campaign and its supporters among sections of the African American upper-middle class. That Clinton, the personification of the status quo, has done well among more economically oppressed section of the African American population is a reflection of the reactionary impact of this type of politics.

It should be noted that another political narrative has been blown apart in the Republican primaries—namely, the claim that religion is the central question motivating Republican voters. In the media there is no attempt to explain why it is that the “evangelical vote” has gone for the notorious fornicator Donald Trump, or why the campaign of the religious fundamentalist Ted Cruz went down in flames despite the backing of the Republican Party establishment. Here one sees in another, very distorted form the consequences of economic and social distress, which Trump is seeking to direct along extreme right-wing and nationalist channels.

More and more, the fundamental class questions are coming to the fore. Now that it has been shown that broad sections of workers are prepared to accept a socialist alternative, the response of the so-called “left” is to attempt to reinforce racial divisions.

Sanders himself offers no way forward. From the outset, the central purpose of his campaign has been to contain the deep and growing social anger within the framework of the capitalist system and the Democratic Party. Expressed in the popular support for his campaign, however, are powerful objective tendencies that must and will find more radical forms of political expression.

It is high time that workers and youth reject the entire reactionary effort to define politics on the basis of racial, ethnic or other artificial divisions. Class is real, rooted objectively in the process of production. Race is a fiction, employed by the ruling class and the political forces of the middle class, both on the right and the pseudo-left, to divide workers and subordinate them to capitalism. Class politics—uniting all workers on the basis of their common economic interests and social identity—can and will find a renaissance in the United States.

The head of Bangladesh’s leading Islamic party, the Jamaat-e-Islami,(JI) Motiur Rahman Nizami was hanged at Dhaka Central jail at one minute past midnight on Wednesday 11 May 2016. In 2014, a death sentence was imposed on him by a special tribunal for allegedly committing genocide and rape and orchestrating the massacre of intellectuals during the 1971 war of independence when East Pakistan— what is today Bangladesh — broke away from Pakistan.

The death sentence against Nizami has been condemned by government leaders and opposition figures from a number of countries, apart from human rights organisations, other civil society groups, and intellectuals. For many of them, the so-called ‘evidence’ against Nizami was weak and appeared to be fabricated; the trial itself was faulty and the verdict was from all accounts pre-determined. The entire trial process violated established international norms and standards.

This was also true of the other four high profile political leaders executed before Nizami— a point we had made in the past.  Three of them were from the JI while the fourth was from the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Like Nizami, they were all accused of crimes committed during the 1971 war. It is bizarre that these allegations against the five and a number of others were made only in 2010, almost 40 years after the 1971 war. No allegation of war crimes was made in the early seventies when the founder of the Bangladeshi State, the late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (the father of the present Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina) was in charge. Even when his party, the Awami League,(AL) was in power again from 1996-2001, with his daughter at the helm, no one was hauled to court on accusations of war crimes. It was after the AL came to power a third time in 2009 that Hasina decided to move against ‘war criminals’ from the JI and the BNP. 

It is partly because of this strange hiatus in time that many commentators and observers are convinced that the trials were all politically motivated. They are part of a larger scheme to weaken the JI and the BNP and to strengthen the AL’s grip upon power.

In the short run, the AL may succeed. But will it be able to perpetuate its power well into the future?

The suppression of dissent through the use of brute force — as demonstrated again and again in history — leads eventually to instability and chaos.  The perpetrators and their descendants will also have to bear the dire consequences of their suppression and oppression. The winners will then realise that they are actually the losers.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia.

The most obvious approach to look at how European care for the elderly will evolve is to project technological trends and the costs of people living longer as diagnostic equipment, drug treatments and other medical science continues to improve. This kind of projection shows a rising cost to society of pensions and health care, because a rising proportion of the aging population is retiring. How will economies pay for it?

I want to point to some special problems that are looming on the political front. I assume that the reason you have invited me from America is that my country has been doing just about everything wrong in its health care. Its experience may provide an object lesson for what Europe should avoid (and indeed, has avoided up to this point).

For starters, privatization is much more expensive than European-style Single Payer public health care. Monopoly prices also are higher. And of course, fraud is a problem.

America’s Obamacare and health insurance laws have been written by political lobbyists for special interests. So has the TTIP: Transatlantische Handelsabwollen. Since George W. Bush, the U.S. Government has been prohibited from bargaining for low bulk prices from the pharmaceutical companies. Most Americans think that Health Management Organizations (HMOs) are rife with corruption and billing fraud. The insurance sector has made a killing by spending a great deal of money on bureaucratic techniques to reject patients who seem likely to require expensive health care. Doctors need to hire specialists working full time just to fill out the paperwork. Error is constant, and any visit to the doctor, even for a simple annual checkup, requires many hours by most patients on the phone with their insurance company to correct over-billing.

The dream of U.S. “free market” lobbyists to shift the costs of health care onto its users instead of as a public program. According to current plans backed both by the Republicans and by much of the Democratic Party leadership, these user costs ideally would be paid bypre-saving in special “health savings” accounts, to be managed by Wall Street banks as a kind of mutual fund (with all the financial risks this entails – the same kind of risks that are troubling most U.S. pension funds today).

The reason why the U.S. discussion of health care for the elderly is so relevant for Europeans is that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that President Barack Obama pushed on German Chancellor Angela Merkel two weeks ago. It poses a far-reaching threat to European policies.

The agreement has been drawn up in secret, and has only been available to Congressmen in a special room as a read-only copy. Not even Congressional staff have been permitted to see the details. The reason is that the terms of the TTIP are so awful that it could never be approved
by voters. That is why the lobbyists for banks, insurance companies, drug companies, oil and gas companies and other special interests that wrote the law are trying to bypass democratic government and going directly to Brussels – and in the United States to the Executive Branch of government.

The aim of the TTIP is to replace the application of national laws with special courts of referees nominated by the special interests. This includes the organization of health care. Last week Britain’s main labor union, Unite, warned that the TTIP would mean that the National Health Service would have to be wound down and privatized.[1] Although “Austria, Germany, Greece and Italy do have explicit reservations in the TTIP text to protect existing rules relating to healthcare,” the privatization lobbyist strategy is to have the treaty “provisionally applied” to force matters, by backing compliant politicians. Objections will be sidestepped as the “provisional’ law becomes a fait accompli.

I think that the best perspective that I can give you is to discuss how the various interest groups are working to shape political decisions regarding the public and private role of health care. This is an area I have been involved with for forty years. In 1976, I contributed the economic section for two reports by The Futures Group in Glastonbury, Connecticut for the National Science Foundation analyzing the economic and financial consequences of life‑extending technology: When We Live Longer: Prospects for America (with Herb Gurjuoy et al., 1977) and A Technology Assessment of Life-Extending Technologies (Vol. 5: Demography, Economics and Aging, 1977). I believe these were the first reports to pinpoint the implications for the Social Security system of an aging population and its inter-generational financial tensions.

American politicians and economic futurists were concerned with the effect on public health budgets of a rising proportion of the population able to live out the maximum present human lifespan of 125 years (called “squaring” the life expectancy curve). What is the best public response to what should be a dream being realized? More to the point, how should governments cope with special interests seeking merely to profiteer from such breakthroughs – and use their promise in an extortionate manner?

Every interest group has its own perspective. Most politicians in the United States are lawyers, and they worried that the Social Security, pension and health care contracts were a legal right that could not be broken or modified. President Eisenhower had called Social Security the “third rail” of American politics – meaning that any politician or party that sought to downgrade its promises would quickly be voted out of office.

It was obvious that a population living longer would receive more Social Security and pension payments, and that a rising proportion of national income would be spent on their health care. Some of the politicians I talked to were so pessimistic about the costs involved that one said that he was sorry that kidney dialysis procedures had been invented, because with so many people having kidney problems, it would cost a fortune to provide this service to everyone who medically needed it.

Some politicians sought ways to not to fund expensive medical technologies – on the ground that if these were developed, the government might have an obligation to supply the most expensive technologies (especially dialysis and organ transplants) to the population at large. The costs of doing this would absorb nearly all the economic growth.

One set of futures envisioned that the more costly medical treatments might become available only on islands – in the Caribbean, for instance. After all, did not Hippocrates practice on the island of Cos?

As forecast decades ago, health care is the most sharply rising cost in the United States. What none of us were cynical enough to forecast was the corrupt role played by special interests in maximizing the costs by treating each element of health care as a profit center – indeed, as an opportunity to extract monopoly rent.

Privatization of health insurance under Obamacare has been a bonanza for the financial sector and the insurance industry. Initially a Republican “free market” proposal, it required the Democratic Party in power to disable popular pressure for “Medicare for all” in the form of single payer public health care. No discussion within Congress was even permitted to favor public health care. (I was economic advisor to Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, whom the Democratic Party leadership blocked from even discussing a public option in the Congressional debate.)

The enormous power of lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry bought the loyalty of politicians who blocked anti-trust laws from being applied against the drug companies. As I noted earlier, these lobbyists even succeeded in blocking the government from negotiating directly with the drug companies over prices.

I mention these points because the U.S. solution should serve as an object lesson for what European and other countries should avoid in managing their care for the elderly. This is especially important to Europe, because its neoliberal policies favoring the financial sector imply a slow economic crash squeezing household and employer budgets. Five concerns are paramount.

Triage: restricting the most expensive health care only to the wealthy

Lower incomes lead to shorter lifespans as a result of worse health, and also suicides. Marriage and birth rates also are lower as economies polarize and growth slows. Russia, Ukraine, Latvia and other post-Soviet states show this – and it may be a forecast of European experience. This raises the ratio of elderly to working-age populations. A slowly growing labor force must support more and more retirees.

Studies in almost every country have shown that health standards and lifespans are polarizing between wealthy and poor. A recent U.S. study notes: “The life-expectancy gap between rich and poor in the United States is actually accelerating. Since 2001, American men among the nation’s most affluent 5 percent have seen their lifespans increase by more than two years. American women in that bracket have registered an almost three-year extension to their life expectancy. Meanwhile, the poorest five percent of Americans have seen essentially no gains at all.”[2]

This has important implications regarding recent proposals to raise the retirement age at which people can qualify for Social Security. Only the well to do are living longer, not blue-collar labor. Raising the retirement age would deprive the latter of the retirement years that better-paid individuals enjoy as a result of their healthier lives.

I mentioned above one scenario drawn by futurists: that the best medical care might only be available in “medical islands” or their equivalent in the United States, called “Cadillac health insurance plans.”

Blaming the victims for their unhealthy environment as the problem were their “personal responsibility.”

George W. Bush recommended that the poor simply should go to hospital emergency wards when they get sick. This obviously is the most expensive approach. Prevention is by far more economical. But public moves along this line are being fought tooth and nail by the tobacco and soft-drink industries, and other purveyors of bad health.

Better health and longer lifespans are achieved not only by advanced medical technology, but by better public health standards, and personal diets and exercise. The most serious behaviors impairing health and longevity are smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and eating junk foods to the point of obesity. In the United States, childhood diabetes is rising sharply, especially among racial and ethnic minorities, and the poor in general.

An obvious way to keep down health expenditures is to lead a more healthy life. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg sought to ban the sale of large sugar-drink servings. Lawyers for the junk-food industry, supported by fast food restaurants and movie theaters, blocked his initiative. And an even more powerful legal tool to block public health warnings is contained in the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement and its European counterpart, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. These proposed treaties follow the earlier North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in levying enormous fines on government who warn populations of the dangers of smoking or other unhealthy behavior that is highly profitable to cigarette companies, soft drink “sugar water” makers, and fast food restaurants selling food-like substances that give little nourishment. Under the proposed neoliberal agreement being put in the hands of Brussels politicians by American lobbyists, government warnings of the health hazards of smoking will require these governments to pay the tobacco companies what they would have earned if cigarette sales had notdeclined as a result of these warnings! Fines already have been levied against Australia for seeking to improve public health by requiring such warnings on cigarette packages. A recent Australian report concludes:

Tobacco policies implemented in the past have been effective at decreasing overall rates of smoking, but new and innovative interventions will be needed in the future to affect change in all populations.

Six chapters were identified with potential to limit governments’ ability to implement tobacco control policies. The key chapters are: investment, particularly the ISDS mechanism; rules related to trademarks in intellectual property, regulatory coherence, cross-border services and technical barriers to trade. … Multiple chapters may also interact with the potential for amplified effects on tobacco control. Various provisions in these parts of the TPP may provide the tobacco industry with greater influence over policymaking and more avenues to contest tobacco control measures, as well as preventing governments from introducing new policies.[3]

Last week the European Court of Justice upheld the 2014 Tobacco Products Directive against challenges from British-American Tobacco (BAT) and Philip Morris. Like similar laws in other countries, the European law called for public warnings on cigarette packs telling smokers that nicotine kills. But the tobacco companies vowed to fight back, and the TTIP is now their major hope.

Dangers of privatization of health law under the TTIP

A recent British article lays out the problem:

A salient goal of TTIP is to shadow the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS), an instrument of public international law granting firms the right to raise an action in a tribunal on the basis that a state’s policies have harmed their commercial interests. … The economist Max Otte has called ISDS ‘a complete disempowerment of politics’. The tribunals are confidential, as is usual in arbitration. Negotiations over ISDS within TTIP are also secret, the aim being to get the ink dry on the agreement before it can provoke opposition by being made public. …

As the Economist put it, ‘if you wanted to convince the public that international trade agreements are a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people, this is what you would do.’[4]

Dangers of financialization

The most efficient way to finance care for the elderly – and pensions – remains pay-as-you-go planning. This is becoming difficult in a neoliberal political environment with shrinking economic growth and consequent demographic shrinkage. The horror story today is a Ukraine-like situation where the labor force has fled, leaving the elderly to be supported without much of a social budget. That is becoming the post-Soviet model, from East Germany to the Baltics.

The American situation is worse, because Social Security, Medicare and pensions are front-loaded by being financialized – paid for in advance. For decades, savings have been set aside in the form of stock and bond purchases. The problem is that when more workers retire than are contributing to the pension plan or similar plans, their prices will decline. This will leave the retirement plan under-funded.

As interest rates have been reduced to nearly zero since 2008 by Quantitative Easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve and now European Central Bank, pension funds and insurance companies have become desperate to meet their statistically required targets. They have turned to gambling on complex financial derivatives – and have lost heavily, because their managers are no match for Wall Street sharpies.

It may be appropriate here to note the monetary madness of the eurozone not having a central bank to monetize budget deficits to spend into the economy to help it grow. That is the proper function of a real central bank, from the Bank of England to the U.S. Federal Reserve System. European voters are being frightened by junk economics claiming that only commercial banks should create money and credit, not central banks. The reality is that central banks can create the money to fund health programs without inflating the economy. What would inflate health care costs, especially proper care for the elderly, would be privatization and a relinquishing of health policy to the large corporations best in a position to profiteer.

Danger of trade agreements raising the cost of drugs and medical technology

The technological medical revolution involves high rent-extracting opportunities, especially in treating the elderly. The Australian study cited above notes the dangers posed by the TPP (and hence also by its European version) to public health expenditure, especially health costs for the elderly. Designed largely to protect “intellectual property rights,” the proposed treaty aims to increase monopolyrent extraction by the pharmaceutical sector.

Provisions proposed for the TPP that have the potential to limit implementation of new food labelling requirements in Australia include the ISDS mechanism; the regulatory coherence chapter and technical barriers to trade chapter. Provisions in these parts of the TPP have the potential to restrict policymakers to regulate using the most effective public health nutrition instruments. For example, the food industry could argue that introduction of mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling would be a technical barrier to trade. Without strong compensatory intervention to improve consumer awareness of the relative healthfulness of foods, it is likely that there will be no change to current high rates of obesity, metabolic syndrome and non-communicable diseases. This would have a negative impact on health, particularly for vulnerable populations.

For starters, the trade agreement limits the ability of public or community pharmacies to bargain for lower drug prices. Also, any attempt at anti-monopoly legislation would require governments to pay the foreign producers or investors as much money as they wouldhave earned if no “interference with markets” (that is, regulation of monopoly prices) had existed. This would sharply increase the cost of healthcare, and “many TPP provisions proposed during the negotiations are likely to be harmful to health.”

There is sufficient evidence which show that increases in the cost of medicines lead to greater patient copayments through the PBS, and that increases in patient copayments lead to lower rates of prescription use. Changes to prescription costs impact particularly on vulnerable populations who have less capacity to accommodate increased out-of-pocket expenses such as women, elderly adults, cultural and linguistic minorities, and low-income populations; people with chronic disease; geographically remote communities; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations.

Many provisions proposed for the TPP had the potential to increase the cost of medicines. These were identified in leaked drafts of the intellectual property chapter; the healthcare transparency annex; and the investment chapter, which includes an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. These provisions, if adopted, could be expected to lead to an increase in the costs of managing the PBS by delaying the availability of generic medicines, and constraining the ability of the PBS to contain costs. An increase in the cost of the PBS to government would be likely to lead to higher copayments for patients.

Summary

European sponsors of U.S.-style neoliberalism pose a threat of transforming European politics, and with it the structure of economies and society. Enormous sums of money are being spent on public relations, and to support politicians willing to shepherd corporate monopoly power against that of democratic government and voters. The most serious threat to European health care and care for the aging population in general is pressure from U.S. firms and diplomats to ram through the TTIP.

It is much more than a free trade agreement. Its “investor dispute” mechanism threatens to disenfranchise governments. The intent is to block them from protecting Europe’s economy, population and basic social philosophy that has developed over the past century of social democracy.

That is why so many of us in the United States also are fighting against this agreement. It has been a major issue in this year’s presidential campaign. Republican nominee Donald Trump has affirmed that the public option is by far the most economic. And Democratic contender Bernie Sanders has opposed Hillary Clinton’s support for her patrons on Wall Street and in the pharmaceutical monopolies. I hope that a similar fight will be waged in Europe.

This is the text of Michael Hudson’s speech to SANICADEMIA, May 9, 2016 in Villach, Austria for the 5th International Congress on Geriatrics and Gerontology = 59th Austrian Convention for Hospital Management, “We’re Living Longer: The healthcare challenges for today and tomorrow.”

Michael Hudson’s new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet. He can be reached via his website, [email protected]

Notes

[1] Hazel Sheffield, “TTIP could cause an NHS sell-off and UK Parliament would be powerless to stop it, says leading union,” The Independent, April 29 2016.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ttip-could-cause-an-nhs-sell-off-and-parliament-would-be-powerless-to-stop-it-says-leading-union-a7006471.html

[2] Sam Pizzigati, “Inequality Kills: Top 1% Lives 15 Years Longer Than the Poorest,” Naked Capitalism, May 3, 2016, originally published at Other Words.http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/inequality-kills-top-1-lives-15-years-longer-than-the-poorest.html

[3] Katherine Hirono, Fiona Haigh, Deborah Gleeson, Patrick Harris, Anne Marie Thow and Sharon Frie, “Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement,” April 4, 2016.http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/4/e010339.full. The report notes: “The final agreement also included an optional tobacco carve-out from ISDS, allowing TPP countries to prevent the use of ISDS to challenge tobacco control measures. Yet even these apparent ‘wins’ have some limitations. Unlike tobacco, the health system, food and alcohol were not carved out from ISDS, leaving these policy areas vulnerable to claims by foreign investors. While various safeguards have been included to try and protect public health, experts have raised doubts about whether they will be sufficient.”

[4] Glen Newey, “Investors v. States,” London Review of Books blog, April 29, 2016. http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/04/29/glen-newey/investors-v-states/

Il giorno stesso (4 maggio) in cui si è insediato alla Nato il nuovo Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa – il generale Usa Curtis Scaparrotti, nominato come i suoi 17 predecessori dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti – il Consiglio Nord Atlantico ha annunciato che al quartier generale della Nato a Bruxelles verrà istituita una Missione ufficiale israeliana, capeggiata dall’ambasciatore di Israele presso la Ue…

Ao contrário do senso comum imposto pela mídia serventuária das grandes corporações que a sustentam, atentados de 11/9/2001 mais que nunca importam porque o mundo se torna cada vez mais belicoso, liberdades civis são restringidas enquanto provas tecnocientíficas contradizem versão oficial envolvendo o dia que mudou curso da história, pelo qual milhões de vidas têm sido sacrificadas

O Senado norte-americano pressiona a Casa Branca para que torne público o documento de 28 páginas ainda sob sigilo envolvendo os atentados de 11 de Setembro de 2001, os quais, segundo fontes norte-americanas que tiveram acesso a eles, incriminam o governo saudita por ter desempenhado participação naqueles ataques, através de apoio direto aos suicidas.

Um projeto de lei no Congresso, com raro apoio bipartidário conhecido como Justiça contra Patrocinadores do Terrorismo, visa retirar a Arábia Saudita da imunidade soberana contra ações judiciais decorrentes do 11 de Setembro. Liderada pelo senador Chuck Schumer do Partido Democrata, que poderia condenar o reino saudita responsável por seu papel nos ataques do 11 de Setembro através do financiamento dos sequestradores até o momento em que estes chocaram os aviões contra os edifícios em Nova Iorque e em Washington. Dos 22 co-apoiantes da lei 12 são republicanos, e 10 democratas.

O presidente Barack Obama, por sua vez, manifesta-se frontalmente contrário à liberação do “28 pages”, como o arquivo é comumente chamado nos Estados Unidos. O mandatário norte-americano, cujo regime mostra-se eterno refém dos sauditas e dos sionistas por motivos óbvios, tem tentado obstruir a aprovação da lei no Congresso afirmando que ela abrirá perigosos precedentes dentro dos Estados Unidos: segundo Obama, colocará os norte-americanos em risco legal no exterior, já que tanto o regime de Washington poderia ser julgado por tribunais estrangeiros.

Obama visitou a Arábia Saudita no último dia 20: não foi recebido no aeroporto de Riad pelo rei Salman, autoridade máxima do reino. Este, rompendo o protocolo internacional, esperava pelo presidente norte-americano em seu palácio. Um claro sinal de descontentamento e advertência que já havia sido mandada de maneira bem direta e drástica dias antes.

A Arábia Saudita, maior aliada do regime de Washington no Oriente Médio, ao lado de Israel e maior potência petrolífera regional, ameaçou a Casa Branca: se a lei for aprovada, a Casa de Saud retirará seus ativos de 750 bilhões de dólares nos Estados Unidos em vez de ver os bens congelados por processos judiciais, o que é altamente provável que ocorra caso o Congresso leve adiante o caso.

“É atormentador pensar que nosso governo vai apoiar os sauditas em detrimento dos seus próprios cidadãos”, disse Mindy Kleinberg, cujo esposo morreu no World Trade Center em 11 de setembro de 2001.

A sociedade estadunidense é amplamente favorável à liberação das 28 páginas: segundo recentes pesquisas do instituto Rasmussen Reports, 74% dos mil cidadãos entrevistados querem que o governo as desclassifique.

De maneira organizada nas mais diversas associações, como 9/11 Families, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth,9/11 Truth etc, exercem forte pressão (um tanto isolados) desde os dias subsequentes ao 11/9 para que as inúmeras contradições envolvendo a versão oficial, entre diversas provas técnico-científicas que a invalidam por completo, sejam devidamente levadas à Justiça. E lutam por espaço midiático, a cada ano mais negado que deságua na indiferença societária em geral.

Mas por que, de maneira tão contraditória, dá-se hoje considerável valor à “Guerra ao Terror” e já quase nenhuma importância àquilo que levou o mundo a este tenebroso cenário, isto é, o próprio 11 de Setembro que saiu, há muito, das páginas e das telas dos noticiários mundiais? Tão paradoxalmente ao próprio “horror” gerado pelas quedas das Torres Gêmeas, transmitidas em tempo real para todo o planeta – o frenesi foi tão grande naquele dia, que jornalistas da CNN e da BBC “miraculosamente” anteciparam, em uma hora, a queda da Torre Sul: ela não havia vindo abaixo anida… (vídeos do furo profético que o jornalismo messiânico, estadunidense e britânico, nunca explicaram, mais abaixo).

Contudo, seguiu valendo eternamente o “furo” jornalístico e, certamente, mais audiência além da sensação de histeria coletiva e, decorrente disso, a justificativa para que George Bush declarasse unilateralmente guerra contra um Estado que nunca havia atacado o seu e nem lhe apresentava ameaça (Afeganistão), de uma catedral dois dias depois ao lado de um padre, um pastor e um rabino. Contrariando, assim, a Constituição de seu país e todas as leis internacionais.

On Tuesday, in an open military provocation, the Obama administration authorised the US Navy to send a guided-missile destroyer into the 12-nautical-mile territorial zone surrounding Chinese-held Fiery Cross Reef, located in the Spratly Island chain in the South China Sea. The operation was carried out on the fraudulent pretext of “freedom of navigation”—that is, the assertion by US imperialism that it has the right to send its military forces anywhere it chooses, at any time, in Chinese-claimed waters.

Yesterday’s action achieved its real aim of ratcheting up military tensions in the Asia-Pacific. The Chinese military responded by scrambling at least two J-11 fighter jets. Chinese pilots reportedly issued warnings to the American destroyer, the USS William P. Lawrence, to leave Chinese territory or face engagement. The Chinese Navy dispatched three warships, but there have been no reports that the rival vessels came into contact.

These developments represent a sharp escalation. The US Navy carried out a “freedom of navigation” mission last October in Chinese-claimed waters around Subi Reef in the South China Sea and a second operation in January, near Triton Island in the Paracel Island chain. On those occasions, China did not react militarily but issued strongly-worded diplomatic protests. The response to the intrusion near Fiery Cross Reef indicates that, from this point on, US provocations will be engaged by Chinese forces, posing the danger of a military clash.

Fiery Cross Reef is one of the most sensitive of all the disputed territories. It has been held by China since 1988, but is still claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan. Tensions have grown since 2011 as a result of the US “pivot to Asia” and Washington’s development of closer military ties with Vietnam and the Philippines.

In 2014, China deployed several hundred troops to the reef and initiated a major project to reclaim land from the sea and turn it into a small artificial island. It has built a port and a 3,300-metre airfield—the most southern airfield controlled by Beijing. In January 2016, civilian airliners successfully landed on the reef and it is now regularly used by Chinese military aircraft.

The message from Washington sent by yesterday’s operation is clear. US imperialism will continue to stoke up long-standing, competing claims over territory in the South China Sea to militarily encircle and destabilise the Chinese regime. The objective of the US ruling elite is not only to assert military dominance in Asia, but to intimidate Beijing into pulling back from its ambitions to exert greater global influence and compel it to make sweeping concessions to American demands on trade and access to Chinese markets. If Beijing nevertheless continues to assert the regional and global interests of the Chinese business oligarchs it represents, it will face war.

The timing of the “freedom of navigation” operation indicates that the message was intended as much for the allies and “strategic partners” of the United States as it was for the Chinese regime.

It could be only a matter of days before the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague brings down its ruling on a US-backed Philippines legal challenge to aspects of China’s claims in the South China Sea. The court, stacked with the legal appointees of the imperialist powers, is expected to declare Chinese occupation of certain islets and reefs “illegal” under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Such a finding will be used by the American government to justify even more aggressive military operations, most of which will be launched from the new bases to which it has access in the Philippines. Short-range A-10 assault aircraft are operating from airfields directly adjacent the South China Sea and warships can be dispatched from various Philippine ports.

The USS William P. Lawrence entered Chinese-held waters just hours after Rodrigo Duterte, the fascistic mayor of Davao City, claimed victory in Monday’s presidential election in the Philippines. Throughout the campaign, Duterte wavered between militarist rhetoric over the disputed territories and conciliatory offers to Beijing for bilateral negotiations and closer economic ties. The US operation is a signal that, by the time he is sworn in on June 30, Duterte’s administration will face a fait accompli. The Philippines will be on the front line of a build-up toward open confrontation.

The freedom of navigation mission also coincides with the beginning of a volatile and unpredictable election in Australia, one of the most critical allies and military partners of the United States in its “pivot to Asia.” The clear aim of the Australian political and media establishment has been to conduct the election with as little reference to the dangers of war as possible. Instead, the issue is being pushed into the limelight and the rival parties pressured to publicly reaffirm their full backing of Washington.

Defence Minister Marise Payne, representing the Liberal-National Coalition government, immediately asserted that Australia “strongly supports” the US actions. The opposition Labor Party, which aligned Australia with the “pivot” in 2011 when it was in government, and is on record as advocating that Australian warships carry out independent provocations against China, is now under pressure to do likewise.

US President Obama will seek to enlist Vietnam behind stepped-up military operations against Beijing during his state visit to the country on May 21. This will be followed by top level talks in Japan on May 26–27 with the heads of the six other G7 nations—Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and Canada—as well as the head of the European Union. To the fury of China, the communique issued by the G7 foreign ministers’ summit in April for the first time declared the G7’s “opposition” to any actions that raised “tensions” in the South and East China seas. The statement of Washington’s NATO and Japanese allies was not a reference to the US provocations, but to China’s reaction.

The deployment of jet fighters against a US warship indicates that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime concluded it would escalate its own reactionary preparations for a military confrontation with the war machine of the US and its allies. It is seeking to defend the interests of the corrupt oligarchy that developed in China as Mao Zedong and his political heirs restored capitalist property relations from the 1970s. The actions of the CCP regime are diametrically opposed to the interests of the working class—above all the multi-million strong Chinese working class which, if war breaks out, would face the nightmarish prospect of US nuclear strikes.

The Chinese Defense ministry has announced that Beijing is going to further intensify tensions. It declared yesterday that the American actions “proved” that the construction of military infrastructure and deployment of forces in the South China Sea was “totally justified and very necessary.” China, it asserted, will increase its naval and air operations in the region and expand its placement of “various defense capacities.”

While the regime deploys its military in an ever-more fraught situation, the Chinese state-controlled media is attempting to generate nationalist fervor over the question of the disputed territory. The aim is both to divert steadily rising social tensions over inequality and economic slump into anti-American and anti-Japanese chauvinism, and to drown out any expression of alarm within the Chinese population over the implications of a war.

In every country—from the US and China to Japan, Australia, the Philippines and Vietnam—a catastrophic conflict is being prepared behind the backs of the working class and youth. This stark reality adds ever greater urgency to the fight to build a new international anti-war movement of the working class on the foundation of socialist and internationalist principles.

For a long time, Norway has represented an exception in Europe and the word. The main reason has been the abundance of oil revenue, which has made Norway the only country in Europe without net state debt. Quite the opposite, the Norwegian government has a huge surplus – most of it in the form of the so-called “Government Pension Fund – Global.” Until recently, Norwegian workers have therefore not felt the effects of the financial and economic crisis as strongly as most other workers in Europe. For example, unemployment rates have mostly been between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent over the last ten years.

However, since the dramatic fall of oil prices started in 2014, the situation has also changed in Norway. Unemployment has increased, particularly in the oil and oil servicing industries. It is now close to 5 per cent – and still growing.

At the parliamentary elections in the autumn of 2013, the red-green government (consisting of the Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party) lost after 8 years in power, and a right wing government took over. This change of majority was partly due to a well-known phenomenon in Europe over the last 20 years, where centre-left governments have lost power, with socialist left parties as the biggest losers. This is what happens when left parties surrender to more or less neoliberal policies – and even participate in U.S./NATO led war adventures. After the defeat, the Norwegian Socialist Left Party has thus been in a deep political crisis, fighting to come over the 4 per cent electoral threshold (while it had 12-13 per cent support in the period before the election in 2005).

The Rise of the Right

The current right wing government (also called the “blue-blue” government) consists of the Conservative Party and the Progress Party (right wing populists), which, for the first time, became part of a government in Norway. The two parties do not have a majority in the Parliament, though, so they are dependent on at least one of two centre parties (the Christian Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, which is more neoliberal than liberal). The political move to the right has also been fuelled by the rapid increase of refugees to Norway last year, not least because the Labour Party to a large degree follows the strict anti-refugee policy of the Progress party.

Privatization, centralization and attacks on labour legislation are important ingredients of the policy of the right wing government. One of the most controversial issues so far, was the change of the Labour Law at the beginning of 2015, including an opening for more temporary work and a weakening of working hours’ regulations. This was met by a short national general strike as well as demonstrations all over the country in January last year – without having any effect on the government, though.

Even though real wages have increased for most workers in Norway ever since the beginning of the 1990s, a downward pressure has been felt in some industries – particularly where employers exploit workers from Central and Eastern Europe on the Single European labour market. Social dumping has therefore become an increasing problem in transport, construction, cleaning and some other industries. One of the measures to fight this development has been to make it possible to generalize collective agreements to cover all workers in an industry, whether unionised or not. This has been in operation in industries like construction, ship building and for electricians for some years, and also cleaners and goods and passenger road transport have been included over the last couple of years.

Image: May Day rallies in Norway.

In the public sector, neoliberal, market oriented reforms (New Public Management) have been the order of the day ever since the 1980s – regardless of what kind of government we have had. Increased control from above, increased detailed and meaningless reporting and increased demand for loyalty to management have therefore contributed to undermining working conditions and workers’ control of their own work. A growing criticism of and resistance against this development is slowly emerging.

Some Positive Initiatives

Interestingly, we have seen some positive tendencies regarding privatization policies in Norway over the last couple of years, particularly at municipal level. At the local elections in September last year, centre-left majorities took over many of the biggest cities, and some of these new majorities have started to re-municipalize some of the services which had previously been privatized or tendered out to private companies. This is the case for some of the nursing homes for elderly, for cleaning of public buildings and for the use of temporary workers’ agencies. A coalition of trade unions and other organizations in our Campaign for the Welfare State has been instrumental in developing this policy, in a national campaign against “welfare profiteers,” as we call them.

A campaign which was initiated by some local trade union organizations and political parties on the left against the weakening of the labour laws, has also had some success. A number of local councils, both at the municipal and at the county level have thus decided not to utilise the new “flexibility” and the extended possibilities to use temporary workers, but still in practice use the “old” and better wording of the law.

Currently the Norwegian trade union movement is in the middle of national collective agreement negotiations. In the new situation, with increasing unemployment and a downturn in the oil industry, expectations and demands are modest. Most unions seem to accept only a compensation of inflation, and some are even willing to give some minor concessions regarding more flexible working hours. A previously expected fight to improve a weak pension system, which was introduced by the red-green government about 10 years ago, seems to be postponed to a later date.

Finally, for more than two years a dispute has been going on among some dockworkers in Norway. Employers are obviously trying to get rid of dockers as defined by ILO Convention 137, and rather use seafarers and other, more “flexible” and “cheaper” workers to do the job. Strikes (initial strikes and secondary actions) have been going on in a number of ports – so far without a result. The lack of ability to solve and win a small dispute like this is also a sign of weakness on the side of the central trade union apparatus in Norway. Recently, the President of the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union resigned in protest when a majority of the union’s Executive Board demanded more offensive and militant actions to solve the problem. International support to the Norwegian dockers is highly appreciated.

Asbjørn Wahl is Director of the broad Campaign for the Welfare State in Norway and Adviser to the Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees. He is also Chair of the ITF Working Group on Climate Change.

The economic and social situation in Greece day by day is getting worse, after SYRIZA’s capitulation on the 13th of July 2015. Greeks have seen their hopes for resistance to fade away, as Alexis Tsipras, the leader of the radical left changed camp and now acts as a loyal partner of the international mafia of Finance. Either from impotence or from deception Alexis Tsipras has managed to spread frustration and defeatism among the majority of Greek people. Greeks are under a huge shock feeling betrayed, by the man who trusted most. This psychological state allows the lenders to impose economic measures, which under other circumstances, would have caused the uprising of Greeks.

In order to seize this opportunity the Greek government legislated 5.4 billion euros worth of budget savings on Sunday the 8th of May. 153 lawmakers out of the 300 of the Greek parliament backed the legislation. Gradually from June 2016 there will be a rise on taxes in all products and services. The government is going to a) raise VAT from 23% to 24%, b) raise special tax on fuel, beer, cigarettes, coffee etc. c) raise the vehicle taxes d) introduce a 10% tax on subscription television and a 5% tax on Internet. Moreover the government is going to lower the income tax – free threshold1 to 8,863 euros from 9,100 euros, while freelancers are going to pay more than 50% of their income to taxes and social security.

All these taxes are imposed to a devastating economy, which has lost around 30% of its GDP, measures which are going create more poverty and unemployment. The so – called bailout programme, which doomed Greece economy in deep recession, now is going to bring the economic development! What an Orwell Greek tragedy this is! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

As far as the social security reform the Greek government tries to persuade Greek people that only a 10% of them are going to be affected. So the fear and the depression that these new austerity measures have spread across the Greek people, are inexcusable… But truth is not for the Greek government. The reality lies somewhere far from the government. Over 1.2 million Greeks are going to be affected by the reforms in social security. More than 400,000 new pensioners are going to face cuts in their income. Also 380,000 poor pensioners will lose the Social Solidarity Benefit (EKAS), while more than 180,000 will see cuts in their ancillary pensions. In addition farmers and freelance professionals will face increased insurance contributions.

Except the never ending austerity story, the government tries to hide from Greeks that IMF and European Union demand right here and right now the clearance sale of Greek public and private property. One of their basic conditions in order to complete the third evaluation is the creation of a new fund, which is going to be in charge of the privatizations of the public property.

This Super – Fund is going to sell out public property worth 50 billion Euros within thirty years. The Quartet demands the denationalization of the Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company, of the Hellenic Petroleum, of the Public Gas Corporation (DEPA), of the Public Power Cooperation, of the Thessaloniki Port Authority and many others.

In charge of this fund is going to be the lenders, bypassing the Greek government and the biggest part of the incomes is going for the debt service.

Moreover ECB is pressuring the Greek banks to sell the “red” loans of the big enterprises in specific industries such as the hotel industry and the fish cultivation industry. More over the lenders want the banks to start auctioning.

Another bad omen for the future of Greece and for the Greek Government was the unnecessarily and brutal attack by the police forces during the protest, which took place in front of the Greek parliament on Syntagma square. While some low intension clashes had started in the sideways of the protest, the police forces attacked the main body of the protest launching tear gases and hitting “blindly” the crowd. One of the tear gases hit Sophie Papadogianni in the back of her head and she was transferred blood-covered to the hospital for first aid. Sophie Papadogianni is a well-known ex-member of SYRIZA, who left after SYRIZA’s capitulation and now is a member of Popular Unity. Several other protesters were injured.

But the worst is yet to come. IMF and EU are antagonizing who is going to be more brutal and cynical towards Greek people. While they are playing the game of the good and bad cop they have decided to destroy Greeks. (See our previous articles: Merkel, Obama and the death of Greece http://www.defenddemocracy.press/merkel-obama-death-greece/ , Destroy Greece: ΙMF and Europe agree now on the methodhttp://www.defenddemocracy.press/destroy-greece-%CE%B9mf-europe-agree-now-method/ ). Albeit the European School of Management and Technology has proven that 95% of the bailout money went to banks and no to Greeks (See: Money to Banks, not to Greeks! http://www.defenddemocracy.press/money-banks-not-greeks/ ) Greece’s “partners” demand the elimination of Greece. The disagreement between IMF and EU has one common goal, to force the Greek government to except their humiliating conditions. Thus IMF and EU “do not agree” if Greece is going to achieve a 3.5% of the GDP primary surplus in 2018. In reality they demand more austerity and more reforms such as collective redundancies and legislation that would automatically lead to reduce certain expenditures such as cuts for salaries, which could reach” contingency measures” of 3.5 billion euros. As far as debt relief this conversation is heading to an undefined future, without any guarantees.

IMF and EU as mechanisms of the New World Order are simply “doing their job”. The question is… What does the Greek government do? How could they make such a turn?

But the Greek people have not said their last word. Nobody can destroy a nation so easily. The Greeks are on the front line of a war held by the international mafia of finance, against nation-states around the world. It is not an easy fight to give, but it is a fight that Greeks and all the nations should give if we, as human beings want to avoid being enslaved by a group of neoliberals, who want to abolish all the human rights that previous generations have earned with their blood.

As controversy surrounding the “new anti-Semitism” rages in Europe, important public intellectuals argue that critiquing Israel is not anti-Semitism.

Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked commented recently on the controversy of “anti-Semitism” from the United Kingdom’s Labour Party, which has led to the suspension of Labour politicians.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn “must clarify that anti-Semitic comments are not within legitimate political debate, and that anti-Semitic views should end a politician’s career and disqualify them from any future public office,” she said in remarks broadcast from a ceremony in Krakow, Poland.

The controversy started when Labour MP Naz Shah posted a map showing Israel superimposed over the United States, saying that the answer to Middle East peace was relocating Israel to the nation where Israelis are “most loved.”

In response, Shah stepped down, but not before another Labour MP, Ken Livingstone, took to the airwaves to defend her. In a radio interview, Livingstone chose to bring up the cooperation between German Zionists and Nazis in the 1930s. While this is historically documented, Livingstone was not clear on the facts, and he has been suspended from the party.

Anti-Semitism has a new definition in the UK and Europe, and some fear that this new definition conflates it with “anti-Zionism,” or the criticism of the State of Israel’s policies. Many call this the “new anti-Semitism.”

For example, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks justice for Palestinians through academic, cultural and business boycotting of Israeli institutions that aid the occupation, has been outlawed in both France and the UK .

Members of academia and civil society have weighed in on the debate.

1. Norman Finklestein, U.S. political scientist, author and activist specializing in Israel-Palestine. 

Finkelstein’s website was the source of the map that kicked off the controversy. “Were it not for the current political context, nobody would have noticed Shah’s reposting” of the map, he told OpenDemocracy.

Regarding the “new anti-Semitism,” Finkelstein said

“these campaigns occur at regular intervals, correlating with Israel’s periodic massacres and consequent political isolation … Pew found [British] anti-Semitism levels at seven percent. Is that grounds for a national hysteria?”

He then cited a 2015 poll which found that “40 percent of UK adults don’t like Muslims and nearly 60 percent don’t like Roma … So where is your order of moral priorities?”

2. Ilan Pappe, prominent Israeli historian

Pappe is a celebrated historian whose work focuses on the creation of the modern State of Israel, including the expulsion of the native Palestinian populace.

“Whatever the Zionists in Britain point to, as an expression of anti-Semitism, which in the main are legitimate criticisms of Israel, have been said before in the last 50 years. The pro-Zionist lobby in Britain, under direct guidance from Israel, picks them up because the clear anti-Zionist stance of BDS has reached the upper echelons. They are genuinely terrified by this development. Well done the BDS movement!”

3. Frances Webber, Vice-chair of the Institute for Race Relations (IRR) Council of Management

Frances Webber has a long history as a barrister who specialized in immigration, refugee and human rights law until she retired in 2008. She recently wrote a piece for the IRR’s website that challenged the definition of “new anti-Semitism” in Europe.

“Although it might cause offence to some, it is no more inherently racist to attack Israel’s policies than it is to demand that ‘Rhodes must fall’ or to denounce US or British imperialism or these states’ complicity in torture.”

4. Peter Beinart, U.S. journalist and noted liberal Zionist

Beinart has written extensively in support of Zionism, specifically for The Daily Beast and Israeli daily Haaretz.

In a recent column for Haaretz, he wrote that “when in the name of representing one ethnic group a state denies people who aren’t in that ethnic group the right to vote, or the right to live under the same law, that state throws its moral legitimacy into question.

“That’s what Israel is doing in the West Bank. And in so doing, it’s strengthening the very anti-Zionism it fears. It’s making it easier for anti-Zionists to say that a Jewish state can’t really be a democracy at all.”

5. David Palumbo-Liu, Professor of Comparative Literature, at Stanford University

Palumbo-Liu is not only a celebrated academic and author, but also a frequent opinion writer for outlets such as Al Jazeera, Salon, and the Huffington Post.

In an article for Salon, Palumbo-Liu wrote that the California Scholars for Academic Freedom, a group of which he is a member, maintains that

“criticisms of Zionism are co-extensive with the history of Zionism and have from the start included Jewish voices from a variety of political and religious orientations … Many political positions, including those that favor Palestinian rights, statehood, and political self-determination, can be considered anti-Zionist although they comply with internationally accepted norms of human rights and principles of democratic self-governance.”

The cake is quite big, but everyone wants a slice. Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, visited Iran last month accompanied by business leaders from the energy, transportation and defence sectors. It was a return visit after the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, had made Italy his first destination in Europe on a trip intended to drum up European investments in Iran.

Such investments are now possible thanks to the implementation of the JPCOA nuclear agreement which lifts all UN-mandated nuclear sanctions as well as EU and US economic, financial and banking sanctions over the Iranian nuclear programme. The path is clear for Iran to pursue a new engagement with the world. European businesses are eager to jump in, but it will be no easy trick to challenge the position of Russia and China.

The enthusiasm is obvious. EU high representative, Federica Mogherini, travelled to Tehran last month accompanied by business representatives and seven EU commissioners – including those for transport, energy and industry – signalling the high-level interest. German industrial giant Siemens, the oil and gas company Shell, and French auto makers Peugeot and Renault have indicated their interest. Airbus secured a contract with Iran for the delivery of 118 aircraft just two weeks after “Implementation Day”.

Not so fast…

Image: Rouhani and Renzi meet in Rome. EPA/ANGELO CARCONI

The Iran rush is tugged back, however, by the persistence of sanctions not related to the nuclear deal and which can very easily apply to European companies. The US, in particular, will retain secondary sanctions which target dealings with Iranians on their Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN), a collection of individuals the US deems to be a risk on grounds of terrorism, nuclear proliferation or human rights. According to White House guidance, anyone found to have had dealings with those on the SDN list would: “put themselves at risk of being cut off from the US financial system. This includes foreign financial institutions, who would risk losing their correspondent account with US banks”.

European subsidiaries of US companies can get operating licenses for businesses in Iran, but will need to “firewall” their US activities from their foreign operations. This may prove to be a challenging requirement given the intertwined nature of companies and of the banking sector. It remains unclear whether even emails going through US servers could be considered as using the US to facilitate transactions.

Complicating matters still further for European companies is the extent to which parts of the Iranian economy will continue to be controlled by entities still subject to sanctions. Examples here are banks on the US’ SDN list for carrying out terrorism-related transactions; construction, trading and transport companies tied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps; or telecoms companies.

Rivals

These obstacles will leave European firms struggling to catch up with China, which has largely benefitedfrom western embargoes. Russia is also well placed in Iran’s nuclear energy market. Both China and Russia are simply less likely to be as affected by the “foreign subsidiary” regulation because Chinese or Russian subsidiaries of larger US corporations are far less common.

Chinese companies had been willing to provide goods that Iran could no longer receive from the West. In 2014, the Sino-Iranian trade volume totalled US$52 billion (compared to a Russian-Iranian trade volume of only US$1.6 billion and US$10 billion between Iran and the entire EU-28). During nuclear sanctions, China was Iran’s most significant foreign trade partner, exporting capital goods and engineering services and investing in infrastructure projects. With nuclear sanctions now lifted, China seems to be aware that – whatever the obstacles for European firms – it might face increased competition.

Losing no time, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, paid a visit to Iran in January, signing a Sino-Iranian “comprehensive strategic partnership” and announcing 17 agreements in the energy, trade, and industrial sectors. Iran is important for China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative that would join markets from China to Central Asia and the Middle East.

Moscow’s interests

Russian commercial interests in Iran concentrate on the restart of arms sales and the nuclear industry. Russia has made it clear that it was planning to capitalise on the eventual lifting of arms embargoes from Iran. While the UN weapons embargo will only be lifted in five years, states can apply for UN authorisation beforehand.

The nuclear industry is more lucrative in the mid-term. Russia’s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom has held a relative monopoly position on the Iranian nuclear energy market, having built Iran’s only nuclear power reactor in Bushehr, and is currently closely involved in the implementation of the JCPOA agreement. It is unlikely Russia will face serious competition in this sector of the Iranian economy.

But it’s not a one-way street – with economic sanctions gone the prospect of increased Iranian oil supply to Europe could signal tough competition on the European energy market. This comes after the oil price slump which has strained the Russian state budget. It means that any hindrance to growth in Iran’s oil infrastructure thanks to continued sanctions might be met with a sigh of relief in Moscow. This does not mean that Russia is desperate to prevent Iran from emerging as an energy competitor. But it does buy time for Russia, and indeed Europe, to prepare for a shift in global oil supply dynamics.

It’s a tough call for European businesses. They can only challenge China’s position in Iran’s capital goods and construction market in as much as the complex sanctions architecture allows them. Russia also stands in a stronger position as far as its “traditional” sectors of interest are concerned. The truth is that banks and businesses are risk-averse, and the ambiguities in US financial legislation will feed this concern. It ensures that the lifting of sanctions is no “free for all”, but a slow, tentative walk through a legal minefield.

Moritz Pieper, The Conversation    –    Moritz Pieper is Lecturer in International Relations, University of Salford.

Initially published by WhoWhatWhy

Google has entered the fray to do battle with Facebook and others as the place whereonline content lives.

If these efforts are successful, people will increasingly stop visiting websites as we know them. They will get all their news from Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, and a few other large providers. We will see the gradual diminution of brands until online journalism is purely about which story grabs us.

If you think that’s  a good thing, think again: WhoWhatWhy has already exposed how Google can actually sway an election. As we warned you before,

A peer-reviewed study conducted by the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology found that the order of Google search results about candidates — ranked according to positive and negative stories — had a significant effect on which candidates voters chose to cast their ballots for.

Keep that in mind as you read this article.

People have historically favored one newspaper or magazine or tv news program over others because they trusted the judgment and apparent standards of the editors and producers. This meant they would often be exposed to subjects and stories they might not otherwise have known about, and perhaps would not ordinarily have chosen to look at.

And that is the key: The choice was yours. Some people enjoy reading the entire newspaper while others go first to a particular section — but might still get enticed to read a different article as they are leafing through the pages.

Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from meneame comunicacions, sl / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)  and Garry Knight / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Google and Facebook ultimately want to change that relationship between you and your favorite news outlets. They want to decide what you should read. And while their algorithms can steer you toward things you find interesting, it still gives them too much influence. What if, for example, these tech giants support a particular trade deal and can decide what type of news coverage on it is fed to you?

Another danger is that using an algorithm to show people only what they are expected to like will further increase a division along ideological lines. Or the tech giants can simply decide to eliminate anything of substance and provide users with a steady diet of the Kardashians and cat videos.

After all, with these big companies and their bottom-line-oriented algorithms deciding what to include — and what to highlight — how likely are we to have our attention drawn to intellectually challenging or bold and even risky content?

And it’s not just these companies. Apps for your phone already exercise a similar gatekeeper function.

It is all part of a gradual move away from the original promise of the Internet — open access, a low barrier to entry, and transparency. Remember that early Internet mantra: “Information Wants To Be Free?”

As we move away from free-speech-friendly windows toward proprietary, closed platforms, our online experience will be managed by gatekeepers motivated to raise revenue, and disinclined to worry about information’s central role in nourishing liberty and democracy.

The Constitution didn’t give special protection to “the press” to enable a few media lords to get rich by controlling the information pipeline.

With such control, we could end up seeing what we saw with the “evolution” of radio, TV and cable — consolidation of ownership leading to severely limited choices, or abundant “choices,” which in the end come down to superficially different brands of the same thing.

And what if Big Oil controlled our choices? Or the CIA?

Could the Internet ever be taken over completely by the wrong people?

One way to prevent this degradation is to vote with your feet. Show, with your clicks and your spending, that you support quality. Continue to patronize the sites that matter. If and when the big tech corporations do truly determine what we see, perhaps they will recognize that it is in their own interests to give freedom, guts and creativity a home.

If not, could we end up having to reverse “progress”? Will independent news sources be forced to return to printing as a way of getting their content out? These are the kinds of things we need to start discussing — now.

On April 20, the Russia-NATO Council meeting failed to produce results. The failure was followed by a host of decisions taken by NATO to intensify military activities in Europe and boost the Alliance’s military presence in the proximity of Russia’s borders.

NATO exercise Spring Storm was launched on May 2 to last till May 20. The large-scale drill involves around 6 thousand troops. 1500 servicemen have come to Estonia from 10 member states, including the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Latvia and Lithuania. Each of these states has sent a company-sized unit. The training events are conducted in Tartu, Võru and Põlva counties in Southeast Estonia. Canadian teams of specialists as well as Finnish staff officers are participating in the exercise as well.

The US is using V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and CH-47 Chinook twin-engine, tandem rotor heavy-lift helicopters to transport the troops. Polish Su-22 fighters and US F-15 fighter jets are providing air cover for ground forces. To make sure the force is multinational, NATO officials asked smaller allies to make contributions, such as logisticians, for supporting operational units.

The participation of a sizable German force demonstrates Berlin’s emerging role as a bigger player in the Alliance.

The Spring Storm is taking place just two weeks after the two-day exercise called Ramstein Alloy 1 was held in all three Baltic States to bring together the air forces of Belgium, Spain, and Poland, as well as non-NATO members Finland and Sweden.

The Spring Storm exercise is an element of broader process aimed at increasing NATO’s military presence in the region.

The Estonian Prime Minister, Taavi Rõivas, calls for permanent presence of Alliance troops in «Estonia and neighboring countries».

He wants the decision to be made during the NATO Summit in Warsaw on July 6-9, 2016.

US DoD requested $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2017 (up from $789 million for the current budget year) to reinforce its military presence close to Russia’s Western borders.

The funding will help the US to rotate more troops in the region, conduct more war games and preposition additional military hardware. The President Obama’s European Reassurance Initiative includes greater US participation in training and exercises, deploying US military planners, and more persistent naval deployments on Russia’s doorstep. It should be noted that the Pentagon’s proposed boost to European defense for 2017 means that the US Air Force will be conducting exercises with Finnish forces. While modest, the exercises to occur about 100 miles from the Russian border, will be the largest training events to ever take place in Finland involving US aircraft – another step to get Finland nearer to NATO. If Finland joined the Alliance, it would lead to a serious crisis with neighboring Russia, a report commissioned by the Finnish government said on April 28.

Only 22 percent of Finns support joining NATO, while 55 percent oppose it, a recent poll by public broadcaster YLE showed.

NATO allies are preparing to put four battalions – a force of about 4,000 troops – in Poland and the Baltic countries as part of an effort by the Alliance to reinforce its military presence near Russia. The US is likely to provide two battalions, while Germany and Britain would likely provide a battalion each. US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, visiting Brussels, confirmed the overall size of the force.

This announcement might come as news to many people in Germany. The move is considered highly controversial in the country. Anti-Russian rhetoric does not sit well with common people of NATO member-states. As a recent Pew Research Center poll revealed, majorities in such NATO states as Germany (56 percent), Italy (51 percent) and France (53 percent) oppose the idea of protecting the Baltic States from a «military threat» allegedly posed by Russia.

According to the poll, some 58 percent of Germans surveyed do not deem Russia a threat to their country, with 49 percent firmly against the idea of permanent deployment of NATO forces in Poland or any of the Baltic States.

NATO defense ministers in February approved in principle the deployment of an Eastern European troop presence; though diplomats said the new contribution numbers aren’t finalized.

In late April, delegations from Scandinavian, Baltic and Visegrád countries met in Jurmala, Latvia. It was decided that Visegrád’s countries will send troops to the Baltics in 2017.

Each member-country will send a contingent of 150 soldiers to the region in three-month shifts beginning in 2017.

The US deployed a number of F-22 Raptors to Europe in the end of April. On April 25, two F-22s were deployed to a Romanian airbase on the Black Sea coast. On April 26, two F-22s flew at low altitude through the famous Mach Loop training area in Wales. On April 27, two F-22s were deployed at Siauliai airbase, Lithuania, where NATO BAP (Baltic Air Patrol) jets are based. This was the first deployment to Europe of the advanced US fighters since Washington beefed up military support for NATO’s Eastern European allies. The F-22s are almost impossible to detect on radar and so advanced that the US Congress has banned Lockheed Martin from selling them abroad. «The increased size of the 2016 deployment … allows US Forces to assert their presence more widely across the eastern frontier», said US Air Force spokeswoman Major Sheryll Klinkel. «We want to be able to operate out of multiple locations. We want to be able to keep our adversary guessing on where we’re going to go next».

The NATO plans also encompass the Black Sea region. Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania may expand the NATO maritime presence in the Black Sea as part of a broader strategy to contain Russia, said NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow on April 22.

Ukraine and Georgia may join the force, according to the concept of «allied fleet».

Boosting intelligence capability is also a part of the plans. The US has too few intelligence assets focused on the threat from Russia and should concentrate its technical capabilities on Moscow’s growing military might, said Gen. Philip Breedlove, the top military commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

According to him, the US is now wrestling with whether to focus more reconnaissance satellites and other assets on Russian military moves. He said he advocates increased investment in such assets as well as devoting more to keeping watch on Russia. «What we need to look at now is do we need a refocusing or reallocation… of the technical capabilities», he said.

Russia has long considered the expansion of NATO toward its borders a threat. Earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a defense strategy document that declared the rising military presence by NATO countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltics a threat to Russia’s national security.

Russia has announced its plans to create four new military divisions this year in an effort to reinforce its military forces amid increased exercises by NATO member states.

«NATO military infrastructure is inching closer and closer to Russia’s borders. But when Russia takes action to ensure its security, we are told that Russia is engaging in dangerous maneuvers near NATO borders. In fact, NATO borders are getting closer to Russia, not the opposite», Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter daily.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said these moves «create grounds to implement military plans against Russia and take practical steps to push military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders».

According to the spokeswoman, the manner in which these initiatives are carried out is «aggressive». NATO uses a non-existent threat from Russia as a pretext. Russia will respond with «fitting political, diplomatic and military» measures to Washington and NATO’s «unfriendly» attempts «to exert pressure» on Moscow, she noted.

Russia has long called on NATO to refrain from expanding into Eastern Europe, saying that such moves have the potential to destabilize the security situation in the region. Nonetheless, NATO has accepted 12 eastern European countries since 1999 and now wants to take in one more – Montenegro. Now it has greatly intensified its military activities in Europe. It took great effort to create the system of European security – a unique phenomenon in the world history to serve as an example for other continents. Now it is on the verge of becoming a thing of the past. Step by step the US-led NATO restores its aggressive posture to make all the achievements related to European security go down the drain. The goal of creating «Greater Europe» stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok seemed to be achievable just a few years ago. Now it has become a far-fetched dream. As a result of NATO’s growing military presence and intensified military activities a spark may start a big fire in Europe. We’ve seen that before. The dangerous situation creep can be stopped. If there is a will, there is a way. The time is ripe to stop the vicious circle. Russia is ready to make its contribution. But the Alliance responds with sabre rattling.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Hezbollah are advancing on the town of Khan Touman in the Aleppo province. It was captured by militants on May 6. The loyalists are in control of the strategic high ground at the Quarries, overlooking the eastern flank of the town. Earlier, the pro-government forces had prevented Jeish al-Fatah, al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham from moving towards al-Zarbeh and the neighborhoods of Rashedeen 4 and 5 from the Western and Northeastern sides of Khan Touman.

A truce in place since last Thursday in the Syrian city of Aleppo has been extended for two days until midnight on Wednesday, according to the Syrian state TV. On May 4, the partial ceasefire was announced for Damascus’ East Ghouta and the Latakia province. However, it was ignored by the warring sides more or less. Unconfirmed reports say that the SAA and its allies have been preparing a military operation in the East Ghouta in order to re-capture the villages of Hawsh Al-Farah and Mayda’a.

Pro-government sources argue that at least 60 militants have been killed and many more injured in clashes while the SAA and Hezbollah lost about 30 fighters.

Clashes are ongoing in the city of Deir Ezzor where ISIS launched a full-scale offensive to capture Tahtuh District, located near the military airport. ISIS’ media outlet “Al-‘Amaq” has already reported that the militants captured the district. Pro-government sources deny this.

The US-led coalition is concerned about tensions between the so-called “opposition groups” rebel factions and the Kurdish-led SDF forces in Syria, especially in the Aleppo province, where the Jihadists launched a full-scale offensive last week. However, according to US-led coalition’s Operation Inherent Resolve spokesperson, Col. Steve Warren, this doesn’t affect the support that the coalition provides to both Kurds and rebels. The US continues to provide support to the sides that clash with each other.

On May 9, Iraqi forces liberated the village of Kabrouk as part of their push to retake Mosul, one of the least important urban areas under ISIS’ control.

Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said that a top ISIS commander, Abu Wahib, also known as Shakir Wahib, and 3 other ISIS members were killed when by a US airstrike near the town of Rutbah in Iraq’s Anbar province on May 6.

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/

Follow us on Social Media:
http://google.com/+SouthfrontOrgNews
https://www.facebook.com/SouthFrontENTwo
https://twitter.com/southfronteng

Our Infopartners:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://thesaker.is
http://www.sott.net/
http://in4s.net

On the eve of her religious denomination’s quadrennial meeting, Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to Jewish agency heads saying she opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel that the meeting will consider.

“I believe that BDS seeks to punish Israel and dictate how the Israelis and Palestinians should resolve the core issues of their conflict. This is not the path to peace,” Clinton wrote in a letter Monday (May 9) to David Sherman, chair of the Israel Action Network, and Susan K. Stern, vice chair of the Jewish Federations of North America.

The Democratic presidential candidate is a lifelong Methodist and may be watching the workings of the General Conference, the denomination’s top policy-making body, from afar. The conference begins Tuesday (May 10) in Portland, Ore.

Clinton has spoken against the BDS movement before, calling it “alarming” in her speech earlier this year to American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Divestment is one of the top issues to be considered at the conference. Four resolutions would require the denomination to divest from Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett-Packard — companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands — and other investments that relate to illegal settlements. The church already opposes the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Friends Fiduciary Corporation already have divested from companies supporting Israeli occupation.

“Your voice is very much needed this week,” wrote Stern and Sherman to Clinton in a joint letter. “We hope you will again speak out forcefully against the divisive and destructive BDS movement.”

Here is the full text of Clinton’s response:

Dear David and Susie:

Thank you for your letter, and for your organizations’ continued leadership in confronting so many of the important issues and challenges our world faces.

More than three decades ago, my husband, Bill, and I took our first trip to Israel, walked the ancient streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, and fell in love with the country and its people. Israel became a special place for us, and I am lucky to have had many opportunities to return and to make many dear friends there over the years.

As Senator and Secretary of State, I saw how crucial it is for America to defend Israel at every turn. I have opposed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, the Human Rights Council, and other international organizations. I condemned the biased Goldstone Report, making it clear that Israel must be allowed to defend itself like any other country. And I made sure the United States blocked Palestinian attempts at the UN to unilaterally declare statehood. Time after time, no matter the venue, I have made it clear that America will always stand up for Israel. If I am fortunate enough to be elected president, the United States will reaffirm we have a strong and enduring national interest in Israel’s security.

It is because of my longstanding commitment to the Israeli people and to the security of Israel that I am writing to express my opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction movement, or “BDS,” the global effort to isolate the State of Israel by ending commercial and academic exchanges. I know you agree that we need to make countering BDS a priority, and that we need to work together—across party lines and with a diverse array of voices—to reverse this trend with information and advocacy, and fight back against further attempts to isolate and delegitimize Israel. It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abandon our responsibilities, or cede the mantle of leadership for global peace and security to anyone else. The Jewish state is a modern day miracle—a vibrant bloom in the middle of a desert—and we must nurture and protect it.

I believe that BDS seeks to punish Israel and dictate how the Israelis and Palestinians should resolve the core issues of their conflict. This is not the path to peace. I remain convinced that Israel’s long-term security and future as a Jewish state depends on having two states for two peoples. But that can only be achieved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians; it cannot be imposed from the outside or by unilateral actions. As Secretary of State, I convened the last round of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders; I know how hard this will be, but it is an effort to which I would be committed as president.

Israel is a vibrant democracy in a region dominated by autocracy, and it faces existential threats to its survival. Fighting for Israel isn’t just about policy; it is a personal commitment to the friendship between our peoples and our vision for peace and security. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, we need to repudiate forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism has no place in any civilized society—not in America, not in Europe, not anywhere. We must never tire in defending Israel’s legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, and taking our alliance to the next level.

Please know that I am grateful for your work, and that I stand ready to be your partner as we engage all people of good faith—regardless of their political persuasion or their views on policy specifics—in explaining why the BDS campaign is counterproductive to the pursuit of peace and harmful to Israelis and Palestinians alike.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

The economic and financial sanctions against Russia have highlighted the role of SWIFT in the US control of international monetary exchange. If Russia has already put in place, at national level, its own system, no alternatives exist yet internationally.

The acronym SWIFT (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications) has once again popped up in the global media headlines. Experts usually describe SWIFT as an international, interbank network for transmitting information about payment transactions.

Globalization would be impossible without SWIFT

The society was founded in 1973. By that time the post-war monetary system established in 1944 in Bretton Woods had virtually collapsed. The dollar as well as other currencies had been divorced from gold, and the printing presses at the US Federal Reserve and other Western central banks were furiously at work. The volume of international payments had increased sharply. The traditional systems for sharing data about payment transactions (the teletype, telegraph, and telephone) could not cope with the increased traffic.

It was necessary to draw upon the latest technology in order to centralize the isolated channels used to exchange information. Two hundred thirty-nine banks from 15 countries worked together to set up an organization devoted to solving this problem. SWIFT is a cooperative society, established under European law, with a head office in Brussels. Currently almost 11,000 institutions from over 200 countries, including 9,600 banks, are members of SWIFT. Every year 2.5 billion payment orders are transmitted through the SWIFT network, which processes billions of dollars each day.

SWIFT’s advantages are its speed, low cost, and reliable data protection. As a result, the majority of the world’s international settlements and payments now go through the SWIFT system. Payments are also cleared through this network even when each of the parties is under the same jurisdiction. This includes dollar and euro payments that must be handled by the banking systems of the US and European Union. During the 21st century the SWIFT system began helping money circulate throughout the entire global economy. The economic and financial globalization that began in the 1970s would have been impossible without SWIFT.

The scandal over the attack against the central bank of Bangladesh

The SWIFT system has often been targeted by hackers trying to break into databases and divert money from the accounts of the society’s member banks. Several attempts at security breaches have been documented in just the last few days.

In early March, the central bank of Bangladesh reported the disappearance of $81 million of its foreign-exchange reserves [1]. This had gone unnoticed by the IT services at SWIFT and the central bank.

An investigation revealed that the hardware and software used to process the central bank’s payment operations left much to be desired. The cyber intruders also turned out to have advanced technical skills. They did not expect the facts of the theft to come to light immediately and assumed that they would have time to either move their spoils somewhere safe or to launder the money.

The attack on the central bank of Bangladesh had been expertly planned and demonstrated a close familiarity with the inner workings of that bank. As a rule, having someone on the inside can either make or break a hacking operation conducted from outside of that organization. Thus the question arises: are there such informants inside the SWIFT headquarters in Brussels?

SWIFT: high-profile scandals from recent years

The society has suffered scandals in the past. After Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA as well as the financial-intelligence arm of the US Treasury Department gained access to SWIFT network information [2]. But the managers of the SWIFT data centers did not bring this cooperation between the society and the security agencies to their members’ attention. Only a select few knew about the American «terrorist tracking» program. The information was not leaked until 2006.

In 2012 SWIFT again found itself in the headlines. At that time Washington was heavily pressuring the society to disconnect Iranian banks from the SWIFT network [3]. Of course, a society that constantly claims to «stay out of politics» was uncomfortable with this measure. Disconnecting even one bank would generate distrust of the system, lower its rating, and encourage other SWIFT members to formulate backup plans. But Washington won that battle – 14 Iranian banks were expelled from SWIFT.

But every cloud has a silver lining. Iran learned to manage without SWIFT and won valuable experience in the use of alternative systems for international payments and settlements. Washington has now graciously revoked some of the sanctions against Iran, and so once again that country is permitted to use the SWIFT network. But Tehran is in no hurry to accept the invitation. First of all, Washington’s policy toward Iran is highly contradictory and inconsistent. Second, in light of the recent scandal, Iran and other countries have increasing misgivings about SWIFT. It is unlikely that Tehran will put all its eggs into one basket. A few Iranian banks will be reconnected, but most payment transactions will continue to be made through alternative channels.

Russia needs an alternative to SWIFT

There are about 800 banks in Russia today, approximately 600 of which are connected to the SWIFT system. Russia is home to the second-highest number of SWIFT member institutions (after the US), but it doesn’t even crack the top ten in terms of volume of transactions (last year Moscow was in 15th place). By the early 2000s at least 90% of Russia’s foreign payments were processed through SWIFT. The system was also utilized for many domestic transactions.

When the West first introduced economic sanctions against Russia in 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron demanded that Russia be disconnected from the SWIFT system. The only reason they have not made good on this threat is because the West is afraid of the potential consequences. After all, disconnecting Russia from SWIFT isn’t like disconnecting Iran – only 14 banks were cut off there, while 600 would need to be unplugged in the Russian Federation.

But if the hybrid war against Russia becomes a full-blown conflict, it will not be possible to rule out the chance that Russian bank operations will be completely barred from SWIFT. Preparations for that war can’t wait until the last minute, and some measures are already in place. For example, by late 2014 Russian companies and organizations were already making payments and settling accounts with one another without resorting to SWIFT as an intermediary. A national system had been set up to handle domestic payments between Russian banks [4].

International payments are more complicated. Back in 2014, talk began of creating a direct-payment system (that would also communicate information about payments) between China and the Russian Federation. The system needs to be autonomous – fully independent of any payment systems controlled by the United States and European Union (specifically the trans-European TARGET system). And this autonomy is only possible by transitioning to the use of national currencies – a premise that was built into the original design.

In addition to the agreement signed at the BRICS summit in Brazil in July 2014 to establish the BRICS Development Bank, it was also agreed that the central banks of the BRICS countries would open mutual lines of credit in one another’s national currencies. Perhaps that was when the idea of creating a bilateral payment system for Russia and China was transformed into the idea of a multilateral BRICS payment system. Naturally, that would also involve transactions in the national currencies of those five countries.

Russia has shown the most interest in this BRICS payment network. Last October Beijing reported that a system for processing international payments in yuan was already operational, which it called the Chinese alternative to SWIFT. Only a modest number of transactions are as yet using this Chinese platform, but it is possible that this acorn could grow into a mighty oak of a system, in time becoming an alternative to SWIFT.

Some non-BRICS countries, such as Iran and Kazakhstan, have shown an interest in taking part in the project to create an alternative network for multilateral payments. The latest SWIFT scandal (the theft of the money from the central bank of Bangladesh) is yet another reason why Russia and its international partners should pick up the pace and get this project to create an alternative international payment system up and running.

Notes:

[1] “The Incredible Story Of How Hackers Stole $100 Million From The New York Fed”, Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, March 10, 2016.

[2] “Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror”, Eric Lichtblau & James Risen, The New York Times, June 23rd, 2006. «La CIA a contrôlé les transactions financières du monde entier via la société SWIFT », par Grégoire Seither, Réseau Voltaire, 26 juin 2006.

[3] “Iran Praises Nuclear Talks With Team From U.N.”, Rick Gladstone, The New York Times, January 31st, 2012.

[4] “Russia precipitates the abandonment of SWIFT among the BRICS”, by Ariel Noyola Rodríguez, Translation Jordan Bishop,Russia Today (Russia) , Voltaire Network, 6 October 2015.

Libya’s rival governments host separate branches of the country’s National Oil Corp. (NOC) with an internationally recognized headquarters in Tripoli and a competing branch based in Bayda.

On May 4, NOC-Bayda, which is loyal to Tobruk, blocked an oil tanker registered in Malta, the Seachance, from loading oil at the Marsa al Hariga terminal near Tobruk. According to port officials, the ship was attempting to load crude oil sold by NOC-Tripoli, which supports the Tripoli government. NOC-Bayda said the terminal’sworkers not to load oil onto the ship. The order follows NOC-Bayda’s failed attempt to export its oil. Maltarecently barred the entry of the tanker loaded with NOC-Bayda’s oil.

Over half of Libya’s daily crude oil production between 220,000 and 250,000 barrels per day pass through the Marsa al Hariga terminal. About half of this is is delivered to Swiss trading company Glencore. Another part goes to western Libya for refining. In 2015, Glencore signed a contract with NOC-Tripoli to export oil from the Sarir and Messla fields through Marsa al Hariga. In turn, NOC-Bayda rejected all contracts signed after March 2015, including Glencore’s deal.

Western experts believe that blocking the terminal, Tobruk is likely trying to undermine the legitimacy of Tripoli’s institutions: the so-called “unity government” and NOC-Tripoli. They suggest that Tobruk’s government will become more agressive in its opposition to Tripoli. However, this idea denies the clear act that Tobruk‘s goal is to be successful as an independent oil exporter. Thus, the recent developments can be described as a kind of bargain amid the Western efforts to unite the country under the rule of its proxies. In modern Libya, the political military power and the international recognition are only a tool to gain revenue from the country’s resources and geographical location.

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/

“The objective of the alternative Left, as detailed by a number of media analysts and researchers, and in books on the subject … is keeping potential opposition in a perpetual state of weakness, living in a carefully-managed and neutered “counter/activist” subculture/life style in which followers can spend their lifetimes in intellectual servitude — told by their icons and media handlers what to believe and what to do, what issues are important, what issues to avoid, how to become wealthy within “socially responsible” capitalism, and which icons and idols to follow.”

-Larry Chin (2003) from the article MoveOn, Kucinich and other alternative Left election deceptions)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:08)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Two weeks previous, the Global Research News Hour aired an interview with investigative journalist Cory Morningstar. In this interview, Morningstar outlined the way the mainstream environmental movement is being subverted through environmental non-governmental organizations which rely on funding from elite ‘philanthropic’ donors like the Rockefeller Foundation. The end result, she argues, is that the movements these foundations foster mis-direct the energies of well-meaning  people in a direction that protects and reinforces the wealth and privilege  of their sponsors at the expense of the natural world.

This week’s episode takes that concept even further by examining other forms of activism which draw funding from ‘benefactors’ with less than altruistic motives.

We start by looking at so-called ‘alternative’ or ‘independent’ media. Most people with any involvement in activist causes have some awareness of the role of mainstream, commercial media in distorting the news in order to build popular support for government initiatives, such as a war. It would never occur to some of these same people that non-commercial media likewise play a role in manipulating the people for the benefit of the 1%.

(This chart is over ten years old. Some of the amounts and associations may no longer be accurate.)

As our first guest, veteran journalist, broadcaster and media critic Barrie Zwicker details, the ‘fake’ left media excels in putting out just enough criticism of State and Corporate power to appear subversive, but not enough to actually threaten them. He sees the case of 9/11 Truth as a perfect measure by which one might distinguish between authentic dissident media, and the so-called ‘controlled opposition.’ Barrie Zwicker joins us in our first half hour.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky continues the discussion in the second half hour. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, a scholar and the award-winning author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order (2003) and The Globalization of War, America’s Long War Against Humanity (2015). He maintains in this interview, as he has online, that Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring, the coloured revolutions, the World Social Forum, and other supposedly revolutionary activities are drawing funding from elites through tax-free foundations. Chossudovsky explains the motivation behind such financing and the impacts it’s having.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:08)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET. 

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

Imagine – the European Union were to collapse tomorrow – or any day soon for that matter. Europeans would dance in the streets. The EU has become a sheer pothole of fear and terror: Economic sanctions – punishment, mounting militarization, the abolition of civil rights for most Europeans. A group of unelected technocrats, representing 28 countries, many of them unfit to serve in their own countries’ political system, but connected well enough to get a plum job in Brussels – are deciding the future of Europe. In small groups and often in secret chambers they decide the future of Europe.

Take the TTIP – under pressure from their masters in Washington, behind closed doors under utmost secrecy – and most likely against their own personal good – a small group of European Commission (EC) delegates without scruples, without any respect for their co-citizens, without consideration for their children, grand-children and their children, only interested in the instant laurels and pay-back – to be sure – from the colonialist, usurper and warrior number One, the United States of Chaos and Killing, they are ready to put 500 million Europeans and their descendants at peril.

It cannot be said enough what horrors the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) would do to the people of Europe; and that is based on the little we know from the 248 pages ‘leaked’ by Greenpeace Netherlands of the ultra-clandestine negotiations taking place. ‘Negotiations’ is the most unfair term imaginable, since all the rules are imposed by Washington, the same as with the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership, involving 11 Pacific countries and the US – but not China and Russia).

Though TPP negotiations are finished, none of the 11 Pacific partners, nor the US Congress have approved the treaty. There is hope that even if ‘negotiations’ by the secret EC traitors and Washington should come to conclusion, at least some of the 28 EU countries may not approve. To be valid, the treaty needs to be approved in unanimity. The new rightwing Austrian frontrunner for Austrian’s Presidency, Norbert Hofer, has already said he would not sign the TTIP agreement. Similar remarks have been made by the French Minister for Foreign Trade, Matthias Fekl, who said, “There cannot be an agreement without France and much less against France.”

Under the TTIP, the citizens of Europe would lose out on all fronts. Europeans would become literally subjects of a corporate empire, led by the United States of America. EU countries would stop being sovereign nations, even more so than is already the case under the current Brussels dictate. As the secret TTIP documents reveal, the agreement would be the death knell for Europe. Here is what Susan George, philosopher and political analyst and President of the Planning Committee of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam has to say:

• The food we import would be chemically treated, would be genetically modified, would have no labels. You wouldn’t know exactly what is in your food. You could buy chicken that has been rinsed in chlorine, you could have beef that was raised with hormones, you could have biosynthetic food made out of one gene of a plant another of an animal, and this would not be labeled.
• In the area of agriculture again, it is very likely that we would lose a great many farmers, because if we lower the tariffs of agriculture we will have a flood of American [highly subsidized, GMO]-corn and basic grains flooding into Spain and that will ruin a lot of farmers, exactly the way the ”campesinos” in Mexico were ruined by the North American Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA.
• ln the area of health, the pharmaceutical companies [want] to get rid of generic drugs. They have already succeeded in forcing the generic drug companies to repeat all of the clinical trials that they have already had to do with the same identical medicine but which has a brand name. To make it a generic drug you have to start all over again: clinical trials, blind tests, and so forth. So medicine would become much more expensive.

But most important:

• [The TTIP] is about giving corporations the freedom to sue governments if they don’t like a law that the government has passed.
  We have a lot of examples now, because in hundreds of bilateral treaties this private judiciary system exists, and for example, the government of Egypt raised the minimum wage and a company, an important company, Veolia, from France, sued them because they would have to pay their workers more. This case has not been decided yet, but one case that has been decided is for example, Ecuador, which refused that an American petroleum company could drill in a particular region. Well, they said this is a protected area and you cannot drill here. And the company said, ah, we will sue you; and they won. And they have a fine on Ecuador of 1.8 billion dollars which is a lot of money for a small and fairly weak country.

This simply means that private corporate courts would be above the laws and courts of sovereign nations. There would be no sovereignty left; not even the little idependence Brussels has not yet destroyed. EU nations would all be under the rules of an Anglo-American led corporate empire.

You may read Susan George’s full article here http://www.defenddemocracy.press/suzan-george-%CE%BFn-ttip-new-european-movements/, as well as my recently re-published one http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip-would-abolish-europes-sovereignty-the-eu-would-become-a-us-colony/5417382.

And then there is TiSA, the ‘Trade in Services Agreement’, of which even fewer people are aware. It is also being ‘negotiated’ in secrecy, involving 23 WTO members (Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EU (28 countries), Hong Kong China, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States). Altogether, we are talking about 50 countries; 49 of them bent to submit to one, the Unites States of Wars, Crimes and Domination. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to realize that, again, Washington is calling the shots. Actually, the TiSA talks, similar to those of the TTIP, are infiltrated by US corporate trolls and lobbyists, making Washington the representative for the US corporate empire and, of course, for Wall Street.

According to WTO, TiSA would be opening up the market for ‘trade in services’, meaning – expect privatization of all public and social services, like health care, education, social security systems, pensions, transportation, postal services, telecommunication, water supply and sanitation, solid waste disposal – and more would all be subject to buy-outs by transnational corporations. Just look at Greece, trying hard to pay back their ill-begotten debt, selling off her national social capital, or life capital, to the detriment of the poor – by now the majority of Greek – who depend on it. Once a country has signed the trade agreements, there is no way back. It has opened its social and public sectors to rent seeking private corporations.

Like with the TTIP, should a government at a later stage realize that privatization of, say water services, did not bring the promised benefits for the people, it cannot go back and re-nationalize, or municipalize this service. Remunicipalization of water services is currently happening in France, of all places, the country with the most privatized public water supply systems. In 2012 the government and municipalities of large cities decided to re-take these vital public services. This is currently ongoing. Under TiSA rules it would not be possible. Worse – once TiSA is signed, a country cannot decide to exempt a particular sector included in the list for potential ‘liberalization’, for example, health, education and other vital social services. Corporate arbitration courts, similar to those of the TTIP, would be set up for TiSA. – These ‘negotiations’ are taking place in Geneva, under the auspices of WTO – in secret – and driven by rules, sticks and carrots, imposed by – you guessed it – Washington.

If the EU were to collapse today, both the TTIP and the TiSA talks would come to a standstill. Anyone of the 28 EU countries, or better even of the 19 Eurozone countries, could bring the EU down. A Grexit, a Brexit, a fiasco emerging from the forthcoming rehash of the Spanish elections – or a firm decision by a government to default on its (mostly) troika imposed debt, could bring the house of cards of the dollar pyramid scheme to fall – and erase once and for all the enslaving dollar-euro hegemony. Debt could be renegotiated in newly restored national currencies. Remember, the euro is barely 15 years old. So – returning to national currencies should not be dramatic, but rather a sigh of relief – relief from a debt trap, and relief from Washington’s and Brussels’ boots of oppression.

Imagine what a collapse of the EU and the euro-zone would mean for the Greek people. Though, rumors have it that more than half the Greek are still adamant in hanging on to the destructive euro, I bet, its collapse would have hundreds of thousands dancing in the streets. Syriza could forget the currently negotiated additional €3 billion austerity budget cuts – even less pension and higher taxes for the poor.

To be sure, Greek debt relief will not come from the current EU/EC-troika constellation. To the contrary, the German Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has ever harsher words for Greece, as if he was threatening pushing Greece out of the EU. An empty threat, as everybody should know by now. Washington, also the masters of Germany, will not allow a Grexit, or a Brexit or an exit by any EU member. Washington needs the EU ‘intact’ to eventually serve as a slave partner in TTIP and TiSA.

What happened and continues to happen to Greece may serve as a (learning) example for other ‘weak’ southern EU countries to follow – unless, yes, unless, Greece or another country under EC-troika imposed economic and financial stress and strangulation takes the bull by the horns – taking a drastic decision: Exit the EU and the euro-zone, jump-start the local economy with a local currency, and negotiate the illegal and fraudulently imposed debt at their terms. That may bring about the end of the nefarious euro-zone – and the US-created European Union.

Be aware, the EU as it exists today, is not the invention of Europeans; it is a construct thought out immediately after WWII by the US, so as to keep Europe under her control – and to create a buffer zone vis-à-vis communism, the Soviet Union. It worked so far. This idea still prevails, as we see every day how Russia and her leader is being demonized and slandered by the western media. Let us be frank, if it weren’t for the strategic clear-headedness and foresight of President Putin, we – Europe – would be for the third time in 100 years enmeshed in a world war. And if we let this Washington imposed trend continue, Europe will become an Anglo-American  slaveland. Just look at TTIP and TiSA.

A true federation of sovereign European countries down the road, perhaps even with a common currency and a real central bank, may be a viable long-term solution for Europe. But – and this is the most important BUT, such a Europe will have to be designed by true and honest Europeans – am I dreaming? –  and absolutely without any influence of the United States of America. None.

Anyone of the 28 EU countries could return happiness to the people of Europe; could take the pain, frustration, fear and anxiety away; could reinstate national sovereignty, could bring national pride and local – instead of global – economy to the fore – by exiting the EU, by forfeiting the euro, by taking the reign of their people into the hands of a sovereign, democratic government.

A simple exit by one country – Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, the UK, France… you name it, could bring the ferocious debt machine to a grinding halt, opening the opportunity of joining a new, more just and more equal monetary scheme – the nascent combined eastern economic space of China, Russia, BRICS, SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union).

To be sure, time is important. Not for nothing Obama is pushing for speedy conclusions and signing of the disgraceful TTIP. The signing of these predatory agreements, TTIP, TiSA, TPP, is a key agenda item of Obama’s Presidency; his corporate and military legacy – NATO expansion is part of it – may depend on it.  Once these treaties are signed, there is no way back. If the TTIP is ratified despite all logic, and if subsequently the EU fell apart – each country would still be held accountable to the terms of the agreement. Hence, time for an EU collapse before signing of the TTIP and TiSA is of the essence.

This radical solution may be too much even for staunch EU / Euro opponents. Many of them still seek, hope and dream of a reformed EU. They still live under the illusion that ‘things’ could be worked out. Believe me – they cannot. The Machiavellian US-invented venture, called European Union with the equally US-invented common currency – the Eurozone – has run its course. It is about to ram the proverbial iceberg. The EU-Euro vessel is too heavy to veer away from disaster. Europe is better off taking time to regroup; each nation with the objective of regaining political and economic sovereignty – and perhaps with an eye a couple of generations down the road envisaging a new United Europe of sovereign federal states, independent, totally delinked from the diabolical games of the western Anglo-American empire.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, Chinese 4^th Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

THE GLOBALIZATION OF NATO

Author:  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Clarity Press (2012)
ISBN:  978-0-9852710-2-2
Pages:  411 with complete index

Available to order from Global Research

The world is enveloped in a blanket of perpetual conflict. Invasions, occupation, illicit sanctions, and regime change have become currencies and orders of the day. One organization – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – is repeatedly, and very controversially, involved in some form or another in many of these conflicts led by the US and its allies. NATO spawned from the Cold War. Its existence was justified by Washington and Western Bloc politicians as a guarantor against any Soviet and Eastern Bloc invasion of Western Europe, but all along the Alliance served to cement Washington’s influence in Europe and continue what was actually America’s post-World War II occupation of the European continent. In 1991 the raison d’être of the Soviet threat ended with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless NATO remains and continues to alarmingly expand eastward, antagonizing Russia and its ex-Soviet allies. China and Iran are also increasingly monitoring NATO’s moves as it comes into more frequent contact with them.

Yugoslavia was a turning point for the Atlantic Alliance and its mandate. The organization moved from the guise of a defensive posture into an offensive pose under the pretexts of humanitarianism. Starting from Yugoslavia, NATO began its journey towards becoming a global military force. From its wars in the Balkans, it began to broaden its international area of operations outside of the Euro-Atlantic zone into the Caucasus, Central Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Indian Ocean. It has virtually turned the Mediterranean Sea into a NATO lake with the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, while it seeks to do the same to the Black Sea and gain a strategic foothold in the Caspian Sea region. The Gulf Security Initiative between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council seeks to also dominate the Persian Gulf and to hem in Iran. Israel has become a de facto member of the military organization. At the same time, NATO vessels sail the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These warships are deployed off the coasts of Somalia, Djibouti, and Yemen as part of NATO’s objectives to create a naval cordon of the seas controlling important strategic waterways and maritime transit routes.

The Atlantic Alliance’s ultimate aim is to fix and fasten the American Empire. NATO has clearly played an important role in complementing the US strategy for dominating Eurasia. This includes the encirclement of Russia, China, Iran, and their allies with a military ring subservient to Washington. The global missile shield project, the militarization of Japan, the insurgencies in Libya and Syria, the threats against Iran, and the formation of a NATO-like military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region are components of this colossal geopolitical project. NATO’s globalization, however, is bringing together a new series of Eurasian counter-alliances with global linkages that stretch as far as Latin America. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) have been formed by Russia, China, and their allies as shields against the US and NATO and as a means to challenge them. As the globalization of NATO unfolds the risks of nuclear war become more and more serious with the Atlantic Alliance headed towards a collision course with Russia, China, and Iran that could ignite World War III.

Click to visit the Global Research ONLINE STORE

REVIEWS

“The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is simply magnificent, erudite and devoid of the ethnocentrism to which one has become so accustomed from Western authors. The book deals with what doubtless are the most important and relevant issues of the day for all those committed to saving life and protecting Mother Earth from rampant human irresponsibility and crime. There is no other book that, at this particular time, I would most heartily endorse. I think Africans, Near Eastern peoples, Iranians, Russians, Chinese, Asians and Europeans generally and all the progressive Latin American countries of today will find a much needed reinforcement and support for their peaceful ideals in this excellent must-read book.”
–MIGUEL D’ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua (1979-1990) and President of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly (2008-2009): Managua, Nicaragua.

“We are far away from the principles and objectives for which the United Nations was created and the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal stipulating that some state actions can be considered crimes against peace. Nazemroaya’s book, in addition to reminding us that the role of the United Nations has been confiscated by NATO, elaborates the danger that the North Atlantic Treaty represents to world peace.”
–JOSÉ L. GÓMEZ DEL PRADO, Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (2005-2011): Ferney-Voltaire, France.

“Through carefully documented research, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya analyzes the historical and geopolitical evolution of NATO from the Cold War to the post 9/11 US- led “Global War on Terrorism.” This book is a must read for those committed to reversing the tide of war and imperial conquest by the world’s foremost military machine.”
–MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG): Montréal, Canada.

“A very timely book. Yes, US-led NATO is globalizing, like the US-led finance economy. No doubt also for it to protect the latter, the “free market.” It is a classical case of overstretch to help save the crumbling US Empire and Western influence in general, by countries most of whom are bankrupt by their own economic mismanagement. All their interventions share two characteristics. The conflicts could have been solved with a little patience and creativity, but NATO does not want solutions. It uses conflicts as raw material it can process into interventions to tell the world that it is the strongest in military terms. And, with the help of the mainstream media, it sees Hitler everywhere, in a Milosevic, a bin Laden, a Hussein, a Qaddafi, in Assad, insensitive to the enormous differences between all these cases. I hope this book will be read by very, very many who can turn this morbid fascination with violence into constructive conflict resolution.”
–JOHAN GALTUNG, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies and Sociology at the University of Oslo and Founder of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO), the Galtung- Institut, and the Transcend Network: Oslo, Norway.

“Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s prolific writings give us a comprehensive understanding of the character of the military thrust and it’s all out, no holds barred STRATEGIC plans and moves to invade, occupy and plunder the resources of nations, inflicting unprecedented barbaric acts on civilian populations. He is one of the prescient thinkers and writers of contemporary times who deserves to be read and acted upon by people with a conscience and concern for humanity’s future.”
–VISHNU BHAGWAT, Admiral and Chief of the Naval Staff of India (1996-1998): Mumbai, India.

“This is a book really necessary to understanding the role of NATO within the frame of long-term US strategy. The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya not only provides an articulate analysis on the Atlantic Alliance: it is the best modern text devoted to the hegemonic alliance. With this book Nazemroaya reconfirms his ability as a brilliant geopolitical analyst.”
–TIBERIO GRAZIANI, President of the Institute of Advanced Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences/L’Istituto di Alti Studi in Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliarie (IsAG): Rome, Italy.

“Nazemroaya is an unbelievable prolific writer. What has often amazed many is his almost nonstop writing on extremely important issues for the contemporary world and his analysis about the globalization of NATO. What amazes many of us in other parts of the world are his seemingly limitless depth, breadth and the thoroughness of his knowledge that has been repeatedly appearing in his work. We are deeply indebted to Nazemroaya’s humble, tireless and invaluable contributions through his fearless, insightful and powerful writings.”
–KIYUL CHUNG, Editor-in-Chief of The 4th Media and Visiting Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Tsinghua University: Beijing, People’s Republic of China.

“The Journalists’ Press Club in Mexico is grateful and privileged to know a man who respects the written word and used it in an ethical way without another interest other than showing the reality about the other side of power in the world. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya gives voice to the “voiceless.” He can see the other side of the moon, the side without lights.”
–CELESE SÁENZ DE MIERA, Mexican Broadcaster and Secretary-General of the Mexican Press Club: Federal District of Mexico City, Mexico.

“With his very well documented analysis, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya has conducted a remarkable decryption of the strategies implemented by NATO – in the interests of the United States, the European Union and Israel – to expand its military grip on the world, ensure its control over energy resources and transit routes, and encircling the countries likely to be a barrier or a threat to its goals, whether it be Iran, Russia or China. Nazemroaya’s work is essential reading for those that want to understand what is being played out right now on the map in all the world’s trouble spots; Libya and Africa; Syria and the Middle East; the Persian Gulf and Eurasia.”
–SILVIA CATTORI, Swiss political analyst and journalist: Geneva, Switzerland.

The Globalization of NATO

Author:  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
ISBN:  978-0-9852710-2-2
Clarity Press (2012)
Pages:  411 with complete index

Price: $22.95

Click to visit the Global Research ONLINE STORE

The answer is really simple: its government and their foreign sponsors. The ongoing conflict consuming the Middle East is the result of Western hegemonic designs aimed at reordering the region and beyond, into a geopolitical structure more suitable for its own interests. In accomplishing this, the centers of power across the West – Washington, Wall Street, London, and Brussels – have elected several nations as intermediaries through which various aspects of this process are being implemented.

Vaccines are a very lucrative business. Pfizer’s vaccine Prevnar, which targets 13 strains of pneumococcus bacteria, generated $6.25 billion in revenue last year. And that’s just one vaccine.1

Even ineffective vaccines allow vaccine makers to make a mint. One of the most obvious vaccine failures is the mumps vaccine (part of the measles, mumps, rubella, aka MMR).

Again and again, outbreaks among vaccinated populations occur, yet rarely is the truth of the situation addressed, namely the fact that the vaccine is ineffective and doesn’t work as advertised.

In 2010, two virologists filed a federal lawsuit against Merck, their former employer, alleging the vaccine maker engaged in improper testing and data falsification to artificially inflate the efficacy rating of their mumps vaccine.

For details on how they allegedly pulled this off, read Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ excellent summary,2 which explains in layman’s terms how the tests were manipulated.

Just about every media outlet reported the lawsuit, and the hundreds of millions of dollars Merck was said to have defrauded from the U.S. government by selling a vaccine of questionable effectiveness.

As reported by Reuters3 last year, Merck’s behavior in and of itself suggests they’re trying to cover up fraud:

“Attorneys at Constantine Cannon, who represent the scientists, asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel Merck to respond to their discovery request, which asks the company to give the efficacy of the vaccine as a percentage.

Instead of answering the question, the letter said, Merck has been consistently evasive, using ‘cut-and-paste’ answers saying it cannot run a new clinical trial to determine the current efficacy, and providing only data from 50 years ago.

‘Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which is accurately represented on the product’s label, but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is,’ the letter said.”

So why are people still surprised when mumps outbreaks occur? And why are the unvaccinated still blamed for most disease outbreaks, even when most of the infected are vaccinated?

Vaccinated People Are Spreading the Mumps

Recently, 41 students at Harvard University came down with mumps and, according to the Public Health department in Cambridge, every single one of those students had been vaccinated.4

Four other campuses in Boston are also starting to see cases, as have four universities in Indiana. About 13 cases of mumps have also cropped up in California.

One ridiculous explanation offered by Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Center for Health Security, is that the vaccine only works if the exposure to the virus is low; it can’t be expected to work if there are high amounts of exposure, such as in dorms:5

“The exposure that they have to mumps is so high in these situations that it overcomes the ability of the vaccine to protect them,” Adalja told Live Science. “It may be that, in these special situations, a much higher level of antibodies [against mumps] is needed to keep the virus at bay.”

In 2009, more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York contracted the disease. At the time, questions arose about the effectiveness of the vaccine because 77 percent of those sickened were vaccinated.

A similar scenario occurred in 2006, when mumps infected more than 6,500 people in the U.S. Most of those cases also occurred among the vaccinated population, primarily among college students who had received two doses of MMR vaccine.

Now, if a vaccine is indeed highly effective, and avoiding the disease in question is worth the risk of the potential side effects from the vaccine, then many people would conclude that the vaccine’s benefits outweigh the risks.

However, if the vaccine is ineffective, and/or if the disease doesn’t pose a great threat to begin with, then the vaccine may indeed pose an unacceptable risk. This is particularly true if the vaccine has been linked to serious side effects.

Unfortunately, that’s the case with the MMR vaccine, which has been linked to at least 98 deaths and 694 disabilities between 2003 and 2015. Considering the fact that only 1 to 10 percent of vaccine reactions are ever reported, those numbers could actually be closer to 980 deaths and 6,940 disabilities.

Meanwhile, death from mumps is “exceedingly rare” according to the CDC,6 and no one has died from mumps during any of the recent outbreaks.

The Myth of Vaccine-Generated Herd Immunity

  Download Interview Transcript

Vaccine promoters typically stress the importance of compliance with the federally recommended vaccine schedule in order to create and maintain vaccine-induced “herd immunity.” This may require multiple doses of certain vaccines, the MMR included, because no vaccine is 100 percent effective.

However, they never quite seem to be able to explain why the majority of outbreaks occur in areas that are thought to HAVE herd immunity status, i.e. where the majority of people are fully vaccinated and “should” therefore not be able to be infected or transmit infection.

The problem stems from a mix-up of terms. While there is such a thing as natural herd immunity, vaccine-induced herd immunity is a total misnomer. Vaccine makers simply assumed that vaccines will work in the same way as natural immunity, but the science clearly shows that this is not the case.

Vaccination and exposure to a given disease produce two qualitatively different types of immune responses. To learn more, I urge you to listen to the video above, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity. As explained by Barbara:

“Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does … [V]accines only confer temporary protection … In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting, more robust, qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity.

Humoral is the antibody production. The way you measure vaccine-induced immunity is by how high the antibody titers are. (How many antibodies you have.) The problem is, the cell mediated immunity is very important as well. Most vaccines evade cell mediated immunity and go straight for the antibodies, which is only one part of immunity.”

Ineffective Vaccines May Pose an Unacceptable Health Risk

In essence, vaccines are designed to trick your body’s immune system into producing the antibodies needed to resist any future infection. However, your body is smarter than that.

The artificial stimulation of your immune system produced by lab-altered killed bacteria or an attenuated live virus is not the same as your body experiencing a natural viral or bacterial infection, which may or may not make you clinically ill but will confer a longer lasting immunity compared to vaccine acquired artificial immunity that is qualitatively inferior and far more temporary.

So the question is, is it well-advised to protect children against a large number of infectious diseases early in life throughtemporary artificial immunity from vaccines, or might they be better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood, thereby attaining longer lasting natural immunity that may even last them for the rest of their lives?

And, do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? In the case of the MMR vaccine, this question seems particularly pertinent. While there are 98 reports of death following vaccination between 2003 and 2015, only one child has died from acute measles complications in the decade between 2005 and 2015.7

Democrats Seek Taxpayer Money for Zika Vaccine

While millions suffer from government subsidized diseases caused by obesity and diabetes, and tens of thousands die from prescription opioids and antibiotic-resistant diseases — all of which stem from ill-advised government policies, the White House is now seeking $2 billion of your tax dollars to create yet another vaccine, this time against the Zika virus, just like they did for bird flu,swine flu, SARS, and so many other very profitable false alarms. According to The Daily Caller:8

“Democrats in Congress and the White House say they’re convinced the virus could wreak havoc in the U.S. if the nearly 2 billion dollars isn’t appropriated right now to keep the virus from spreading …

The proposal would direct the bulk of the funds to the Department of Health and Human Services, and a much smaller portion to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of State, to fund increased research on the virus, development of a vaccine and an effort to control mosquito populations.”

The problem is, while the Zika virus transmitted by mosquitoes was originally blamed for reports of microcephaly among infants born in Brazil, it quickly became apparent that Zika was among the least likely contributors to this birth defect. The Brazilian government also admitted that overly generous parameters resulted in dramatic over-reporting of the condition.

As details started emerging, it became clear that a number of environmental factors could be at play — all of which were far more convincing than the Zika virus. Yet our politicians are still pandering this fear mongering in order to continue lining the chemical and pharmaceutical industries’ pockets.

Is Zika Virus Really Responsible for Birth Defects?

For starters, large amounts of banned pesticides are in use in the area where most of the microcephaly cases have occurred in Brazil.9^,10,11 This includes heavy regional use of the pesticide Atrazine. According to research12 published in 2011, small head circumference is one potential side effect of prenatal Atrazine exposure.

Lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency are also potential contributing factors to microcephaly increases in Brazil. Vitamin A deficiency has actually been linked to an increased risk of microcephaly specifically,13^,14 and zinc is known to play an important role in the structure and function of the brain.15 Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lists malnutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals as two of the three known risk factors for microcephaly.

A report16^,17 by an Argentine physician’s organization called Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns also challenges the theory that Zika virus is responsible for the microcephaly cases in Brazil. They point out that a chemical larvicide that causes malformations in mosquitoes (pyriproxyfen) has been applied to the drinking water in the most seriously affected area of Brazil.

Pyroproxyfen, which has been linked to birth defects, is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese subsidiary of Monsanto, and has been used in a state-controlled program to eradicate mosquitoes.

Imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid, has also been shown to produce skeletal malformation18^,19 and, as it turns out, Brazil lifted its ban on aerial spraying of neonicotinoids in October 2012, right around the time the women who gave birth to infants with microcephaly would have become pregnant.20

Addressing these human health issues would mean taking a long hard look at the use of toxic chemicals contaminating the environment, and coming up with more rigorous restrictions on what chemical companies are allowed to pander.

Instead, the government turns a blind eye to the obvious, and comes up with a plan to increase the use of chemicals, both internally and externally, in the form of vaccines and mosquito treatments. In my view, this is a highly irrational decision. It’s also a dead giveaway that public health is not their primary focus.

Chinese Parents Question Vaccine Safety

In China, where government mandated mass vaccination programs are a more recent intervention, suspicions about vaccine safety have grown rather quickly, and many parents, whose children have been injured by vaccines, have taken to the streets in ongoing protests. Dong Xiaoxin, whose 4-year-old daughter contracted polio after receiving a polio vaccine, spoke to an NPR reporter, saying:21

“Our daughter has made a great sacrifice for the nation’s inoculation program, and we’re not afraid to fight for the legal rights she deserves. We had no idea that vaccines could produce this kind of result. We felt that any vaccination given by the state had to be a good thing. We were completely unprepared. The state needs to provide us parents with some sort of safeguard. Only then can parents feel assured and fully trust the government.”

In her book “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History,” Humphries addresses the polio vaccine specifically, noting that through her research, she became convinced that the polio vaccine had very little if anything to do with the eradication of polio.

In fact, the successful “eradication” of this disease was accomplished by changing the diagnostic criteria of the disease. What’s worse, the initial vaccine actually led to more cases of paralysis than would have developed naturally.

To save the vaccine, they had to make it appear as though it was working, even though it was causing more problems than it solved. The answer they came up with was to change the diagnostic criteria. The original criterion was two examinations within 24 hours. This was changed to two examinations within 60 days. This artificially decreased the polio rate, because within 60 days, most people recover from their bout with poliomyelitis.

They also began using serological testing, and if the polio virus was not found, the patient was not considered to have polio. Since then, virtually every type of polio vaccine has had some kind of issue, including the propagation of mutated strains of the polio virus.

In 1999, when public health officials admitted that the only polio cases in the U.S. were vaccine-induced, there was a switch from the live oral polio vaccine that can cause vaccine strain polio paralysis to the inactivated, injectable polio vaccine that cannot. However, in some developing countries the oral polio vaccine is still used and those vaccinated can become silent carriers of a highly virulent strain of polio that can infect others and cause paralysis.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Defend Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to make independent health choices and exercise voluntary informed consent to vaccination. It is urgent that everyone in America stand up and fight to protect and expand vaccine informed consent protections in state public health and employment laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and educating the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

National vaccine policy recommendations are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make voluntary vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations, and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your smart phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choice rights and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community.

Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story With the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury, or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination, will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination.

The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the non-profit charity, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), at www.NVIC.org:

• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries, and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
• If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
• Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, and school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.
• Vaccine Failure Wall: View or post descriptions about vaccines that have failed to work and protect the vaccinated from disease.

Connect With Your Doctor or Find a New One That Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination. However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents.

It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect, and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

This week’s admission by the Pentagon that dozens of American troops are now on the ground in Yemen, ostensibly to assist troops of the United Arab Emirates in combating Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has laid bare the escalating eruption of US imperialist violence across the greater Middle East.

Nearly 15 years after the launching of the so-called “war on terror” and 25 years after the first US Gulf War against Iraq, American forces are carrying out lethal operations over a vast region ranging from Pakistan in the east to Libya in the west, and from the Turkish border in the north all the way to Somalia in the south.

In the name of fighting terror, US imperialism has terrorized a sizable portion of humanity. The net results are casualties now totaling in the millions, a refugee crisis that surpasses that of the Second World War, and a catastrophic deepening of human misery in every land where the US has placed its “boots on the ground.”

In Yemen, as elsewhere, US troops are engaged in a fight against forces that emerged directly out of Washington’s own interventions. As a direct by-product of the criminal war being waged by the Saudi monarchy and its Gulf oil sheikdom allies against Yemen, the poorest nation of the Arab world, AQAP has wrested control of a 340-square-mile area of the country’s southern coast and amassed a war chest of over $100 million in captured bank deposits.

This was not some unforeseeable side effect, but rather a direct result of Saudi Arabia’s—and Washington’s—reliance on Al Qaeda-linked forces to do their dirty work in a sectarian war that has killed at least 6,000 Yemenis, including 1,000 children, displaced 1.2 million people, and left half the population in danger of starvation.

The same essential story is unfolding in Iraq and Syria, only with far bloodier consequences. A US intervention that has seen some 5,000 US troops sent back into Iraq and hundreds more operating in flagrant violation of international law inside Syria is supposedly aimed at wiping out the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

ISIS, another Al Qaeda offshoot, had its origins in Iraq, the product of the war of sociocide waged by US imperialism between 2003 and 2010. It crossed the border into Syria, becoming one of the principal ground forces in the US-orchestrated war for regime change against the Assad government and the beneficiary of vast stocks of arms and supplies funneled in by the CIA and Washington’s regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Immensely strengthened, ISIS crossed back into Iraq. Taking advantage of the deep sectarian divisions created by Washington’s policy of divide and rule, it overran much of the country in 2014, including Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, and routed US-trained and equipped Iraqi security forces.

In Afghanistan, 10,000 US troops remain, carrying out, as the massacre of at least 42 patients and medical staff at the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz reveals, combat operations that continue to claim civilian lives.

Finally, a meeting has been set for next week in Vienna to discuss another intervention by the US and the NATO powers in Libya, a country whose society was shattered by the US-NATO war of 2011, leading to ISIS forces seizing control of strategic areas on the Mediterranean coast.

This broad wave of US military violence is unfolding a century after the agreement reached during World War I that determined the imperialist carve-up and much of the subsequent history of the region. One hundred years ago, on May 9, 1916, British Middle East envoy Sir Mark Sykes and his French counterpart François Georges-Picot reached the infamous secret deal that bore their names. The Sykes-Picot agreement set the terms for the cynical post-World War I carve-up between Britain, France and, as a lesser power, Russia of the lands ruled by the Ottoman Empire.

Lines were drawn in the sands of the Middle East in utter disregard for the aspirations of the peoples of the region. This conspiracy became publicly known as a result of the October 1917 Russian Revolution, with then-Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs Leon Trotsky publishing the secret agreement in order to expose the crimes of the imperialist powers against the oppressed peoples of the region.

The war, Trotsky said, and been fought “for the ‘repartition’ of the Turkish lands between the banks, industrialists and merchants of the strongest capitalist powers.” Promises by the imperialists of Arab independence, he warned, would create territories “‘independent’ only of the Arabs and wholly dependent upon the bosses of international capital.”

The partition agreed to by Britain and France was imposed only through the bloody suppression of popular Arab insurgencies in territories that

are now divided between Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. With the decline of British and French imperialism in the aftermath of World War II and the subsequent decolonization, Washington became the principal guarantor of the nation-state system erected on the foundations of Sykes-Picot.

Despite the pretensions of Pan-Arab nationalism on the part of the Nasserites in Egypt, the Baathists in Iraq and Syria and other Arab regimes, the Arab bourgeoisie was never willing or able to supersede the boundaries drawn by the old colonialists, which marked out the lands ruled by the colonial states that they inherited. In the end, despite their conflicts with imperialism, they functioned as junior partners in the exploitation of the peoples they ruled.

The nation-state system erected on the basis of Sykes-Picot has been largely wrecked by a quarter century of unending military violence carried out by US imperialism to assert its own unfettered hegemony over the oil-rich region. In the course of Washington’s multiple wars, the Pentagon and the CIA have recklessly fomented sectarian conflicts to further their aims, tearing nations apart and creating conditions for a region-wide war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

While in an earlier epoch British and French imperialists attempted to impose a system of colonial rule, their American successors have specialized in smashing up existing states with the aim of denying the region’s energy resources to US imperialism’s rivals and assuring that no power emerges capable of challenging Washington’s regional hegemony.

The Obama administration, which is carrying out this reckless and destructive war policy, is riven with divisions. Military commanders are increasingly chafing at the administration’s pretense that US forces are not involved in combat, but merely acting as “advisors” in the multiple conflicts in which they are engaged. While the White House wants to limit the engagements in the Middle East in order to turn greater military force against US imperialism’s great power rivals, China and Russia in the first instance, the logic of military intervention is pushing the Pentagon to demand continuing escalation in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and beyond.

The bitter debates within the ruling establishment over how best to employ militarism to offset the economic decline of US capitalism are being carried out behind the backs of the American people. Both parties are rigorously excluding from the 2016 election campaign the preparations for a vast escalation of war in the Middle East and beyond. But one thing is certain: once the ballots are cast in November, there will be a dramatic expansion of global US military aggression, no matter who wins the White House.

The immense dangers that the war conspiracies of the ruling elite pose to people in the US and around the globe can be answered only through the building of an independent and international political movement of the working class against war and the capitalist system that produces it. This is what is being fought for by the Socialist Equality Party and its candidates in the 2016 election, Jerry White for US president and Niles Niemuth for vice president.

Il giorno stesso (4 maggio) in cui si è insediato alla Nato il nuovo Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa – il generale Usa Curtis Scaparrotti, nominato come i suoi 17 predecessori dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti – il Consiglio  Nord Atlantico ha annunciato che al quartier generale della Nato a Bruxelles verrà istituita una Missione ufficiale israeliana, capeggiata dall’ambasciatore di Israele presso la Ue. Israele viene così integrato ancora di più nella Nato, alla quale è già strettamente collegato tramite il «Programma di cooperazione individuale».  Ratificato dalla Nato il 2 dicembre 2008, tre settimane prima dell’operazione israeliana «Piombo fuso» a Gaza, esso comprende tra l’altro la collaborazione tra i servizi di intelligence e la connessione delle forze israeliane, comprese quelle nucleari, al sistema elettronico Nato.

Alla Missione ufficiale israeliana presso la Nato si affiancheranno quelle del regno di Giordania e degli emirati del Qatar e del Kuwait, «partner molto attivi» che verranno integrati ancor più nella Nato per meriti acquisiti. La Giordania ospita basi segrete della Cia nelle quali – documentano il New York Times e Der Spiegel – sono stati addestrati militanti islamici di Al Qaeda e dell’Isis per la guerra coperta in Siria e Iraq.

Il Qatar ha partecipato alla guerra Nato contro la Libia, infiltrando nel 2011 circa 5mila commandos sul suo territorio (come dichiarato a The Guardian dallo stesso capo di stato maggiore qatariano), quindi a quella contro la Siria: lo ammette in una intervista al Financial Times l’ex primo ministro qatariano, Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, che parla di operazioni qatariane e saudite di «interferenza» in Siria, con il consenso degli Stati uniti.

Il Kuwait, tramite l’«Accordo sul transito», permette alla Nato di creare il suo primo scalo aeroportuale nel Golfo, non solo per l’invio di forze e materiali militari in Afghanistan, ma anche per la «cooperazione pratica della Nato col Kuwait e altri partner, come l’Arabia Saudita». Partner sostenuti dagli Usa nella guerra che fa strage di civili nello Yemen. Vi partecipa, con una quindicina di cacciabombardieri, anche il Kuwait. A cui l’Italia fornisce ora 28 caccia Eurofighter Typhoon di nuova generazione, costruiti dal consorzio di cui fa parte Finmeccanica insieme a industrie di Gran Bretagna, Germania e Spagna. Un contratto da 8 miliardi di euro, il più grande mai firmato da Finmeccanica, nelle cui casse entra circa la metà. È stato firmato il 5 aprile in Kuwait dal ministro della difesa, Khaled al-Sabah, e dall’amministratore delegato di Finmeccanica, Mauro Moretti. Madrina dell’evento la ministra Roberta Pinotti, efficiente piazzista di armi (vedi la vendita a Israele di 30 caccia M-346 da addestramento avanzato).

Gli Eurofighter Typhoon, che il Kuwait userà per fare stragi nello Yemen e altrove, possono essere armati anche di bombe nucleari: quelle in possesso dell’Arabia Saudita (vedi il manifesto del 23 febbraio). All’addestramento degli equipaggi provvede l’Aeronautica italiana, rafforzando «il fondamentale ruolo di stabilizzazione regionale svolto dal Kuwait». Un successo della ministra Pinotti che, una settimana dopo aver venduto i cacciabombardieri al Kuwait, è stata insignita dall’Unione Cattolica Stampa Italiana con il Premio «Napoli Città di Pace 2016».

Alla cerimonia, il cardinale Crescenzio Sepe ha definito quello della Pinotti «impegno al servizio della politica come forma più  alta d’amore, che mette sempre al centro la tutela e la dignità della vita umana», proponendo perciò «il cambio di denominazione del Dicastero della Difesa in quello della Pace». Che ne pensa Papa Francesco?

Manlio Dinucci

This post explains the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution – and provides a scorecard on the extent of the loss of each right.

First Amendment

The 1st Amendment protects speech, religion, assembly and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court has also interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association.

However, the government is arresting those speaking out … and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government for redress.

A federal judge found that the law allowing indefinite detention of Americans without due process has a“chilling effect” on free speech. And see this and this.

There are also enacted laws allowing the secret service to arrest anyone protesting near the president or other designated folks (that might explain incidents like this).

Mass spying by the NSA violates our freedom of association.

The threat of being labeled a terrorist for exercising our First Amendment rights certainly violates the First Amendment. The government is using laws to crush dissent, and it’s gotten so bad that even U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying that we are descending into tyranny. (And the U.S. is doing the same things that tyrannical governments have done for 5,000 years to crush dissent.) 

Photo Caption: Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

For example, the following actions may get an American citizen living on U.S. soil labeled as a “suspected terrorist” today:

• Taking any steps to protect your privacy (and see this)

• Being a hippy

• Complaining about the taste of your tap water

• Being young (if you live near a battle zone, you are fair game; and see this)

• Acting like a kid

• Using social media

• Reporting or doing journalism (and here and here)

• Having “strange odors” or “bright colored stains on clothes” (what if you eat mustard or ketchup?)

• Speaking out against government policies

• Protesting anything (such as participating in the “Occupy” or “Tea Party” movements). For example,Department of Defense training manuals classify all protest as “low-level terrorism”. And see this,this, this and this

• Questioning war (even though war reduces our national security; and see this)

• Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones (although killing innocent civilians with drones is one of the main things which increases terrorism. And see this)

• Asking questions about pollution (even at a public Congressional hearing?)

• Paying cash at an Internet cafe

• Asking questions about Wall Street shenanigans

• Holding gold

• Creating alternative currencies

• Stocking up on more than 7 days of food (even though all Mormons are taught to stockpile food, and most Hawaiians store up on extra food)

• Having bumper stickers saying things like “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them”

• Investigating factory farming

• Infringing a copyright

• Taking pictures or videos

• Talking to police officers

• Wearing a hoodie

• Driving a van

• Writing on a piece of paper

• (Not having a Facebook account may soon be added)

And holding the following beliefs may also be considered grounds for suspected terrorism:

• Being frustrated with “mainstream ideologies”

• Being a libertarian

• Liking the Founding Fathers

• Being a Christian

• Being anti-tax, anti-regulation or for the gold standard

• Being “reverent of individual liberty”

• Being “anti-nuclear”

• “Believe in conspiracy theories”

• “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”

• “Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

• “Insert religion into the political sphere”

• “Those who seek to politicize religion”

• “Supported political movements for autonomy”

• Being “anti-abortion”

• Being “anti-Catholic”

• Being “anti-global”

• “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”

• “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

• “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”

• Opposing genetically engineered food

• Opposing surveillance

And see this. (Of course, Muslims are more or less subject to a separate system of justice in America.)

And 1st Amendment rights are especially chilled when power has become so concentrated that the same agency which spies on all Americans also decides who should be assassinated.

Additionally:

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

Second Amendment

The 2nd Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun control and gun rights advocates obviously have very different views about whether guns are a force for violence or for good.

But even a top liberal Constitutional law expert reluctantly admits that the right to own a gun is as important a Constitutional right as freedom of speech or religion:

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

***

It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

***

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

And George Mason University School of Law Professor Nelson Lund and UCLA Law School Professor Adam Winkler note:

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

***

The Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

The gun control debate – including which weapons and magazines are banned – is still in flux …

However:

Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield than for a country founded on freedom. Police shootings of unarmed citizenscontinue to outrage communities, while little is really being done to demilitarize law enforcement agencies. Indeed, just recently, North Dakota became the first state to legalize law enforcement use of drones armed with weapons such as tear gas, rubber bullets, beanbags, pepper spray and Tasers.

Third Amendment

The 3rd Amendment prohibits the government forcing people to house soldiers:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

A recent lawsuit by a Nevada family – covered by (Mother Jones, Fox News and Courthouse News – alleges violation of the Third Amendment.

The military is also arguably quartering “digital” troops within our homes.

Gordon S. Wood – Alva O. Way University Professor and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University – points out:

In its Declaration and Resolves on October 14, 1774, Congress protested the presence in a time of peace of a standing army and the quartering of troops in the colonies without their consent. Then in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, two of the many accusations Congress leveled against the king were his keeping “among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent or our Legislatures,” and his “quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.”

***

Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the government’s response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and to issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.

Indeed:

With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil. Moreover, as a result of SWAT team raids (more than 80,000 a year) where police invade homes, often without warrants, and injure and even kill unarmed citizens, the barrier between public and private property has been done away with, leaving us with armed government agents who act as if they own our property.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War partly to stop the type of militarized police that we now have.

Photo Caption: Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

 

Fourth Amendment

The 4th Amendment prevents unlawful search and seizure:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But the government is spying on everything we do … without any real benefit or justification (and see this).

By one estimate,  the average American going about his daily business on any given day will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

(And things are getting worse, and the government will greatly expand its spying in the near future.)

Indeed, experts say that the type of spying being carried out by the NSA and other agencies is exactly the kind of thing which King George imposed on the American colonists … which led to the Revolutionary War.

And many Constitutional experts – such as Jonathan Turley – think that the police went too far in Boston with lockdowns and involuntary door-to-door searches.

In reality:

The Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities toprivate contractors. Case in point: Texas police forced a 21-year-old woman to undergo awarrantless vaginal search by the side of the road after she allegedly “rolled” through a stop sign.

The use of civil asset forfeiture schemes to swell the coffers of police forces has also continued to grow in popularity among cash-strapped states. The federal government continues to strong-arm corporations into providing it with access to Americans’ private affairs, from emails and online transactions to banking and web surfing. Coming in the wake of massive leaks about the inner workings of the NSA and the massive secretive surveillance state, it was revealed that the government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 every day for failing to comply with the NSA’s mass data collection program known asPRISM. Meanwhile, AT&T has enjoyed a profitable and “extraordinary, decades-long” relationship with the NSA.

The technological future appears to pose even greater threats to what’s left of our Fourth Amendment rights, with advances in biometric identification and microchip implants on the horizon making it that much easier for the government to track not only our movements and cyber activities but our very cellular beings. Barclays has already begun using a finger-scanner as a form of two-step authentication to give select customers access to their accounts. Similarly, Motorola has been developing thin “digital tattoos” that will ensure that a phone’s owner is the only person who may unlock it. Not to be overlooked are the aerial spies—surveillance drones—about to take to the skies in coming years, as well as the Drive Smart programs that will spy on you (your speed, movements, passengers, etc.) while you travel the nation’s highways and byways.

Paintings by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment addresses due process of law, eminent domain, double jeopardy and grand jury:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But the American government has shredded the 5th Amendment by subjecting us to indefinite detentionand taking away our due process rights.

The government claims the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain any American citizen on U.S. citizen without any due process. And see this.

For example, American citizens are being detained in Guantanamo-like conditions in Chicago … including:

• Brutality

• Being held in secret

• Not even telling a suspect’s lawyer whether his client is being held?

And see this, this and this.

As such, the government is certainly depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There are additional corruptions of 5th Amendment rights – such as property being taken for privatepurposes. And the right to remain silent is gone.

The percentage of prosecutions in which a defendant is denied a grand jury is difficult to gauge, as there isso much secrecy surrounding many terrorism trials.

Image by William Banzai

Sixth Amendment

The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury in the location where the crime allegedly occurred, to hear the criminal charges levied against us and to be able to confront the witnesses who have testified against us, as well as speedy criminal trials, and a public defender for those who cannot hire an attorney:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Subjecting people to indefinite detention or assassination obviously violates the 6th Amendment right to a speedy and public jury trial. In both cases, the defendants is “disposed of” without ever receiving anytrial at all … let alone a speedy or public one. In neither case do they get a jury, a defense lawyer, or the right to call their own witnesses. And they often never even hear the charges against them.

Indefinite detentions usually don’t occur where the alleged crime occurred, but at a black site.

More and more commonly, the government prosecutes cases based upon “secret evidence” that they don’t show to the defendant … or sometimes even the judge hearing the case.

The government uses “secret evidence” to spy on Americans, prosecute leaking or terrorism charges (even against U.S. soldiers) and even assassinate people. And see this and this.

Secret witnesses are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are not even allowed to read their own briefs.

Indeed, even the laws themselves are now starting to be kept secret. And it’s about to get a lot worse.

Moreover, government is “laundering” information gained through mass surveillance through other agencies, with an agreement that the agencies will “recreate” the evidence in a “parallel construction” … so they don’t have to admit that the evidence came from unconstitutional spying. This data laundering is getting worse and worse.

A former top NSA official says that this is the opposite of following the Fourth Amendment, but is a“totalitarian process” which shows that we’re in a “police state”. (A second former top NSA officialagrees.)

And there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. The government made it official policy not to prosecute fraud, even though fraud is themain business model adopted by Wall Street. Indeed, the biggest financial crime in world history, thelargest insider trading scandal of all time, illegal raiding of customer accounts and blatant financing of drug cartels and terrorists have all been committed recently without any real criminal prosecution or jail time.

On the other hand, government prosecutors are using the legal system to crush dissent and to silence whistleblowers.

And some of the nation’s most powerful judges have lost their independence … and are in bed with the powers-that-be.

Constitutional lawyer John Whitehead explains:

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights. That’s the crux of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the government’s use of asset forfeiture to strip American citizens of the funds needed to hire a defense attorney of their choosing.

Seventh Amendment

The 7th Amendment guarantees trial by jury in federal court for civil cases:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

But there are two systems of justice in America … one for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else. So good luck going after the powers-that-be.

And the World Justice Project – a bipartisan, independent group with honorary chairs including numerous current and former Supreme Court Justices – released a report saying that Americans have less access to justice than most wealthy countries … and many developing nations. The report finds that Americans have less access to justice than Botswanans, and that only the wealthy have the resources to protect rights using the court system:

For example, Germans sue equally whether they are rich or poor … but in America, only the wealthy have the resources to protect rights using the court system:

(And the austerity caused by the highest levels of inequality in world history – which are in turn is caused by socialist actions by our government, which have destroyed the Founding Fathers’ vision of prosperity – is causing severe budget cuts to the courts, resulting in the wheels of justice slowing down considerably.)

Federal judges have also recently decided that they can pre-judge cases before the plaintiff even has the chance to conduct discovery … and throw cases out if they don’t like plaintiff’s case.

And:

The populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant juryincapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that it’s “we the people” who can and should be determining what laws are just, what activities are criminal and who can be jailed for what crimes.

Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com

 

Eighth Amendment

The 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Indefinite detention and assassination are obviously cruel and unusual punishment.

The widespread system of torture carried out in the last 10 years – with the help of other countries –violates the 8th Amendment. Many want to bring it back … or at least justify its past use.

While Justice Scalia disingenuously argues that torture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because it is meant to produce information – not punish – he’s wrong. It’s not only cruel and unusual … it is technically a form of terrorism.

And government whistleblowers are being cruelly and unusually punished with unduly harsh sentences meant to intimidate anyone else from speaking out.

Moreover:

A California appeals court is being asked to consider “whether years of unpredictable delays from conviction to execution” constitute cruel and unusual punishment. For instance, although 900 individuals have been sentenced to death in California since 1978, only 13 have been executed. As CBS News reports, “More prisoners have died of natural causes on death row than have perished in the death chamber.”

Ninth Amendment

The 9th Amendment provides that people have other rights, even if they aren’t specifically listed in the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We can debate what our inherent rights as human beings are. I believe they include the right to a level playing field, and access to non-toxic food and water. You may disagree.

But everyone agrees that the government should not actively encourage fraud and manipulation. However, the government – through its malignant, symbiotic relation with big corporations – is interfering with our aspirations for economic freedom, safe food and water (instead of arsenic-laden, genetically engineered junk), freedom from undue health hazards such as irradiation due to government support of archaic nuclear power designs, and a level playing field (as opposed to our crony capitalist system in which the little guy has no shot due to redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the super-elite, and government support of white collar criminals).

By working hand-in-glove with giant corporations to defraud us into paying for a lower quality of life, the government is trampling our basic rights as human beings.

Tenth Amendment

The 10th Amendment provides that powers not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states or individual:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Two of the central principles of America’s Founding Fathers are:

(1) The government is created and empowered with the consent of the people

and

(2) Separation of powers

Today, most Americans believe that the government is threatening – rather than protecting – freedom. We’ve become more afraid of our government than of terrorists, and believe that the government is no longer acting with the “consent of the governed“.

And the federal government is trampling the separation of powers by stepping on the toes of the states and the people. For example, former head S&L prosecutor Bill Black – now a professor of law and economics – notes:

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the resident examiners and regional staff of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [both] competed to weaken federal regulation and aggressively used the preemption doctrine to try to prevent state investigations of and actions against fraudulent mortgage lenders.

Indeed, the federal government is doing everything it can to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives … and act like Big Brother.

Conclusion: While a few of the liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights still exist, the vast majority are under heavy assault.

Other Constitutional Provisions … and The Declaration of Independence

In addition to the trampling of the Bill of Rights, the government has also trashed the separation of powers enshrined in the main body of the Constitution.

The government is also engaging in activities which the Founding Fathers fought against, such as taxation without representation (here and here), cronyism, deference to central banks, etc.

As the preamble to the Declaration of Independence shows, the American government is still carrying out many of the acts the Founding Fathers found most offensive:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. [Background here and here]

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. [Background here, here, here, here and here]

***

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: [Background]

***

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences [Background]

***

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. [Background]

***

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. [Background here, here and here]

Opposition parties in South Africa, the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), are seeking ways to not only gain votes in the upcoming local elections but to also discredit and bring down the African National Congress (ANC) government.

An impeachment vote against President Jacob Zuma on April 5 failed in the parliament since the ANC controls 62 percent of the seats in the legislative body. Zuma was accused by the opposition of violating the constitution of the Republic of South Africa which the ANC had the most prominent role in drafting during the early period of their rule under Nelson Mandela.

The Constitutional Court ruled unanimously that Zuma should have agreed to pay back some of the state funds utilized for upgrades of his Nkandla residence. The ANC government accepted the court decision and agreed to comply with orders from the highest judicial body in the country.

Nonetheless, another provincial court decision was handed down on April 29 reversing a previous ruling setting aside hundreds of corruption charges leveled against Zuma while he served as deputy president under the administration of President Thabo Mbeki. These charges prompted the removal of Zuma as deputy president fueling a factional struggle within the ANC that led to the ascendancy of Zuma as head of the ANC at the Polokwane conference in 2007.

The court dismissal of the charges against Zuma triggered the recalling of Mbeki who was unable to complete his second and final term of office. Later in 2009, Zuma was elected president of South Africa by a wide margin.

However, in a remarkable decision “a South African court ruled that the decision by prosecutors to drop a corruption case against President Jacob Zuma seven years ago was irrational and should be set aside, opening the way for the 783 charges against him to be reinstated. Then acting National Director of Public Prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe was under pressure and made an ‘irrational decision’ to dismiss the charges in April 2009, ignoring the importance of his oath of office to act independently and without fear or favor, Judge Aubrey Ledwaba said at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, citing the ruling by a full bench of judges. Zuma should face the charges in the indictment, he said.” (Bloomberg, April 29)

This latest decision has encouraged the opposition to renew calls for Zuma’s resignation. The president says he has no intentions of resigning and it appears that the majority within the ANC leadership structures are supporting Zuma.

Local Elections to Reveal Actual Strength of the ANC and Opposition Forces

The local government elections scheduled for August will represent a political test for both the ruling ANC and its opposition within parliament.

At present the DA, a party advocating a greater reliance on neo-liberal policies, controls approximately 22 percent of the seats in the legislative body in Cape Town. The EFF, headed by former ANC Youth League (ANCYL) leader Julius Malema, has six percent of the seats in parliament.

EFF leader Julius Malema and other former ANCYL leaders were expelled from the ANC after being accused of indiscipline and corruption. Malema and his comrades formed the EFF and ran candidates in the 2014 elections.

The EFF has called for the nationalization of South African agricultural land and mines. They have taken an extreme position against the ANC demanding that Zuma resign.

EFF Members of Parliament (MPs) voted in a bloc with the DA in the failed impeachment resolution in parliament. On several occasions EFF MPs have been forcefully removed from parliament due to disruptive tactics.

In a recent interview with Al Jazeera, Malema told the Qatar-based satellite network that the EFF would “run out of patience very soon and we will remove this government through the barrel of a gun.” Malema went on to say that “We will fight. We have the capability to mobilize our people and fight physically.” (Aljazeera, April 24)

Responding to the statements by Malema, ANC spokesperson Zizi Kodwa said: “These remarks are a call to violence, are inflammatory, treasonable and seditious and should be treated with extreme seriousness. They also are in clear violation of the Electoral Code and the Charter on Elections Ethics signed by a number of political parties – including the EFF, last week. In signing this charter, parties committed to upholding and promoting Constitutional values, alongside the Elections Code.” (IOL, April 25)

The government has since announced that an investigation into filing treason charges against Malema were underway. Kodwa told the Citizen newspaper that: “We have opened a case of high treason against Julius Malema in his personal capacity as well as the EFF, following his reckless comments about being prepared to remove a democratically elected government using undemocratic means and force. We are doing this on behalf of all South Africans to defend and protect our hard-won freedom and democracy.” (April 26)

Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) President Sdumo Dlamini, a close ally of the ANC, described Malema’s latest remarks as reckless. COSATU spokesperson Sizwe Pamla later emphasized: “In any other situation, it would be easy to say that Malema’s statements can be ignored, but given the various coalitions making calls to topple the ANC government, this is something that must be taken very seriously by law enforcement.

On May 9, two ANCYL leaders were assassinated in Newcastle. These murders are under investigation by the government.

Limpopo Unrest May Be Criminally Motivated

Violence rocked Limpopo Province where 19 schools were burned down during early May. ANC cabinet officials have said that the arson did not stem from protests in the area over a dispute involving demarcations and were probably carried out by organized crime elements. (Eye Witness News, May 6)

The government has accused the United States State Department of being behind a regime-change agenda in the country. ANC Secretary General Gwede Mantashe made these allegations earlier in the year saying the U.S. embassy was recruiting and coordinating opposition forces bent on overthrowing the government.

These events are taking place amid an ongoing economic crisis stemming from pressures emanating from the international capitalist market which has driven down the prices of export commodities and consequently prompting a large drop in the value of the national currency.

The views of the main two allies of the ANC government, COSATU and the South African Communist Party (SACP) will be critical leading up to August when local elections are held. Both COSATU and the SACP have come out in support of the ANC for local offices.

A May Day statement from the SACP says “Let us unite our movement, let us close ranks. Let us defeat the strategic agenda of imperialism and monopoly capital. Let us consolidate and accelerate a second radical phase of the National Democratic Revolution. But on what programmatic basis do we unite? Is it unity simply for the sake of unity? Is it unity for public appearances? No, and again: No! Is it unity because local government elections will be held on August 3rd? Yes, that’s part of it, but that isn’t a sustainable basis for revolutionary unity. After all, we have been there before.”

This same statement goes on appealing to the alliance saying “Let us close ranks on the basis of a strategic program and active organization and mobilization focused on the needs and aspirations of the workers and poor of South Africa. To do that – we must say NO to the politics of money; No to the politics of factions; No to the politics of gate-keepers and No to the politics of personal ambition and opportunism.” (sacp.org.za)

THE PAN-AFRICAN RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION PROJECT– E MAIL: [email protected]

Five days before the celebration of the 71th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s capitulation to the Soviet and allied troops in the WWII, the new NATO Supreme Commander in Europe Curtis Scaparrotti announced that he came to beat the drums of war again. Ignoring the historic facts and legitimate Russian interests in its around, in his first speech after assuming office he condemned alleged “Russian aggressive behavior that challenges international norms” and called the bloc members to “fight tonight if deterrence fails.”

This commonplace declaration fairly correlates with the military and media strategy the Western ruling class adopted decades ago. Even putting aside the well-grounded argument that the very appearance of Hitler as the Fuhrer of the Third Reich in humiliated post-WWI Germany was a carefully planned and carried out operation of the US military intelligence to set it against Soviet Union, the full collection of the available facts evidences that the nucleus of Nazism was thoroughly fostered deep inside the Western ideological centers all time long since its formal defeat in May 1945.

There is no paradox here: striving for global dominance was (and still is) the idee fixe of many elitist groups in the history of mankind, and in such retrospective the phenomenon of German Nazism should be considered as a mere tool in hands of its instigators to reach this objective. Despite some tactical difficulties (e.g. in March 1939 Hitler suddenly launched his own game, but was brought back into obedience by May 1941), the general development of the global conflict in the middle of XXth century was admissible for the elites. At least the Bretton Woods Conference held in July 1944, next month after the Allies landed in France to counterbalance Soviet offensive in the East (which by that time would inevitably lead to unilateral defeat of Nazis by the USSR), fixed the key rules securing the financial monopoly of the Federal Reserve dollar. (According to the Bretton Woods Final Act, all international currencies’ rates were tied to a basket of 96% of the Federal Reserve dollar and 4% of British pound and acquired a golden value only via this rate – the Federal Reserve Note was therefore equaled to the gold as a universal measure of value).

Lord Keynes addressing the Bretton Woods Conference.

The key challenge the authors of Bretton Woods were facing since the beginning of the talks was the sovereign attitude of the Soviet delegation. They had to lure the Soviet Union to enter this draconian system by any mean. As Stalin and his envoys did not show any visible intention to be tempted by the carrot, the Wall Street had to take the stick. The idea was to reach a separate truce with Wehrmacht on the Western and Southern theaters to reinforce German Eastern fronts (quite notably, the documents related to Operation Sunrise in March 1945 are still not declassified by the United States, so this Wiki article has no more than an introductory value).

Due to the timely counter-operation by the Soviet intelligence and following harsh diplomatic exchange, the truce talks in Lucerne, Switzerland, were suspended, but clandestine Nazi-American contacts proceeded. As a matter of fact, since end of March 1945, without any formal truce, the German troops started massively surrendering to Anglo-American forces and the latter rapidly advanced way to Berlin to meet the Soviets on Elbe on April 25, 1945. Unsurprisingly, the notorious Odessa (Organization of former SS members) network was activated at the same time allowing 30 thousand (!) Nazi war criminals to escape Europe via “windows” in Anglo-American occupation zone. Most of them were later legalized in the United States and loyally served to the new masters…

Once the “German factor” disappeared, the “Allies” hurried to secretly elaborate a new war plan to militarily defeat Soviet Union, exhausted by the 4-years-long dramatic campaign. The Operation Unthinkable dossier was declassified in 1998. According to it, on July 1, 1945 the “Allies” planned to commit a strike on the Soviet forces in Europe and key industrial areas within the territory of the USSR. The objective was to “impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire”. So in the summer of 1945 the Wall Street planned the same Barbarossa 2.0 aggression against Russia which their frantic creature Hitler launched 4 years before.

“Operation Unthinkable: ‘Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'” British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040 / 002

9/10/2004 [declassified in October 2004]

The reason why the plan was never put in practice is that the Western military experts evaluated “the balance of forces” in Europe insufficient for effective rapid defeat of the Soviets. The United States already exclusively possessed the A-bomb, and hoped that this threat would impress Stalin to ratify Bretton Woods.

The Potsdam episode however proved the opposite so the United States decided to make this threat more vivid. The collateral 200 thousand Japanese casualities did not mean a lot for president Truman in his Big Game for the hegemony of the Federal Reserve.

British then ex-PM W.Churchill delivering his famous “iron curtain” speech in Fulton, March 5, 1946

The full scope of the consecutive Cold Combat (after Stalin definitely rejected ratification of Bretton Woods Agreements in December 1945) is beyond the scale and ambition of this article.

The fact however is that the grandiose and on-going media operation to equal Stalin and Hitler and to review and distort the basic truths of the modern history in minds of the “educated” people worldwide is just a single dimension of the global elitist’ agenda to suppress the leading reluctant power standing on its way to unbounded dominion over the world.

The instruments of establishing the dominion are the same: creating a controlled chimeric project (whether Al-Qaeda or Ukrainian Nazism) and playing the role of “peacekeeper” and “philantrop” in the bloody chaotic conflict.

The Panama Papers database went live on Monday, making more than 200,000 offshore account details available to search online at offshoreleaks.icij.org.

More than 11 million documents were leaked by a whistleblower last month to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The data, taken from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, linked shell companies, foundations, and trusts to 72 former and current global heads of state.

The Telegraph is posting live updates on its discoveries here.

The release comes as more than 300 economic experts sent a letter to world leaders urging them to abolish the veil of secrecy that surrounds offshore banking and close loopholes that allow the wealthy to avoid paying taxes.

It also follows the publication of a manifesto last week written by the whistleblower, who still goes by the anonymous name John Doe, which slammed “America’s broken campaign finance system” and denounced capitalism as “financial slavery.”

“In this system—our system—the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese,” Doe wrote. “When it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy’s checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner.”

“Income inequality is the defining issue of our time,” Doe wrote.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

An influential Committee of Parliamentarians has today (Tuesday) called on the British Government to “urgently” clarify its legal position on drone strikes, warning that its policy: “may expose…Ministers to the risk of criminal prosecution for murder.”

A new Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) also states that the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon in evidence given to the Committee, demonstrated a “misunderstanding of the legal frameworks that apply” to the use of armed drones outside of warzones.

The Report entitled: “The Government’s policy on the use of drones for targeted killing”, warns that the UK’s own policy of targeted killing -announced as a “new departure” by the Prime Minister last year, may: “end up in the same place as the US policy”, despite Ministers’ claims to the contrary.

The US covert drone programme, undertaken by secretive agencies such as the CIA, has proved controversial as it is also carried out in countries where America is not at war.

The programme is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, but is shrouded in secrecy to the point where the US Government has yet to acknowledge its existence officially.General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama has described it as a “failed strategy.”

Last September, David Cameron announced that a “targeted strike” had been carried out in: “a country where we are not involved in a war” and admitted that this was “the first time in modern times” that this had happened.

The British Government has since sought to distance itself from any suggestion that it is following the US model of “targeted killing”, however they have refused to answer repeated questions by MPs and the Committee as to whether, like the US, was maintaining its own ‘Kill List’ of individuals set for targeting.

The Committee says that it is “disappointed…by the Government’s failure to answer a number of important questions”, criticizing: “contradictions and inconsistencies in the Government’s account of its policy, which have given rise to confusion.”

Jennifer Gibson, a staff Attorney at the influential UK based international human rights NGO Reprieve who gave evidence to the Committee, said: “This report is a wake-up call. Not only does the committee raise troubling questions about whether the Government ‘misunderstood’ the legal frameworks that apply, but it warns they may be at risk of prosecution for murder as a result.

“The UK’s silence in the face of repeated questioning by the Committee only further reinforces the very real danger that the UK is following the US down the slippery slope of kill lists and targeted killings. This is alarming, given the CIA’s secret drone war has killed hundreds of civilians and been described as a ‘failed strategy’ by Obama’s own former Head of Defence Intelligence.”

As Russia celebrates the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany 71 years ago, Radio Sputnik’s Loud & Clear talks with historian Peter Kuznick about the West’s habit of downplaying the USSR’s role in World War II and the United States’ part in sparking the Cold War that followed.

Since last week’s Indiana primary and the emergence of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, the campaign of Hillary Clinton has veered sharply to the right, setting the stage for arguably the most right-wing presidential contest in modern US history. This is under conditions where the primary season has been dominated by the eruption of popular anger and disgust with the entire political establishment.

No sooner had Trump’s remaining rivals for the Republican nomination, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, dropped out of the race than Clinton began to downplay her populist-sounding rhetoric, aimed at countering the appeal of Democratic rival Bernie Sanders to frustration over social inequality and Wall Street criminality. She is focusing on overtures to Republican leaders and donors wary of Trump’s unilateralist foreign and trade policies and general unpredictability.

With an apparently insurmountable lead over Sanders in both pledged and so-called super delegates, Clinton is preparing to run in the general election as the trusted and experienced candidate of the corporate and political establishment, the Pentagon and the CIA. She is cynically assuming that the young and working class voters who have rallied behind the self-described “socialist” Sanders will in the end support her over the fascistic Trump, and concentrating on winning the votes of wealthier and more-privileged social layers who make up a large part of the independent and Republican voter base.

Already on Wednesday, the day after the Indiana primary, Clinton told CNN, “I invite a lot of Republicans and independents who I’ve been seeing on the campaign trail, who’ve been reaching out to me, I invite them to join with Democrats. Let’s get off the red or the blue team. Let’s get on the American team.”

Clinton’s first line of attack against Trump was to brand him a “loose cannon” on foreign and national security policy. This is in part an appeal for endorsements and support from leading figures in the military, intelligence and foreign policy establishment, including Republicans, on the basis of her long record as first lady, senator and secretary of state in aggressively promoting the interests of American imperialism abroad. The Clinton campaign and its media backers, such as the New York Times, have made a point of stressing her central role in the wars in Libya and Syria that have destroyed entire societies and brought the United States to the brink of war with nuclear-armed Russia.

Interviewed on the Sunday news show “Face the Nation,” Clinton told program host John Dickerson,

“Well, I have to say, the Republicans themselves are raising questions about their presumptive nominee. And I think that’s in large measure, John, because they do understand how hard the job of being president is.

“When you have former presidents, when you have high-ranking Republican officials in Congress raising questions about their nominee, I don’t think it’s personal, so much as rooted in their respect for the office and their deep concern about what kind of leader he would be. … You see, at the end of the day, John, I really believe that Americans take their vote for president seriously because they know it’s not only the president, but the commander in chief who they are selecting.”

The New York Times, which has functioned as an unofficial organ of the Clinton campaign, published a front-page article Saturday advertising the Democratic frontrunner’s bid for Republican support. Headlined “Clinton Moves to Lure Votes from GOP, Aiming at Republicans Who Reject Trump,” the article began by reporting that Clinton was “hoping to gain the support of Republican voters and party leaders including former elected officials and retired generals disillusioned by the party’s standard-bearer. …”

It noted that Priorities US Action, a pro-Clinton super-PAC, intended to “reach out to Republican megadonors disillusioned by their party’s presumptive nominee.” It continued: “More broadly, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is repositioning itself, after a year of emphasizing liberal positions and focusing largely on minority voters, to also appeal to independent and Republican-leaning white voters turned off by Mr. Trump.”

The Times reported that after spending the past year seeking to mobilize the “liberal wing and labor leaders” in the Democratic Party, Clinton, “confident that the young people and liberals backing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont will come around to support [her] in November,” would concentrate on appealing to suburban voters, including well-off women “whose most important issues are national security and terrorism.”

The article noted that the Clinton campaign plans to assemble a “Republicans for Hillary” group and had already obtained the endorsement of Mark Salter, a top adviser to the 2008 Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. It would also, the Times suggested, seek the endorsement of Republican national security figures such as former defense secretary Robert Gates and former CIA director and Iraq War commander David Petraeus. Gates oversaw Bush’s 2007 “surge” in Iraq and continued to head the State Department during Obama’s first term. Petraeus was quoted as saying Clinton would be “a tremendous president.”

One indication of the general election strategy of the Clinton campaign is the treatment being accorded, at least to this point, by the party bureaucracy, firmly in the Clinton camp, to the Sanders campaign in regard to this summer’s Democratic National Convention. Sanders sent a letter Friday to Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz complaining that the DNC was virtually excluding Sanders supporters from the main convention committees. He said his campaign had submitted 40 names for inclusion on the rules, credentials and platform committees, as well as the platform drafting committee, and only 3 had been chosen between all four bodies.

Pointing out that to date he had won 45 percent of the pledged delegates, he threatened to conduct a floor fight at the convention and “force as many votes as necessary to amend the platform and rules.”

An extraordinary column appearing Saturday in the Financial Times by right-wing journalist, author and Republican think tank veteran Anne Applebaum vouches for Clinton’s right-wing and militarist credentials. Applebaum is a ferocious anti-communist. She is married to Radoslaw Sikorski, who was foreign minister in the nationalist, anti-Russian government of Polish prime minister Donald Tusk between 2007 and 2014. Last August, she penned a commentary in the British Telegraph raising the need for Ukraine and its eastern European allies to prepare for “total war” against Russia.

In her column, she poses as the question facing American conservatives: “Who should they support? Who is actually the more conservative candidate in this election?”

Considering the categories “fiscal conservative,” “free-trade conservative,” and “national security conservative,” she concludes that on balance Clinton is the clear choice. On fiscal policy, Applebaum praises Clinton as “a person who believes in balanced budgets and careful spending,” and cites her web site as calling debt a “national security threat” that she is opposed to increasing.

On national security, Applebaum writes, “whether realist or interventionist, there is no nuance at all. … Mrs. Clinton is the only possible candidate.”

Orienting to the Republican right is nothing new for Clinton. She and her ex-president husband were among the pioneers of the so-called New Democrat faction that openly repudiated the social reform policies of the New Deal and Great Society. Bill Clinton’s second term was dominated by his so-called triangulation strategy of adopting traditional Republican policies, including abolishing federal welfare and enacting law-and-order legislation that condemned millions of working class and minority youth to long prison terms for drug offenses and other non-violent crimes.

Along with the final deregulation of the banks and hedge funds, these policies were richly rewarded after the conclusion of the Clinton presidency, as the couple took in more than $150 million for giving speeches to corporations, most of it coming from Wall Street.

And the bribes keep coming. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the Democratic frontrunner has raised $4.2 million from Wall Street thus far, $334,000 in March alone. A total of 53 percent of her campaign donations in March came from Wall Street firms.

Well, isn’t this interesting. Saudi Arabian princes are giving lessons in democracy?

Incredible. The headline reads: “Saudi Prince Begs America to Reject Trump.”

In summary: here we have a hereditary monarch, from a Wahabi theocratic dictatorship now lecturing Americans on who they should vote for their elections.

During his recent dinner speech at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, Prince Turki- al-Faisal (photo, below), a graduate of Georgetown University, made his passionate plea to the American electorate not to elect Donald J. Trump as president.

NOTE: The word “election” is a treasonous concept in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and if you are ever caught asking for it – you will not only be jailed, but will likely face capital punishment.

The Mail Online reported:

A Saudi prince has urged Americans not to vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming general election. Turki al-Faisal, who served as Saudia Arabia’s ambassador to the US from 2005 to 2007, spoke against the presumptive Republican nominee during a foreign policy dinner in Washington, DC on Thursday.

He blasted Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US, which the billionaire first formulated in December last year before renewing his vow on Wednesday.

“For the life of me, I cannot believe that a country like the United States can afford to have someone as president who simply says, “These people are not going to be allowed to come to the United States,” Turki said according to the Huffington Post.

Prince Turki currently serves as the chairman of the Saudi Arabian-funded Washington DC-based think tank, “King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies.”

Interestingly, the Saudi Prince was sharing his Washington DC event stage with none other than Israeli general Yaakov Amidror, the former national security advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Amidror presided over a number of violent operations against the native Palestinian population, including the slaughter of over 500 civilians in Gaza in 2012

Whether or not one likes (or loathes) the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee, it’s important to consider the Prince’s comments in perspective…

So who is a greater threat to peace and stability in the Middle East and Central Asia, and elsewhere – Donald Trump or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Let’s quickly examine some of Saudi Arabia’s ‘progressive’ and democratic credentials.

Oil-based Monarchy

The current ruling family in Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, was installed into power by the British in the early 20th century. Since the development of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, mainly by US and UK firms, tribal elites have had the luxury of having ‘money on tap’, amounting to many trillions of dollars in continuous energy revenue, with almost all of the wealth channeled into the hands of hereditary and royal elites. Saudi’s repression of democracy is not limited to its own borders, however. When a true ‘Arab Spring’ event broke out in neighboring Bahrain in 2011, Saudi Arabia deployed its army to put down any popular uprising, and still patrols those streets today.

More recently, their vast oil fortunes have been channeled into building-up a militarized state, and recently, with the backing of the US and PR cover by the UN, have openly waged war on its neighbor, Yemen.

Regressive Society

Even in the 21st century, Saudi Arabia still manages to win the near submissive support of the US and the UK, despite the fact that it is running an openly regressive, medieval theocratic autocracy, where hundreds of its citizens are executed in the street, many via beheading. Last year, in 2015, was a record year for beheadings under the newly crowned King Salman.

Photo caption: PATRONAGE: President Obama paying tribute to the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia

No Religious Freedom

The Kingdom is also actively repressing its own native Shi’ite population, as well as others who are not born into the right royaly-favored religion or tribe.  Practicing Christianity is also forbidden in the Kingdom and any attempted conversion from Islam is punishable by death.

Genocidal Military State

For the last 14 months, and with the assistance of the US, Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies have been waging an illegal and highly brutal military war of aggression against its neighbor Yemen – killing tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians and displacing millions more.

World’s Premier Supporter of Islamic Extremism and Terrorism

Historically, it is now accepted as fact that Saudi Arabia the world’s leading financial supporter of Islamic extremist terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. This has been the case for many decades starting from the Kingdom’s central role, together with the CIA and others, in supporting Mujadhedin militants and al Qaeda in Afghanistan from the late 1970’s and all the way through to their involvement in 9/11. This trend continues today, with Saudi, along with its tribal monarch cousin, Qatar, as the primary source of funding and support for terrorist fighting groups like Jabhat Al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) and also Islamic State (ISIS), as well as a direct financier of radical Mosques all over the world.

No Religious Freedom

The Kingdom is also actively repressing its own native Shi’ite population, as well as others who are not born into the right royaly-favored religion or tribe.  Practicing Christianity is also forbidden in the Kingdom and any attempted conversion from Islam is punishable by death.

Genocidal Military State

For the last 14 months, and with the assistance of the US, Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies have been waging an illegal and highly brutal military war of aggression against its neighbor Yemen – killing tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians and displacing millions more.

World’s Premier Supporter of Islamic Extremism and Terrorism

Historically, it is now accepted as fact that Saudi Arabia the world’s leading financial supporter of Islamic extremist terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. This has been the case for many decades starting from the Kingdom’s central role, together with the CIA and others, in supporting Mujadhedin militants and al Qaeda in Afghanistan from the late 1970’s and all the way through to their involvement in 9/11. This trend continues today, with Saudi, along with its tribal monarch cousin, Qatar, as the primary source of funding and support for terrorist fighting groups like Jabhat Al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) and also Islamic State (ISIS), as well as a direct financier of radical Mosques all over the world.

Corporate-controlled and state-run model fails students, parents, community and educators

A two day strike organized by the Detroit Federation of Teachers (DFT) on May 2-3 which shutdown the Detroit Public Schools (DPS) represented another major development in the ongoing struggle over the future of education in the city.

Teachers and other education workers were told during the final week of April that there would be no money to pay them after June 30. Several thousand members of the DFT and other unions picketed outside the DPS headquarters in the New Center area many of whom held signs demanding an audit of the district’s finances.

Abayomi Azikiwe at ASALH

The state-administration of the DPS since 1999 has driven the system into fiscal ruin. Estimates of debt range from $500 million to $3.5 billion.

Additional reports in April indicated that up to $30 million scheduled to be deposited in pension funds were withheld. Since 2009, teachers have faced pay and benefit cuts along with massive lay-offs.

State Education Bills Designed to Continue Unequal Treatment

Two sets of legislation being debated in the state capitol in Lansing will not address the fundamental problems within the DPS. None of the initiatives returns total control of the Detroit district back to its original form prior to the state takeovers that began seventeen years ago.

Abayomi Azikiwe Photos at DFT Second Day Strike, May 3, 2015

The House and Senate have Republican majorities which limits the ability of Democratic legislators representing Detroit and other urban districts from having any real influence over policy decisions. The passage of six House bills on May 5 provides an illustration of the political attitudes prevailing in Lansing in relationship to affairs of the city of Detroit and its school district.

These measures call for the breaking up of the DPS into two districts, one declared “free” of the corporate and state-generated debt and another established to pay-off these onerous financial obligations. In addition to the fiscal aspects of the legislation a series of punitive actions, labeled as “reforms”, would be mandated by the new laws.

Abayomi Azikiwe Photos at DFT Second Day Strike, May 3, 2015

According to Mlive.com, “The legislation includes a host of reforms, both academic and financial, nearly all of which were opposed by Democrats. Among them: Prohibiting existing union contracts at DPS from being transferred to the new district, paying teachers based on performance and allowing the hiring of non-certified teachers.” (May 5)

This same report goes on to note that “The package also strengthens penalties against teachers who participate in strikes. The component was added to the final version of the legislation after sick-outs staged by DPS teachers — in protest to news they wouldn’t be paid for work they had already completed — virtually brought the district to a halt.”

Abayomi Azikiwe Photos at DFT Second Day Strike, May 3, 2015

Under this scheme the school board would return to a locally elected body by Jan. 1, 2018 and a 7-member interim board would serve until then, appointed by the Detroit Mayor, who would appoint two members while the Governor could appoint five. The interim board will install a superintendent while a financial review commission would have oversight over the district.

Nonetheless, two pieces of legislation advanced by the State Senate calls for another form of reorganization through SB 710 and 711. This legislation is supported by Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, the first corporate-oriented white city chief in over forty years.

Senate Bills 710 and 711 creates a so-called Detroit Education Commission (DEC) which would consolidate K-12 education under a mayoral-administered model reigning in even charter schools. This alternative legislation is supported by the Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren, an alliance consisting of corporate leaders, Duggan, some churches, the Michigan Federation of Teachers (MFT) and other unions.

The DEC would effectively eliminate the existing elected Detroit Board of Education which is powerless under the emergency management system that was imposed by former Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm in 2009. Successive emergency managers have been appointed by both Granholm and Snyder over the last seven years precipitating a worsening decline in the financial health and academic capacity of the district.

Advocates of the DEC opposed the bills passed by the State House on May 5 which excluded any input from the minority Democratic legislators. Nonetheless, advocates for charter education hailed the House bills because they did not include any language related to containing and holding these schools accountable.

Mlive.com emphasized that “Democrats were unanimous in their opposition, saying the funding falls well short of the Senate’s bipartisan rescue package, which totaled $715 million. They said without the necessary dollars, DPS could be back before the legislature in the next few years seeking additional funding.”

“We all agree that the state needs to take responsibility and fix the issues in DPS,” state Rep. Brian Banks, D-Detroit, chairman of the Detroit Caucus, said in a press release. “That’s why I’m baffled that House Republicans chose to reject our input and continue on the same course that got us here in the first place.” (Mlive.com, May 5)

The Role of Rhodes

Retired federal judge Steven Rhodes was appointed earlier in the year as a “transition manager” over the DPS. Rhodes oversaw the City of Detroit bankruptcy and his presence suggests an opening for the same process in DPS with the potential for the massive theft of pensions and public assets as was carried out against municipal retirees in 2013-14.

Rhodes role in the Detroit bankruptcy, the largest in United States history, was aimed at providing a legal rationale for placing the burden of the bank and bond debt on the retirees who were subjected to the discharging of $6.5 billion in pension and healthcare obligations.

Other plans aimed at the continued disempowerment of residents consisting of the creation of a DEC that would facilitate the consolidation of schools citywide, where an even more centralize system of contract allocation and privatization could be facilitated, may not be adequate as far as the Republican-dominated legislature and gubernatorial office is concerned.

Teachers, Students and Community Fight Back

Since the beginning of the year, teachers, parents, students and community people have engaged in various forms of protest against the escalating crisis.

These difficulties stem directly from the interference in the governance of the DPS by successive Republican and Democratic administrations in Lansing and the failure of the federal government to provide adequate support for the overwhelmingly majority African American students who attend educational institutions around the city.

The two major sets of bills ostensibly designed to stave off total collapse are still being debated in Lansing yet neither pieces of legislation offer any real prospect of renewal. A systematic review of the debt and the role of the financial institutions would be a tremendous contribution to uncovering the real source of DPS fiscal crisis.

As with the City of Detroit, the banks and corporate entities view municipal governments and school districts as a source of exploitation. While the capitalist class grows wealthier in the U.S., cities such as Detroit have become a center for concentrated poverty and underdevelopment.

These problems involving education in Detroit are mirrored through other systems such as Chicago where teachers have also taken to the streets over the last four years. Teachers in Chicago staged a one-day strike on April 1 demanding that the Illinois state legislator appropriated adequate funding to meet the needs of students and educators.

However, most politicians within state and federal offices work on behalf of corporate interests that are anti-union and categorically opposed to any form of self-rule and self-determination within the cities. A program of equal funding and local control advanced by the unions, community organizations, students and parents would place the focus on demanding that state and federal governments provide adequate resources for the maintenance and improvement of public education.